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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 2957 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

They are the kinds of things that the Government can make regulations in relation to. Mr Speaker, it seems to me that things like this which are moving obligations around, which are affecting existing contracts, rights and obligations, liabilities, current and pending legal proceedings - things of that kind - ought to be dealt with in the most transparent way possible. The most transparent way possible is by an Act of parliament. I would have thought that it was appropriate for the Government to be proceeding down that path if they had an issue before them which required legislation of this kind.

It is interesting to note, Mr Speaker, that in the Treasurer's speech introducing this legislation no reference is made to any specific bank merger which is before the Government for action at this time, and it seems to me that this is also a bit of a departure. I do not know whether the Treasurer has a specific bank merger in mind. I suspect she has the merger of the St George Bank and the Advance Bank of Australia in mind, but I am not party to any inside information on that. Certainly, the Treasurer has never said on the public record what bank merger she has in mind that has prompted her to introduce this legislation and then to seek to rush it through parliament inside a fortnight with such pressing urgency. There is nothing in the Chief Minister's half-page speech which gives the slightest indication that there is any urgency with this legislation. If the Chief Minister really believes that there is any urgency with this legislation she ought to have made reference to that in her presentation speech.

Mr Speaker, the Opposition's view is this: If the Government wishes to introduce legislation in order to facilitate a specific bank merger it should endeavour to produce legislation dealing with that specific merger which outlines for the parliament all the rights and responsibilities in relation to that matter, so that we, as a parliament, can be certain of rights under existing contracts, rights and obligations, liabilities, current or pending legal proceedings and the other matters. The parliament should be able to understand what the Government is doing.

A specific piece of legislation dealing with a specific merger, I believe, Mr Speaker, is the appropriate way to go. That is the way this parliament dealt with the merger of the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and the National Mutual Royal Bank. That is the way this parliament dealt with the merger of the Canberra Advance Bank Ltd and the Advance Bank of Australia. On both occasions both Ms Follett and Mr Kaine thought that that process was entirely appropriate.

Mr Speaker, the fact that Mrs Carnell has departed from the previous practice and proposed instead generic legislation where all the transfers, rights and obligations will be dealt with by regulation rather than by specific legislation for each merger, I think, is a shame. I think it is also a shame that in the process the principle established in the Canberra Advance Bank Limited (Merger) Bill 1992, of the merging bank meeting the costs associated with the preparation of the legislation, has been lost. I would be interested to hear whether the Treasurer will give an undertaking that if any regulations are brought forward regarding a merger the merging bank will meet the costs of preparing those regulations.

MR SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

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