Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 510 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

option of a tribunal, has indicated that it is not sympathetic to the needs of tenants. It has guaranteed greater complexity, longer delays and higher costs at almost all levels of the operation of this bill.

If amendments to revert to a tribunal fail, the onus will be on the government to make sure, in its administration of the court, that procedures are put in place to ensure the prompt, expeditious and low-cost resolution of simple disputes, and to use as a model the Tenancy Tribunal in order to limit the timeframe and the costs associated with the court.

The government might argue that it has done its consulting; it has done its hard work. But when we get down to detail on this bill, it is clear that, if unamended, it will disadvantage tenants, large and small, in numerous ways, which leads me to believe that the government has intended to do that.

Another example of this subtle attempt to erode the rights of tenants rather than to confirm them, can be seen in regard to the costs of subleasing plans. Under the existing code it was unclear as to who ought to carry the cost of the registration of a lease. Under this bill, however, the tenant does become liable for that cost but also, and unfairly, can become liable for the costs of drawing up and registering a subleasing plan. A subleasing plan adds value to the property. The benefit accrues to the property owner rather than the tenant, yet under this government legislation the tenant would have to pay.

The government has also chosen not to come to grips with conflict of interest. It could be that some valuers believe that they might lose some work if they have to declare as a possible conflict of interest any involvement they have in property ownership or management, but it is undeniable that such an involvement might constitute a conflict of interest and that parties to a lease being valued ought to be informed of that involvement. The government again fails to appreciate the vulnerability of tenants in this process and the importance of transparency to their faith in process.

Tenants in shopping centres are in a particularly weak bargaining position. Unfortunately, this bill entrenches the right of landlords to destroy the business of existing tenants by introducing direct competitors when and where they like, with no compensation owed to tenants so affected.

One aspect of the bill as it stands that I need not mention is that the government has tried to entrench secrecy into the assessment of market rent. I am pleased to see that the government, in its amendments, has gone some way towards correcting this problem.

Finally, one very important aspect of this bill that must be addressed is that it strips away quite casually the rights of tenants to a five-year term to renew their lease for a further five-year term. It is generally accepted that under the existing code the right to a five-year term gives tenants an option to renew for a further five-year term. This is a rather careless clause in the bill, however, that removes the right to a subsequent five-year term. This provision of this bill must be amended at the detail stage, as it undermines the whole stated intent of the bill.

I look forward to the work of amending this bill so that it measures up to the intent that the government has declared for it, and I look forward to the support of other members of the Assembly in that process.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .