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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 620 ..

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.38): Mr Speaker, the Labor Party will support this amendment. The amendment requires that the positions of the lessor and the lessee are the same and balanced in relation to negotiations around an interim agreement. It requires that if an interim agreement is entered into in relation to renewal or extending of a lease, the position of each of the parties that entered into that arrangement is the same. If a deal was done at that stage, then the deal was done and each of the parties should be in the same position in relation to that.

MS TUCKER (4.38): The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. We believe the landlord will always have the whip hand in situations where parties are negotiating a renewal of a lease. Our interest lies in ensuring that tenants are not disadvantaged by lessors choosing to withdraw from negotiations once the market rent is established. However, under clause 108 a tenant would have the right to terminate the lease with one months notice in any event. The point of trying to lock a tenant into a new lease once the parties have agreed to market rent valuation-because it seems to be about treating the parties equally-is both unreasonable and pointless.

MR RUGENDYKE (4.39): Mr Speaker, I concur with Ms Tucker on this amendment. I will not be supporting it either.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 54 to 56, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 57.

MS TUCKER (4.40): I move amendment No 7 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 part 1 at page 690].

This amendment and my amendment No 8 make transparent the vexed issue of conflict of interest for valuers. It is not sufficient to simply require valuers to advise the parties that they may have a conflict of interest. The amendments make clear that the details of any conflict of interest will be made known to the parties. The amendments also specify that recent or current interest in commercial property ownership or management might conflict with the proper working out of market rent.

I think it is important to remind the Assembly that such a conflict would not in itself rule out a valuer on the grounds of conflict of interest. One of the parties would have to object on the basis of the information disclosed and the court would have to make the decision that such a conflict of interest would disqualify the valuer. These amendments are about transparency, not about ruling some valuers out of action.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.41): Mr Speaker, the Labor Party will support this amendment.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (4.41): We will support the amendment. I think Ms Tucker might have been talking to other amendments, but certainly we will support the amendment to clause 57 (1).

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