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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2247 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

The agreement proceeds on the basis that it is in the public interest that the law and administration of consumer credit matters should be uniform, and it sets up a council which is responsible for the oversight of the code and the development of the consumer credit provisions. That is the ministerial council.

The council, as I think Mr Rugendyke may have said, has been actively examining the issues surrounding the rising level of credit card debt. The council referred these issues to an expert committee, the Uniform Consumer Credit Code Management Committee, for advice on any necessary and feasible action in relation to pre-approved credit card limits.

That committee is presently considering whether the current regulation ensures adequate assessment of a debtor's ability to repay the loan, whether to develop minimum credit assessment criteria to ensure appropriate lending practices, whether to develop stricter standards for credit advertising, whether there should be a requirement that increases in credit limits should be granted only at the debtor's request and whether adequate assessment of the debtor's capacity to repay should be made before the credit limit is increased.

Whist Mr Rugendyke's policy objectives concerning pre-approved credit card limits would be very supportable, it is not appropriate to proceed with the amendments in advance of consideration by the ministerial council. We have had discussions; hence Mr Rugendyke's motion today.

If a bill were to be passed without the council's endorsement, the effect would be that under the agreement the ACT would cease to be a participant in the Uniform Credit Laws Agreement and it would cease to be a member of the Ministerial Council on Uniform Credit Laws. That would compromise the ACT's position in relation to a range of matters concerning consumer credit law, matters such as desirable changes to the code concerning payday lending.

I am very happy to take Mr Rugendyke's bill to the council for its consideration. The council meets next month. In fact, the ACT chairs it. If the council endorses the bill, it will be possible for it to proceed with some amendments necessary to bring it into consistency with the code.

Mr Rugendyke mentioned Mr Watkins from New South Wales. I understand that he is bringing in some model draft legislation very much along the same lines as that Mr Rugendyke is proposing. If anything, he has some additional things which I am sure Mr Rugendyke will have no problem with. He is nodding in agreement. If anything, that will strengthen it further.

As part of the process, copies of Mr Rugendyke's bill have been provided to interstate officers representing jurisdictions on the council, and I will arrange for the bill to be considered during council discussions about this matter.

New South Wales has publicly indicated that it will bring forward its comprehensive package of measures. It may well transpire that jurisdictions agree to adopt the approach suggested by New South Wales. As Mr Rugendyke has indicated, that would not cause him any problems, and I would assume it would not cause other members here problems.

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