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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 650 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

As Mr Rugendyke has indicated, the Labor Party believes that the amendment quite obviously assists the tenant in their negotiations of a renewal or extension of a lease. I think it does need to be made clear that it is not an absolute right of preference. Indeed, the Labor Party could not support an absolute right of preference. I think we must remain mindful of the rights that are conveyed in relation to a lease. We must remain conscious of a distinction between the granting of property rights and the granting of a lease as such. The two should not be abused to the extent that this sort of provision does tip the balance too far in the direction of an automatic right of renewal of a lease. It is in effect tantamount to the granting of a property right which would be quite inappropriate.

Having said that, we do not believe that this issue does go too far. A number of leases are excluded from the provision. For example, if the lease contains an exclusionary clause and the tenant receives independent legal advice of the effect of that clause the lease is excluded. Subleases are excluded. Other leases may be excluded by regulation. Although the provision will be of great assistance and comfort to tenants, as I have just indicated, it is important that we remain mindful of the rights of landlords and of investors in property developments in relation to these issues.

One other provision in relation to which there has been significant discussion with me and my office is the right of the landlord to change the mix of tenants within a shopping centre. That right is preserved in Mr Rugendyke's amendments under proposed subclause 107A (5) (a). That was one of the provisions that were particularly raised in discussions with me by a range of representatives of some of the major developments around Canberra. Certain legal advisings or opinions were proffered to me. I actually never did see any written legal opinion on it, but I was advised by representatives of major investors in town of their understanding of what proposed subclause 107A (5) (a) meant.

As a result of those representations I did take legal advice on the same issue. The advice that I received, in effect, was not consistent with what had been proffered to me by representatives of landowners in that regard. That is an issue that we need to raise and to talk about. Proposed subclause 107A (5) says:

Proposed subclause (6) says:

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