Page 2828 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Orders to this effect have been made, I suppose relying on the inherent power of the tribunal to make a sensible order, which will now be clearly within power. I am pleased to say that some of those moneys have already been applied. It would be the Government's intention that the proceeds of these moneys essentially be used by the non-government sector. It would be very unusual for this money to fund the operations of the Consumer Affairs Bureau, although we may, from time to time, produce publications. The first major beneficiary was indeed the organisation Mr Humphries mentioned - CARE, the well-regarded Canberra consumer credit counselling agency. We have used some moneys that were recovered in this manner to fund the salary of a solicitor with CARE for a six-month period. It has been a significant benefit to CARE to have a qualified solicitor on the premises to assist them in their counselling exercises. That is the type of funding that we would expect to continue with.
The aspect of retrospectivity that Mr Humphries mentioned is explained on pages 2 and 3 of the explanatory memorandum. Far from being potentially onerous, this in fact is retrospectivity that assists the institutions. There could have been, through no fault of the institutions, a technical error because of poor definition or drafting in the 1992 legislation which could have put institutions to considerable bother in going through the tribunal. The Government took the view that, as they had clearly acted in good faith, we would put the definitions beyond doubt. It does involve an aspect of retrospectivity, that is true; but in the circumstances it is an aspect of retrospectivity that is, we believe, appropriate.
Now for the mea culpa. Mr Humphries mentioned that the speech referred to provisions for the capping of interest rates and he could not find those provisions in the Bill. Indeed he could not, because they are not there. We have had a somewhat confusing and odd saga here, which I became aware of only when the bureau contacted me shortly after Mr Humphries raised these questions with the bureau a week or so ago. It would appear that at some time in the recent past, within the last year or so, we had some break-ins at the Consumer Affairs Bureau - they are in commercial premises in the city - and during those break-ins bits and pieces, including some files, were stolen.
Mr Humphries: I have an alibi.
MR CONNOLLY: No, it was not Mr Humphries; I am sure that that is not the case. At the same time, the director of policy and legislation left the bureau to take a job in the Commonwealth. A new person came in, with the responsibility of looking after credit law. In this process, our main focus has been on the uniform package because we have been working very closely on that and, in fact, towards the end, when it looked as though it was falling apart, ACT officers played a very significant role in negotiating with some of the larger States and the consumer bodies to actually get general agreement. Everyone was focusing on that.
What happened was that a speech was written for this exercise. It made reference to provisions that may provide a cap on interest rates. The process of proposing a cap on interest rates has gone forward in a separate exercise which will be brought before the Government - in other words, the Cabinet process - at a future date as part, essentially, of the application exercise when we bring forward the legislation to apply the uniform credit law in the ACT. So, the paper trail that would have told the officer that the decision, bureaucratically, to proceed on this capping mechanism would be dealt with in a separate
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .