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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 3703 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

of the Uniformity Agreement. The consequence of a breach is that the ACT would automatically cease to be a party to the Agreement as clause 10 (2) provides that a State or Territory must not introduce amending legislation without obtaining 2/3 majority approval of the States and Territories. As you can see, support for Mr Rugendyke's Bill will place the ACT in a very difficult position.

The passage of this legislation will mean that the ACT would lose access to all benefits that flow from participating in the national Uniform Credit Code scheme, a scheme which was the inspiration of a Labor Government rightly committed to the introduction of Australian Uniform Credit laws. It was a Labor Government that committed the ACT to the Australian Uniform Credit Laws Agreement in 1993 which was signed by the then Attorney-General, Mr Terry Connolly. At the time, the Labor Government fully recognised the remarkable benefits that participation in the development and implementation of national credit laws would bring to the ACT community.

The passage of this legislation will mean that the ACT will lose its ability to influence national debate on credit matters and find itself isolated from the views of other participating jurisdictions. Of more concern, the ACT would always be in catch-up mode, unable to benefit from the introduction of new credit laws introduced under the Uniformity Agreement.

As you are aware, participation in a national forum encourages critical reflection on what may have been strongly held views, while at the same time gaining exposure to possible different approaches. Moreover, in respect of important but possibly politically unpopular measures, a national forum can also provide a level of support and strength to Ministers to proceed if there is national backing or a national framework to work within. There is also the benefit of being able to utilise a collective regulatory pressure that can be applied across jurisdictions, particularly so in the case of smaller jurisdictions, like the ACT.

I am also concerned that ACT consumers, small businesses and credit providers may suffer delays, higher costs and confusion if the ACT gets out of step with the rest of Australia. This will particularly be the case if they, as credit providers, have to substantially amend their national lending procedures to accommodate the ACT region.

Uniformity of credit laws gives certainty to the industry and consumers of those services. It provides uniform procedures for regulating consumer credit throughout Australia with the consequence that compliance costs can be subsidised across the jurisdictions, and all consumers, including the ACT community, are protected.

As Mr Rugendyke's proposals will be overtaken by amendments to the Consumer Credit Code in any event, it seems pointless to expose the ACT community to the consequences that will flow from the ACT's breach of the Uniformity Agreement. I urge you to carefully consider the serious implications that will arise if this Bill is passed in advance of the Credit Code amendments early next year.

Ms Karen Greenland, who is acting chair of the Standing Committee of Officials of Consumer Affairs-which supports the Ministerial Council of Consumer Affairs-was sent a letter from the chair of UCCCMC. It is a bit too long to read it all, but I will read the salient points, in terms of the Uniformity Agreement, rejecting our proposal that Mr Rugendyke's legislation get a tick out of session so we can go ahead with it. These are:

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