Page 3732 - Week 12 - Thursday, 21 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The draft code of conduct which has been released by the Australian Bankers Association is marked by the absence of even the most basic consumer protection. The draft does not require banks to disclose information about fees and charges - one of the more basic issues that one would expect to find in a code of conduct. It leaves it to the banks to feel free to either disclose or fail to disclose issues such as fees and charges. It does not restrict the collection of private information by banks or the dissemination of that private information, and there has been extreme concern amongst community groups, particularly groups representing persons who are HIV positive, at the total absence of protection for their private information that may be held by banks.
The code also has a glaring weakness in that it does not address the issue of the rights of guarantors. The reality of a loan guarantee is that the bank has doubts about the ability of a person to meet the contract and the guarantor, for no benefit for himself, is stepping into the shoes of the bank, as it were, and assuming the risk. The draft code does not require prospective guarantors to be provided with the information obtained from the borrower by the bank which is the information on which the bank has decided that it is a bad risk and gone to a guarantor. That is a very basic consumer right which is not addressed. The code fails to provide a cooling off period in which guarantors may change their minds; nor does it require the banks to provide guarantors with a copy of the loan contract.
These issues are glaring failures, and consumers should not look to the banking code of conduct for protection. I hope that other State governments around Australia will continue to put pressure on the Australian Bankers Association to come up with a code of practice which really does help consumers, rather than simply masquerade as a pro-consumer code of practice while leaving unanswered these very important questions.
Disallowed Question
MR STEVENSON: My question is to the Chief Minister. The Canberra Times today, 21 October, reports that yesterday this Assembly, by a vote of 9 to 8, passed MLA Helen Szuty's motion to maintain existing numbers of school based teaching positions against the budget cut of 80 teaching positions. However, the report continues:
Mr Wood said that, as a motion of the Assembly, he had to view it "very seriously", but it was not binding, and would not translate into any action.
He "would not appreciate a no-confidence motion" ...
If our voice of the electorate proposal were in force, the citizens could choose to act; but we are told that CIR procedures are not necessary here in the ACT because we have representative and responsible government. Responsible government means that the Executive is responsible to the parliament, that is, answerable to the parliament.
MADAM SPEAKER: Where is your question, Mr Stevenson? You are bordering on being out of order.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .