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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 598 ..


MS TUCKER (continuing):

a lot of unnecessary distress. This distress would be prevented if the credit providers were not so relaxed about signing up more and more credit customers in the first place.

If, as everyone argues, in the near future we will have a uniform national requirement for a satisfactory assessment process, the banks and other credit agencies will have to change their procedures pretty soon anyway. It will not be a surprise. It may be very lucrative for them to push credit on people, but it seems that will not last for much longer. We have a chance to ensure protection for vulnerable people in the ACT. By doing so, we may well push the agenda along nationally. That is surely a good thing.

Will the sky fall in? Will we be kicked off the committee if we go ahead and enact this change ahead of the national bill? I think that is unlikely, and it is certainly not a foregone conclusion.

In the debate last year, Mr Stefaniak said:

The consequence of a breach is that the ACT would automatically cease to be a party to the Agreement as clause 10 (2) provides that a State or Territory must not introduce amending legislation without obtaining 2/3 majority approval of the States and Territories. As you can see, support for Mr Rugendyke's Bill will place the ACT in a very difficult position.

However, it is not that clear at all. Last year, New South Wales enacted a change that affected pay-day lenders before such changes had been developed at the national level. They were not kicked off the board.

As Mr Stanhope put it last year:

However-and this needs to be noted; it is a chink in the armour of the case put very persuasively by the Attorney-New South Wales has already unilaterally amended the uniform scheme, in relation to payday lending, without any adverse repercussions on the scheme for the New South Wales government.

That is from week 10 Hansard, 29 August 2001. This is a small change. It does not ban unsolicited offers. All it does is say that before you sign someone up, you must conduct a proper assessment. That should not be too much to ask. I hope members will agree to pass this bill into law, or that the national process will develop a solution so quickly that we will not need to progress this bill any further.

The Attorney-General could raise the issue at the meeting of attorneys-general tomorrow. I hope this Attorney-General will be an advocate either for agreeing to this bill or for a speedy national resolution.

I urge members to consider supporting this change and to understand that the longer we leave it, the more people will be getting into debt.

Debate (on motion by Mr Stanhope ) adjourned to the next sitting.


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