Retail leasing reform is back on the agenda. For national retailers, hospitality operators and landlords, the question is practical: why should the same deal still need a different leasing rulebook in every state?
Treasury has commenced consultation on whether Australia’s retail tenancy rules should be made more consistent nationally. The consultation forms part of a broader National Competition Policy agenda and is directed at reducing regulatory complexity for businesses, landlords and other stakeholders operating across multiple jurisdictions.
For retailers, hospitality operators, landlords and owners of national property portfolios, the issue is not abstract. Different leasing regimes can mean duplicated compliance steps, additional legal review, slower rollouts and inconsistent lease processes for what is, commercially, the same transaction.
Why does this matter?
For many businesses, the frustration is not retail leasing regulation itself. It is the lack of consistency between jurisdictions.
Take for example a national retailer opening identical stores in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. The stores are the same. The business is the same. The lease terms are substantially the same.
Yet the regulatory outcome may be entirely different.
Depending on the jurisdiction, the lease may be regulated under retail leasing legislation, fall outside the regime altogether, or be subject to a different set of statutory rights, disclosure obligations and dispute resolution processes. It is little surprise that Treasury is asking whether these differences still serve a meaningful policy objective or simply create unnecessary cost and complexity for businesses operating nationally.
The current position can produce surprising outcomes. A tenant structure that may fall outside retail leasing protections in one State can trigger those protections in another. Similarly, some jurisdictions focus more heavily on the nature of the tenant’s business, while others focus more directly on how the premises are used. For national landlords and occupiers, that can mean analysing fundamentally different legislative tests for what is, commercially, the same leasing transaction.
Why clients should care
Different rules mean more time, more cost and more room for something to be missed. A business expanding into a new state may need to check again whether the retail leasing laws apply, what disclosure is required, how outgoings are recovered, what rent review rules apply and what happens on assignment or dispute.
What could change?
The consultation is not limited to asking whether reform is needed. It is seeking views on where retail tenancy regulation could be better aligned across state and territory legislation to improve consistency, transparency and practical outcomes. Relevant issues include disclosure, rent reviews, outgoings, lease transfers, dispute resolution and enforcement.
This does not necessarily mean one national retail leasing law. A more realistic outcome may be greater consistency on core issues that cause practical difficulty, while still allowing states and territories to preserve local differences where those differences remain justified.
Where consistency would help
The biggest gains are likely to come from the everyday issues that slow leasing down: when the legislation applies, what must be disclosed, how outgoings are dealt with, how assignments are approved, what rent review structures are allowed and how disputes are handled.
For clients, the benefit is not theoretical. Fewer differences should mean simpler templates, faster approvals, more predictable rollout programs and less time spent solving the same compliance issue in different ways.
What should businesses do now?
Businesses with national or growing portfolios should identify where the current rules create practical friction. That might include duplicated disclosure steps, extra internal approvals, uncertainty about whether a retail leasing regime applies, higher legal costs, delayed openings or inconsistent messages to operational teams.
The most useful submissions will be practical. Policymakers do not just need general support for reform. They need examples of where the current patchwork costs time, money or momentum.
Our view
This is a sensible area for reform. Businesses are already operating nationally. Their leasing rules should be easier to apply nationally too. Even if the consultation does not lead to a single national regime, it could still remove some of the duplication and uncertainty that make leasing more complicated than it needs to be.
For landlords, retailers and hospitality operators, this is one to watch. A simpler and more consistent framework could change how leases are negotiated, approved and managed across national portfolios.
Next steps
Submissions are open through the Treasury Consultation Hub until 12 October 2026. Now is the time to identify examples of where different retail tenancy rules add cost, delay or complexity to your deals or portfolio management.
Addisons’ Property team will continue to monitor developments and keep clients updated. If the proposed reforms may affect your leasing portfolio, or if you have practical examples to raise through the consultation process, please contact a member of our team.