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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (12 November) . . Page.. 3979 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Granted, the number of people in the first category is diminishing with time, but in the second category - the issue that I deal with primarily today - the numbers are increasing. The argument put forward at the time to rationalise the exclusion of those who entered into a lease prior to 1994 was that they could apply to the tribunal if the landowners were "harsh and unconscionable". The trouble with that is that the harsh and unconscionable conduct often results in the demise of a business before access to the tribunal can be arranged.

The tenants and landowners excluded need to have access to a tribunal that can deal with disputes caused by alleged breaches of a mediated agreement, disputes about such things as key money in relation to a lease or negotiations for the entering into of a lease renewal, claims by a party to a lease that another party to the lease has breached or is breaching the code, or any dispute at all about a lease, including those entered into prior to 1 January 1995. I am interested in hearing from members who are prepared to support bringing on that form of amendment. Waiting until the landowner is harsh and unconscionable is too late. It is cynical in the extreme and unjust to wait until the operator is out of business before allowing access to a fair hearing. "Harsh and unconscionable" applies both to those who entered into their lease before 1 January 1995 and to those who are subjected to excessive rents.

We must eliminate the possibility of challenges over jurisdiction of the tribunal, the sorts of challenges that a wealthy landlord supported by a bevy of QCs and SCs can mount but that a struggling tenant, under the weight of excessive rent, cannot possibly defend. One only has to wander into any shopping mall in the ACT to see that the same large chain-stores appear in Belconnen, Tuggeranong, Canberra and Woden. Where have all the local, individual businesses gone, the ones that provided diversity, that were owned and operated by local Canberrans? They have systematically been taken over by large, homogenous stores which, because they have huge turnovers, can afford the increased rates and the overhead costs incurred by being in a shopping mall.

I wonder how many small, locally owned businesses have not been able to survive because of the lack of access to a tribunal to sort out an unfair lease agreement, a breach of lease agreement or excessive rents. Perhaps that ought to have been the subject of the review, Mr Humphries. How many small businesses have been killed off for lack of fair and just lease agreements or by takeover by large monopolies? No doubt the Commercial and Retail Tenants Association would be happy to bring to the Minister's attention those tenants who no longer operate as a result of that decision made in 1994. If this Assembly is serious about supporting small businesses in Canberra, which provide the bulk of employment in this region, it will pass this amendment simply to allow fairness and justice for all tenants and landowners, not just a select few.

Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries) adjourned.

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