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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 3701 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

bill introduced and then perhaps amended further when the national legislation comes in-which they say should be on the table in around November-it was sent off to UCCCMC, which has the capacity to give it a tick. Unfortunately that has not happened. I will come back to that later.

I commend Mr Rugendyke for his bill, which I think is very important. It substantially advances and speeds up what is happening nationally. It is not going as fast as we would like; nevertheless, we are getting there. There are a number of areas where, because of what is happening nationally, it would have some adverse effects if it were passed tonight-apart from throwing us out of the national stream. I might come to that if we ever get to the detail stage.

Basically, it is something that we want to see happen and we are very supportive of. I have always indicated to Mr Rugendyke that I give him full credit for it and will continue to do so. But if we go ahead with it tonight and it is debated and someone gets us thrown out of the national scheme, on their head be it. That will not help the basic punter in the ACT who stands to benefit from what Mr Rugendyke is trying to do through this bill.

I am advised that, by the end of the year-I said "November"-the national scheme will be introduced. This will address the issue of credit overcommitment, amongst the other important credit issues for amendment in the Uniform Consumer Credit Code that will be applicable here. In that way ACT consumers will continue to have the protection of all provisions of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code.

I had hoped the scheme would be available in July. It was not. That is unfortunate. It is unfortunate that the consumer affairs ministers did not agree to have this bill go forward and let us enact it. It is unfortunate that UCCCMC, to whom they referred it, who could also have given it a tick, did not do so. But, at least, even though it has taken a little longer than I would have liked, we will have uniform credit. In fact, that will extend what the bill does to cover other areas, assisting further consumers when it actually gets done.

It is important that we stay in the national scheme. If we do not, it is the basic punter, whom Mr Rugendyke is trying to assist, who will be the worst off. After we pass this bill at the in-principle stage-I assume the Assembly will want to do that-I will seek to adjourn it. If not, I will have more to say then.

I recently sent letters to members who are interested in this bill. I will read them onto the transcript because I think they encapsulate our support for what Mr Rugendyke is doing about the practical problems. I sent one to Mr Rugendyke, dated 22 August. It reads:

Dear Dave,

I refer to my recent letter of 17 August 2001 and now enclose a copy of the response from the Uniform Consumer Credit Code Management Committee (UCCCMC) commenting on your proposed Fair Trading Amendment Bill 2001.

Unfortunately, it would appear that our attempts to persuade UCCCMC to give us some leeway for the passage of your legislation in advance have been unproductive. UCCCMC remains committed to the goal of maintaining national uniformity with

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