Retail and Commercial Leases (Designated Anchor Lease) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 July 2020.)

The SPEAKER: Members leaving the chamber, do so quietly. The member for Schubert.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir. The member for Florey was on her feet well before the member for Schubert was.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Schubert has the call.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (16:42): I rise to speak to the Retail and Commercial Leases (Designated Anchor Lease) Amendment Bill and to provide some remarks on this as someone who has had a history of dealing with retail and commercial leases in my previous life.

What the bill seeks to do is to essentially provide an obligation upon a landlord to renegotiate rents with specialist tenants in the event that an anchor tenant leaves a centre. I can understand the intent behind the bill. Anchor tenants are very important to help bring foot traffic to any sort of shopping centre, and specialist tenancies do rely on that foot traffic and they use that foot traffic to get people through their own doors.

This is a dynamic that exists in shopping centres right across South Australia and a dynamic that exists right across the country and, indeed, in many parts of the Western world. We do know that there is an interesting dynamic that exists between anchor tenants and smaller specialties subtenants. That relationship is interrelated. The anchor tenant needs those smaller specialty shops and those smaller specialty shops need that anchor tenant. As I said, the anchor tenant provides the foot traffic.

In terms of making shopping centres work, it is often the case that specialist retailers pay a per square metre rate that is often many times the per square metre rate that an anchor tenant would pay. That speaks to the various power imbalances that exist in the relationship between an anchor tenant, often a major supermarket chain or a major department store chain, the power of the landlord and often the diminished power and influence of the specialist retailer. So I can understand why the bill is being brought here: to try to understand and potentially rebalance the relationship between those various parties.

I think this bill is misguided and may, in fact, have unintended consequences in what it seeks to achieve. I understand that what it seeks to achieve is to provide greater power and a greater rebalance towards smaller specialist retailers, but what I think it will end up doing is actually costing smaller specialist retailers more because of the way this amendment bill has been structured.

We saw a situation under the former government where they unilaterally changed the rules. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

The SPEAKER: Leave follows automatically, member for Schubert.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.