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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 564 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: Well, it is unfortunate, Mr Speaker. I will give members an illustration, perhaps a slightly extreme illustration, of what this bill facilitates. A bank manager is sitting in his office and in comes a lady of 85 years of age and she says, "I wish to take out a 20-year loan." Say it is a personal loan for argument's sake. The bank manager is well aware that there is probably little likelihood that this lady sitting in his office is going to be alive at the age of 105 to make the last repayment on her loan. He knows intuitively, as a human being, that people generally do not live to the age of 105, but he is not in a position to say to her, "Sorry, I do not think you are going to be around to repay this loan," if he has no legal basis on which to refuse that person the loan. If she checks off on the other points on the check list in front of that bank manager he is compelled, unless he is in breach of the Discrimination Act, to give that person that money.

How would he know that that person is not going to live to be 105? Of course, he cannot know whether she is going to live to 105 or not, Mr Speaker. But if this legislation is passed he will be able to rely on actuarial data which indicates the likelihood of her capacity at the age of 85 to be able to repay a loan of 20 years. He cannot rely on subjective information about this lady, but he can rely on objective evidence about people in her position.

Mr Speaker, it is entirely reasonable that we should be able to look at the likelihood in those circumstances of her capacity to repay and to say, "No, I think you are going to have to provide me with another basis on which to make this loan." He might convert it into a loan on her house, a mortgage, on which basis he would have a security. He would not have to worry about her means over the next 20 years, Mr Speaker. But to do so in circumstances where he is not provided with any capacity to refuse what are obviously inappropriate loans is an invitation to problems.

We are not discriminating in favour of older people if we refuse to pass this bill; we are discriminating against them because we hurt them if they have not got the capacity to be protected against inappropriate loans. I think that is a very significant concern, Mr Speaker.

Ms Tucker says the Liberals are taking advice from the banks. Well, whoever we are taking advice from, Mr Speaker, it is the same people who have given advice to governments in other parts of Australia. Indeed, the Labor governments of New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania all administer the same legislation, apparently without the same qualms about the impact on other people, and it is entirely appropriate that that be the case, Mr Speaker, because this is about ensuring that we have a balanced and reasonable arrangement on which to make loans.

We all had something to say a few years ago in this place, Mr Speaker, about the position of CARE Credit and Debt Counselling Service. It was not given continuation of funding from the government to continue to do its particular work in terms of counselling people in debt situations. Well, we certainly would be creating a new market for such a service if we facilitate continuation of a position where people are being made loans in circumstances where the banks or building societies or whatever know that they should not be making those loans but have no legal basis on which to refuse them.

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