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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4807 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

in-principle stage we will adjourn the debate on clause 1. That will give us all a chance to put these amendments together and see where they may take us. I think we will probably need today to do that. Certainly, I need today. We can come back to it tomorrow, or later this afternoon perhaps, if that can be arranged.

MR MOORE (11.49), in reply: Thank you, members, for indications of some support. I think the choice here is whether we protect or half protect small businesses. That is really what this is about. Each of us has been lobbied by small businesses that have been in strife, particularly over the issue of excessive rent. It tends to be the case, although not always, that excessive rents are being charged, particularly in our large malls. Indeed, that is not an unusual finding across Australia. The report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology also found that excessive retail space was creating problems, and I will come back to that.

Ms Horodny said in her speech that, really, the landlords have nothing to fear by going to a tribunal. It is true that they have nothing to fear unless they are involved in the misuse of their market position. In fact, it was that committee of the Federal Parliament that addressed the issue of misuse of market power, and that is what we are dealing with. We are trying to find a way of getting a balance between those with power and those without power, and that power is about this misuse of market position. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that the general Liberal philosophy, which looks at trying to avoid interfering in negotiations between parties, is one that fails when we look at abuse and misuse of market position. Invariably, when somebody has come to me complaining that their business is going to fold, it has been because of the market position that has been established by one of the major owners or leaseholders of these malls.

Mr Speaker, it is also an appropriate time for me to correct something that Mr Humphries said. He suggested that my legislation would apply only to tenants. If my legislation would apply only to tenants as far as disputes go, then all of section 6 applies just to tenants, all the things that he has already agreed with apply to tenants, because my amendment would insert a paragraph 6(1)(c) so that section 6 would read:

Subject to section 8, this Act applies to the following disputes:

(a) ... breach of a mediated agreement;

(b) ... harsh and oppressive conduct ...

Then, what I would add as paragraph (c) is:

a dispute about whether the rent is ... excessive;

That does not say that a landlord cannot bring to the tribunal a dispute about excessive rent. Of course, the landlord could. I concede that a landlord is unlikely to. Remember that we are not talking about whether it is excessive rent. We are saying "a dispute about excessive rent". A landlord may well decide that a dispute about excessive rent is appropriately decided in the tribunal.

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