Page 2658 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore: On the contrary, my intention was simply to draw attention to standing order 156, under which this matter can easily be resolved, as it may be decided by the Assembly. So why do we not do it instead of having any conflict?
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Humphries and Mr Moore. The standing order says, quite clearly, "a contract made by or on behalf of the Territory or a Territory authority". Mrs Carnell is not making a contract with anybody to do with the Territory or a Territory authority. She is making a contract with a private lessor, and she is the lessee. She has declared that interest. Continue, Mrs Carnell.
MRS CARNELL: Thank you very much. There is no doubt that in the ACT there is a desperate need to have legislation of this type. There is no doubt that there has not been a balance of power between landlord and tenant in the ACT, simply due to our planning regulations. In other cities, it is possible to move around the corner, to move over the road, to move down the street. It is simply not possible in Canberra. As people have said before, in most shopping centres there is only one site that can be used for a particular purpose. In the situation at Campbell there needed to be a lease variation to allow the pharmacy to move to over near the medical surgery.
I must say that the Government worked very well and very quickly to allow that to happen; but it was only because there was a site there. That shows without doubt that there is a need for this legislation. There is a need for a tribunal to take on cases where all else has failed. We have only to look at other States where this has already happened. Most of the time, where a tribunal exists, problems are sorted out before you actually get to that stage. I think that everybody - certainly everybody on this side of the house - believes that we need to move to a more level playing field in this important area.
MR STEVENSON (5.53): It appears to be beneficial to all parties in Canberra to have legislation such as this. I think that to have the code of practice introduced along with the Bill is an excellent idea. This was not the situation with the animal farewell Bill, where the law prohibited horseracing in Canberra for many months until the Government got around to introducing the code of practice. Mr Lamont looks puzzled. Perhaps I could briefly remind him that the Bill outlawed cruelty to animals - and most people consider that horses are animals. They are now exempted under the code of practice; but they were not for a long time. So it is good to have the code of practice.
I make the point because I think it should be a standard. I do not think you should ever have a situation where members in this parliament, or any parliament, are expected to approve legislation for which a code of practice, which could say all sorts of things, is going to be introduced later on. The two should go together. It is good to see that, in this case, we have that; so tenants and landlords will have a clear understanding of what their rights and responsibilities are. It is vital that we help businesses in Canberra, both small and large. The principle of the Bill has the potential to do that.
Mr Moore made a very important point. When he talked about whether the law should apply to existing leases he said that there are those who will argue that that is retrospective. I suggest that there is no argument. If you make the law apply to existing leases, that is retrospective. If the Assembly decided to do that, we would be introducing retrospective legislation. Mr Lamont looks a bit puzzled as to whether that is the case.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .