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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 2955 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

I note, Madam Speaker -

that was Roberta McRae in those days -

that it is interesting that urgent legislation of this kind can be brought forward by the Government but other kinds of legislation seem to have disappeared off the map. I make the point that when we adjourn at the end of today's sitting the only matter of government business on the agenda will be the Supply Bill. That is an appalling state of affairs.

So said Mr Kaine back then. Ms Follett said, in closing the debate:

Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his indication of support for this Bill. As he says, it is pretty much a housekeeping matter, and it is being done for the convenience of the bank and, of course, also for the convenience of the ACT account holders who are affected by this merger. It is indeed a matter that must be dealt with quickly, and I appreciate Mr Kaine's indication of support.

Mr Speaker, what we see is that on two previous occasions this Assembly has been able to deal with legislation relating to bank mergers in an expeditious way and in a bipartisan way which has not excited hostility from either side of the house. The Bills were moved in both cases by Labor when Ms Follett was Chief Minister and they were supported by the Liberal Party when Mr Kaine was Leader of the Opposition.

On both occasions the legislation was uncontroversial. Probably the reason why the legislation was uncontroversial was that it was about assisting customers of the bank and ensuring that customers of the banks had their rights protected and were not exposed to undue inconvenience, complexity and potential legal pitfalls through complicated renegotiations of their banking arrangements after the merger of the banks. I think it is quite appropriate in the case of mergers of this kind that the Assembly take whatever action it can to ensure that customers of the bank are not inconvenienced. I think that is very appropriate action for a parliament to take, as we have done on those two previous occasions.

It is also interesting to note that in the case of the Canberra Advance Bank Limited (Merger) Bill 1992, which was introduced by Ms Follett, she said:

The Advance Bank of Australia is meeting the costs associated with the preparation of this legislation.

It is interesting that Ms Follett was able to negotiate such an arrangement with the Canberra Advance Bank. It shows a very sensible piece of cooperation between the then Labor Government and the business community. The Advance Bank saw the advantages to them of having this legislation passed and so were willing to meet costs associated with the preparation of the legislation, and the government of the day was willing to cooperate in the drafting of appropriate legislation to deal with the specific circumstances of that particular merger.

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