Page 1051 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
CREDIT (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
Debate resumed from 22 March 1990, on motion by Mr Collaery:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MS FOLLETT (Leader of the Opposition) (4.44): Mr Speaker, this Bill is fairly self-explanatory and I think it aims merely to correct an anomaly that has occurred over the operation of some credit unions in the ACT. There are a couple of points I would like to make and the first is that the Opposition supports this legislation and we have no great difficulty with it.
On a general point - and I do not wish to be churlish about this - the document that purports to be an explanatory memorandum in this case is somewhat misnamed. It is impossible to deduce from that document what this Bill is about. I really think that in the interests of open government and of making quite clear to everybody just what the Assembly is debating, there must be a way of writing explanatory memorandums, in particular, in plain English, and providing some sort of background to the matter that is being dealt with.
We are not unintelligent people in this Assembly, but the wording and the jargon that is used in that memorandum is something that, frankly, I cannot cope with. Without wishing to be overly critical, I hope that we might see some amendment to the drafting of the explanatory memorandums. I realise that the legislation itself has to be couched in legal jargon, even given everybody's goodwill towards plain English, but the explanatory memorandum is what most people go by when they are trying to work out what the law is about when it is being debated, and that tells you nothing.
As I have said, we do not oppose the Government's proposition here. It is merely attempting to remove retrospectively an anomaly with respect to the enforceability of cross-border loans which have been made by some ACT financial institutions. It is a common problem, I believe. But it does raise the issue more generally of the overhaul of the Credit Act that is being mooted by the Attorney-General and considered by the Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers.
I have spoken before on that Credit Act, but I would just like to draw the Assembly's attention again to what is being proposed there. Mr Collaery has been reported as supporting the proposed uniform credit legislation, and I would like to record that, like the Australian Consumers' Association, I would not support the legislation in its current form. I believe that it is the lowest common denominator as far as uniform credit legislation goes and I believe further that this approach is being adopted, or being forced upon the consumer affairs Ministers, by the Greiner Government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .