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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 645 ..

MS TUCKER (6.26): The Greens will be supporting this amendment. This proposed new clause gives existing tenants preference in all new leases. Under this amendment, if the lessor proposes to re-lease the premises, they must enter into genuine negotiations with the tenant for renewal or extension of the lease.

It should be borne in mind that lessors are still free to offer a lease to some other business if it is substantially beneficial to do so or to carry on some other business of their own. Shopping centres are still free to change the tenancy mix and so search for a new and different tenant.

The amendment is about giving retail businesses security of tenure. It puts the onus on landlords who wish to re-lease premises to begin genuine negotiations with the tenant for a renewal or extension of the lease, all other things being equal.

Once a tenant has enjoyed a five-year lease, then there is no obligation, without this amendment, for the landlord to enter into further negotiations for a new lease. Without this level of security of tenure, without the opportunity to negotiate for a new or extended lease in the first instance, tenants will always be vulnerable to arbitrary decisions by landlords and what could be extreme consequences.

Retail businesses are dependent on location and on goodwill. The opportunity for them to renew a lease, to maintain their position in the market and indeed in the neighbourhood, is vital to their capacity to operate and to develop. The Strand Arcade in Sydney is a case in point. It is a 110-year-old heritage-listed building especially designed for small specialist shops such as knife sharpening, shoes and engraving as well as surgeries, but the new owners want to bring in high fashion and they are pushing these business upstairs or out. It is these businesses and Sydney, which has no shortage of high fashion, that are the losers.

The House of Representatives report Finding a balance towards fair trading came down strongly for tenants to have the right of first refusal of a lease, and South Australia has already introduced similar legislation. Some property owners and managers may say that this is the end of the world, but my belief is that it is the way of the future. After all, there is also social benefit in shifting the balance in favour of tenants so that the social fabric that encompasses a sustainable retail environment offers some degree of certainty, some equal bargaining power for tenants.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (6.28): The Labor Party is sympathetic to Mr Rugendyke's amendment. As members may be aware, Mr Rugendyke's amendments on the green sheet propose a regime for ensuring preference to existing tenants in certain circumstances. Mr Rugendyke, in amendments on the pink sheet, has also proposed a regime for ensuring preference to existing tenants in certain circumstances. This is a proposal that my office has consulted extensively with Mr Rugendyke and his office on. Mr Rugendyke is aware that we support the proposal that preference be given to tenants in certain circumstances.

The Labor Party is prepared to support a model for ensuring preference based on the South Australian provisions, which are the provisions Mr Rugendyke has incorporated in his pink amendments. I am not entirely sure why Mr Rugendyke has proceeded with

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