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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 513 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

the ACT working party, and the federal government inquiry concluded that security of tenure was essential to make the process fair for small business.

After the ACT working party tabled its report in November 1997, the government issued an exposure draft about a year later. It took close to another year for the Law Society to pick the government proposal to pieces with a 240-page analysis . It took another year for the government to finally move on the Law Society's advice and remodel the exposure draft in a form that was fit for presentation.

In the meantime, I had responded to considerable frustration in the small business community about the present system. I proposed obligations for both tenants and landlords, with the aim to have direct access to, and quick resolutions from, the Tenancy Tribunal. This bill was more than a year in the making and was on the table some five months before the government finally got its act together.

The onus is squarely on the opposition to stand up for small business in this debate. The opposition makes a lot of noise about small business, and this is their chance to have the courage of their convictions. It seems that both major parties have a habit of pandering to the top end of town on these types of issues, particularly in an election year and when campaign backing is in the offing. I will be interested to see some of the donations the top end of town throw their way.

One of the main reasons the public is disillusioned with the major parties is that they are so similar. They pander to the big boys and leave the little guy to absorb the hard hits. If the major parties abandon small business in this debate, which does appear the most likely scenario, I will continue the fight, particularly for security of tenure. If my bill fails, I will certainly strive to amend the government's bill to achieve some reason.

I will continue the fight to ensure that there is an appropriate balance between the bargaining power of landlords and tenants. I have stated in this place before, and I will say it again, that the major shopping malls in particular can be ruthless. We all know of people who have been screwed because the landlord holds all the power. Presently there is no deadline for landlords to renew leases. Negotiations can be delayed and the tenant put on hold until the lease runs out. They do not know what their future holds or whether the landlord truly intends to renew the lease.

I mentioned the dispute process earlier, and I would like to return to that point. We should be building on a platform that is firmly established in the form of the Tenancy Tribunal. I cannot stress enough that moving to the Magistrates Court well and truly puts the tenant behind the eight ball. The chief problem with the tribunal as it stands is that it is not uncommon for dispute applications to be tied up for long periods in a regimented process, sometimes for months on end.

My bill gives the tribunal a series of options to respond to cases or to grant an appropriate interim order if satisfied that the person applying, whether landlord or tenant, would suffer detriment if it were not granted. This provides clarity for all parties and confirms the intention to deal with problems while they are molehills and before they become mountains.

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