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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 515 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

out of your club than we do out of any interests we have. I will not make any more comments in relation to that.

Mr Rugendyke made a few comments I need to respond to, to put the record right. He expressed a concern that appeals on question of law or fact could go to the Supreme Court. This is outside the power of the Assembly, because the Supreme Court has all necessary appellate jurisdiction under the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act. It is just a fact of life and a fact of law that that is the superior court in the ACT. It is our appellate jurisdiction, and naturally appeals on questions of law or fact will end up there, and indeed can go higher in the hierarchy of courts should parties want to do that.

Mr Rugendyke: Have a look at my bill.

MR STEFANIAK: Maybe you should have a look at the self-government act too. Mr Rugendyke also mentioned that the membership of the working party was stacked. I have had a quick look through it, and I can count five members from the Property Council or Property Owners Association and some six members representing either small business or tenants, including an ex-tenant. I do quite know where you get that idea from, Mr Rugendyke.

People talk about a level playing field. That is terribly important, and something members should ponder very closely before we vote on the in-principle stage. I will come back to that later.

The government bill has a very long history. The Tenancy Tribunal Act 1994 and the commercial and retail leases code of practice regulate ACT commercial and retail leases. It was a controversial scheme when it was introduced. The initial controversy has been exacerbated by significant delays in proceedings before the tribunal. There were a lot of claims, many of them justified, that it did not create a level playing field. So a review was conducted. From 1997 to 1998 a working party consisting of the various stakeholders reviewed the legislation. In late 1998 the government tabled an exposure Leases (Commercial and Retail) Bill. That gave effect to some of the recommendations of the working party.

Following the tabling of that bill, extensive negotiation on its final form was undertaken with key stakeholders, particularly an expert committee of the Law Society consisting of representatives of landlords' and tenants' solicitors. That took from 1998 to 2000. That negotiation was extensive.

On 18 October 2000 the government tabled the Leases (Commercial and Retail) Bill 2000. People in this Assembly occasionally accuse others of not engaging in consultation. The opposition says it of government; we say it of them and other people. Ms Tucker is very keen on that. Everyone has accused others of not consulting enough. The government legislation on the table would have to be one of the most widely consulted on-perhaps consulted to death on-pieces of legislation to get to this stage.

Mr Moore: Since self-government.

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