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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 512 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

five-year security of tenure rights for small business owners;

preventing landlords from locking out or evicting tenants inappropriately;

a 28-day deadline on the Tenancy Tribunal to resolve disputes, preventing cases from being purposely tied up or stalled in the process for excessive periods;

providing the tenant with first right of refusal on the lease; and

compelling landlords to commence lease negotiations at least six months prior to the end of the lease rather than allowing landlords to do as they please and leave the tenants in limbo.

The first and fundamental choice members have to make is about jurisdiction. To support the government's bill at the in-principle stage is to deny small business operators a fair go. I urge members to think carefully about their reasons for repealing the Tenancy Tribunal.

Compare how the opposing bills propose to resolve disputes. My bill streamlines and enhances the Tenancy Tribunal. The tribunal, which specialises in this field, is less costly for small business and, apart from making decisions, also serves to provide advice and assistance for small business during the process.

The government bill transplants the dispute process into the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court. Sure, this suits big business, which has the finances and the resources to manipulate the legal process. But for small business this is costly and adversarial. This is a model that stands to bury legal disputes in a judicial system that is already under pressure. Big business might like to stall disputes in this manner, but all it achieves is squeezing the life out of the small business operator. If the dispute process was put in the Magistrates Court, it would disadvantage small business from the outset.

It is also worth comparing the appeals processes. In the government bill, appeals can be made to the Supreme Court on questions of fact or law. Again, this is geared towards prolonging disputes. My bill proposes that only questions of law may be subject to appeal, which streamlines the process to promote quicker resolution and removes the temptation for wealthy landlords to prolong the dispute in court. It is about time goodwill for tenants was recognised in this town. It is about time landlords were made accountable for the termination of leases. It is about time the playing field was levelled.

The government talks about the consultation period that led to this bill. But let me put it into perspective. The numbers on the working party were stacked so that the core issues for genuine, independent small businesses were not adopted. While there was minor representation of tenants, this was clearly outweighed by those who had landlord and/or property interests.

My push for security of tenure does not make my bill a rogue initiative. An inquiry conducted by the House of Representatives that resulted in a report called Finding a balance towards fair trading in Australia specifically recommended that security of tenure be introduced. The federal government's inquiry concluded that fair trading for tenants included a minimum of five-year leases and the first right of renewal. The ACT government has ignored these recommendations because they are interested only in the top end of town. My bill simply implements the recommendations which make it a fair playing field. The federal government inquiry examined the issues at the same time as

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