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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 644 ..

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (6.22): The government opposes Mr Rugendyke's amendment. The concept of preferential rights essentially is a right of first refusal given to a sitting tenant where a lessor may not make an offer to another person to lease a premises without giving the existing tenant the opportunity to accept that same offer. The crucial point of the preferential right is that the existing tenant is able to accept the same offer that would otherwise have been accepted by another tenant.

We are opposed to this amendment because it tips the balance achieved within the bill, a bill that has been painstakingly achieved through an exhaustive consultative process, in favour of one side of the market. After the five years or so of extensive public consultation involving representatives of all stakeholders and the Law Society, it is significant, that the working party, the government or the Law Society did not recommend preferential rights.

If this amendment were passed, preferential rights would add excessive rigidity to our ACT retail market, a market that needs to stay vibrant and innovative in order to offer employment opportunities. Ultimately, I do not think they will help the very people Mr Rugendyke is seeking to help. There are other ways in which leases finish, even on what Mr Rugendyke is proposing. Rigidity in our market is something we need to avoid.

The government bill provides tenants with far more important rights in the form of market rent provisions. The preference provisions may simply muddy the water. They would create confusion, to the ultimate cost of tenants.

The ACT's renewal rights, which currently exist under the tenancy code and which are contained in clause 107 of the government's bill, are already duplicated in section 20J of the South Australian act.

Preferential treatment has been tried in other states, not just for leases. I recall provisions in the New South Wales Landlord and Tenant Act not totally dissimilar to what Mr Rugendyke suggests. That act caused immense grief to quite a number of people. It certainly stopped a lot of investment in that state.

Mr Berry: In New South Wales?

MR STEFANIAK: It was a long time ago, about 15 years ago. Quite clearly, it helped no-one and certainly did not create a level playing field. What we are trying to do here-what I hope we are all trying to do-is create a level playing field. We do not want to tip the balance which has been achieved to date in favour of one group or the other. That is why the government has been quite happy to support amendments and quite happy to support a process which gives tenants a fair go. I think you can see in the debate so far that we have accepted amendments which quite clearly will be beneficial to tenants, but we do want to see the playing field tipped overly in favour of either landlords or tenants. This proposal will tip that balance, and that will not help anyone.

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