Page 1830 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 22 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
interestingly enough, removes two clauses from our motion. Apparently the government does not want to recognise the increase in non-bank lenders in the home loan market or the upward trend in the number of borrowers facing home repossession by non-bank lenders. I am interested in why it is important that we remove that from the motion. I have not heard any of the speakers justify that.
I am really pleased to hear about the progress in the process that has been happening at commonwealth level, with state and territories involved in those discussions. But we heard nothing about that until today. Mr Corbell says that we are nine-tenths of the way there. This has been an issue in the public eye for at least a year, since the CARE report was published. I am sure that every member of this place got an invitation to the launch of that report, so there is no reason why anyone here should have been ignorant of its contents.
I am very pleased that Mr Corbell seems to feel confident that he will be able to come back before the end of 2007 with some uniform legislation. But we still do not know what is going to be in that legislation. Will it, for instance, apply to no doc and low doc lenders? Will the national approach require income assessment—the very things that Mr Mulcahy seemed to be concerned about, that might add to the costs?
I am hoping that, in closing discussion of his amendment, Mr Corbell will respond with answers to those questions. What exactly are we looking forward to you tabling before the end of December that can reassure us that real action is taking place? I still do not understand why we cannot make some moves here at the ACT level. I would also like to hear from the Attorney-General that he will have discussions with the office of fair trading and talk about what they need in order to increase their surveillance, given that that is what we have got at the moment. Consequently, I am rejecting this amendment. I am still hoping to hear what is in the commonwealth, state and territory package so that we can rest assured that the problem is being adequately addressed.
Question put:
That Mr Corbell’s amendment be agreed to.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Members—standard of dress
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services): Mr Speaker, I am seeking your guidance on a matter about dress and conduct in the chamber. Mr Speaker, I cannot let you off the hook. I note that these matters are ultimately at your discretion, but there is some precedence in regard to this. In the Assembly, we rely on House of Representatives Practice. It states:
In 1999, Speaker Andrew noted that Members had traditionally chosen to dress in a formal manner similar to that generally accepted in business and professional circles … It was widely accepted throughout the community that the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .