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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 561 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The main argument from government is about the needs of the finance industry. The need we are most interested in is whether there is this need in the community, and whether people are being caught in traps which amending the Discrimination Act could help. Evidence from the community services sector, as I said, suggests that there is an increasing problem with unrepayable consumer debt that we should be confronting. There is, I am told, for the first time an upward trend in the numbers of people retiring with consumer debt which they cannot pay back.

Among young people, I am told, there is a significant minority who are getting into debt through their credit cards-credit cards which perhaps are too easy to get. In many cases the consequences of severe financial difficulties for young people can be compounded by a lack of experience and knowledge of the implications of declaring oneself bankrupt, for instance.

But this information about the problem does not immediately suggest to me that the solution is to further weaken the Discrimination Act. It is a new trend to see older people in financial trouble, but it is more likely due to recent changes in our social economy than the establishment of the Discrimination Act. The act is there to enshrine principles of a fair go, of equity, and a fair go for all people.

Now, if an older person needs some capital, for instance, it is not acceptable to allow a bank to discriminate on the basis of age. Yes, the bank is running a business, but we do not know who this particular individual is. Are they good at saving; are they good at paying back their debts? These are the legitimate interests of a lending institution. Employment or income stability is another. The risk of age is an emergent factor. It appears because of the proportions of people in that age group who are in a situation of limited income or reduced stability. Those grounds are enough without adding age.

This amendment bill gives power to a sweeping generalisation, unnecessarily broader than the individual assessments which are more properly the basis for a decision on credit.

The government has based its arguments on submissions from lending bodies, such as the Australian Finance Conference, the Australian Bankers Association and so on, but I do not believe that they consulted with the agencies who could have advised them on alternative ways to deal with the problem or who could point out the pitfalls of this so-called solution.

Interestingly too, when I wrote to ask the ACT's Discrimination Commissioner for an opinion of this bill, she had not been made aware of it. So, although I should not be surprised, here we have the Liberals taking advice from the banks and not from social justice agencies or even our own statutory authorities responsible for upholding our fair go and equity laws.

So why weaken the Discrimination Act? There is not, I understand, an outbreak of credit providers being held ransom by the Discrimination Act. In the last three years there has been only one case of an allegation of discrimination by a credit provider being referred to the Discrimination Commissioner, and this was resolved easily through conciliation.

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