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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 654 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Even with Mr Rugendyke's proposed new section 107A there would be ways for landlords ultimately, with some difficulty, to get out of continuing leases, and continuing the problem Mr Stanhope mentions of almost giving proprietal rights, but it would certainly take a considerable effort. That, I don't think, is something that Mr Rugendyke would necessarily want to see. If you make it too difficult for landlords to operate, if you make it too difficult for them to invest, if you set the bar for them too high, and unfairly too high, they will not invest. My point is that even if this were to get up it is still not impossible, I suppose, for them basically ultimately to get vacant possession.

Far better, I think, for it to be fair for everyone, so that tenants have the ability to stay there, if that is what is in the best interests of everyone, and so that landlords have the flexibility to conduct their business appropriately as well. I do not think Mr Rugendyke's amendments do that. I suspect, if his amendments get up and if there are any problems with the operation of the government amendments which both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party are supporting, we might see a situation where there is a flight of capital. We might see a situation where, for example, certain national chains are preferred in some of our big centres rather than the mum and dad stores which I think Mr Rugendyke wants to protect, and which I certainly would like to see given a fair go too. I think everyone in this house would.

This particular clause, this particular part of the bill, is terribly important. It is terribly important for everyone concerned, for getting investment into this city and not having a flight of capital. I think the concerns expressed to the government are the same as the concerns expressed to the Labor Party, and I think they are very real concerns.

We need to be very careful here, Mr Speaker, because if the playing field is made too un-level we will see that flight of capital. We will see a development where the very people Mr Rugendyke seeks to protect are the ones who are ultimately disadvantaged as well, and I don't think that is in anyone's interest. I ask members to be very careful in relation to this particular clause. It is very important. I think other members have highlighted this as one of the most important aspects of this bill.

MR SPEAKER: Is leave granted for the Attorney-General to move his amendment which has just been circulated?

Leave granted.

MR STEFANIAK: I formally move that amendment [see schedule 1 part 5 at page 688] to my amendment No 1 [see schedule 1 part 4 at page 686].

This does quarantine the market rent provisions from the preference provisions. If we do not have something to this effect in there we will get ourselves into all sorts of serious difficulties, and I do not think that is what everyone wants.

MR SPEAKER: The question now is that Mr Stefaniak's amendment to his own amendment No 1 on the white sheet to Mr Rugendyke's amendment No 4 on the pink sheet be agreed to. I hope nobody here is colourblind. Are we clear on it, members? Thank you.

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