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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2249 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

In the ACT, in the lead-up to Christmas last year, I am aware that some people on low and fixed incomes, with no capacity to pay, received in the mail offers of pre-approved credit extensions. All they had to do to become bound to pay more than they earned was to sign up and send it off. The credit providers are not going through all of the checks which they are required to when assessing credit applications in the normal manner. Some of the letters even actively encourage people to take up the offer of extended credit by playing on this Christmas spend-up.

Under the Fair Trading Act credit is to be provided only if it has been requested in writing. Certain checks must be undertaken, but they do not apply to extensions of credit. I think it is likely that this situation is a loophole rather than an intended effect of the laws. I have not had the time yet to fully research this matter, as we learnt only yesterday that this motion would be coming up for debate today, but I am convinced of the need to close this loophole.

My office has done preliminary consultation work on the bill referred to in this motion, and I understand there is strong support for the bill among people who are concerned about consumer protection. I have not yet spoken to credit providers, but I suspect they would not be entirely pleased about any further regulation, however strong the arguments for doing so from a consumer protection point view.

I would like to talk for a short while about why we need this motion as distinct from further regulation. As I have said, credit and fair trading legislation in the ACT is part of a national scheme, although it is administered locally. The problem is that we seem to be restricted from making this change on our own.

I would like the minister responsible, the Attorney-General, to explain the situation a bit more clearly, because it is not really clear to me that the Uniform Credit Laws Agreement would be breached if the ACT went it alone and passed and implemented the bill. Of course, the Greens agree that it is a good thing to raise the issue nationally, discuss it and seek to have a remedy to the problem incorporated into the national code.

I would like some clarification, because it is not clear to me that the ACT Assembly could not reasonably proceed to vote on and implement the bill, even if the other ministers do not agree to it immediately. Points 11, 12 and 13 of the Uniform Credit Laws Agreement say slightly different things about whether and how states' and territories' own legislation can differ from the uniform credit laws code and the model legislation.

Point 11 states that nothing in the agreement requires a state or territory which has passed alternative consistent legislation, which is the best description of the ACT legislation, to obtain the approval of the ministerial council to amendments to such legislation.

On the other hand, point 12 states that notwithstanding any other provision in this agreement, a state or territory may secure the passage of legislation to provide for-I am paraphrasing-fixing maximum interest rates, trust funds from forfeited interest charges, licensing or registration schemes and arrangements for a tribunal, or such other matters as are approved by unanimous resolution of the ministerial council.

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