Page 5966 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991

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


MR COLLAERY: Mr Stefaniak, of course, hopes to return to this place to shorten that career. But time, of course, will tell. The Bill before the house, as the Attorney said, overcomes some matters which arose in respect of the administration, essentially by a bank, and banks, which had unintentionally, and, I think it would be fair to say, without moral turpitude, failed to follow the quite properly strict rules relating to credit provision. Those rules require documents to form part of a contract being made - and the definition of "part of" does not include being sent back a document in the mail after the loan is approved. It all has to be in front of you when it is approved.

I am simplifying the processes for this debate; but, essentially, a bank did not put its documents together in complying form, so there are many thousands of non-complying credit arrangements. It would, quite frankly, be absurd to see all of the matters dealt with singly by the credit tribunal, or anyone else. So, the Attorney has brought forward a Bill, which I think is a uniform Bill which I saw in another form when I was attending one of the ministerial fora that I used to sit on, in between airline flights - as the Attorney has well pointed out to me. But perhaps the Attorney will concede that the product of this meeting in Perth - or was it Hobart, or Melbourne? - was worthwhile.

Mr Stefaniak: But did you win 15 grand at the races, Bernard?

MR COLLAERY: I doubt that this Bill had any connection with the races, Mr Stefaniak. This is an effective piece of a joint Federal action. The Attorney is to be congratulated for bringing it forward. I support it and, of course, I join with him in saying, "Well, there is a little class action opening here". I wish it well. I have a feeling that no-one is going to water it much in the next year or so; but, if it can flourish, so be it.

MR STEFANIAK (6.13): The Attorney and Mr Collaery have actually gone through this Bill in some detail, and I am not going to repeat it. As Mr Connolly said, it does address two anomalies. One was a fairly small technical breach. The second one was a more substantive breach. It is uniform legislation; it brings us into line, too, with the other uniform credit States - New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia - and also Queensland, I understand. Accordingly, it has the support of the Liberal Party.

I would also indicate that I am grateful for the two briefings that I received from the departmental officers, especially Mr Tony Charge, who went through this Bill with me in some detail on 14 November. This Bill does have the support of the Liberal Party, and I suppose that by now it could be classed also as a fairly urgent Bill, because I think it is absolutely crucial that this Bill come into force as soon as possible.


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