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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 3709 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

members think about the background to both of these issues, which are also on the table this week.

The process principle in the battery hens legislation is similar to the one in this bill in that it leaves out a progressive model because it is not in the national legislation at this time. At the end of the day, the government supported the passage of an interim solution. With the protection orders, we have another example of where the government wants to press on with reforms ahead of national reforms that are coming on line. Also, changes have been made to our version of the national road rules to accommodate cyclists where it has been deemed sensible to do so, just like this legislation has been acknowledged as sensible.

But back to the marching orders from Queensland, a state which has in the past demonstrated a partiality for going out on its own when it comes to national initiatives. The Queensland marching orders look at the uniformity agreement. The Queensland public servant says that, in his view, the ACT will be in breach because it is adding to the obligations already imposed on credit providers by the code. What he fails to mention is that the agreement says that a state or territory will not take action that conflicts with or negates the operation of the credit legislation.

Here is the point. This legislation is totally consistent with, and in the spirit of, the present code. Credit providers are already required to conduct an assessment process when they issue a credit card. Why should the credit card provider be exempted from carrying out the same prudent and diligent checks before doubling or trebling the credit limit?

I would like to read out the qualifying paragraph in the advice:

I must point out that UCCCMC does not have a policing role in relation to the Uniformity Agreement. Ultimately, it is a matter for the Ministerial Council of Consumer Affairs to decide if a State or Territory has breached the Uniformity Agreement and what consequences flow from it.

Here we have a body with no authority telling the ACT government that it should not proceed, and the government has succumbed and meekly accepted this out.

I ask the question: is the New South Wales Minister for Fair Trading, John Watkins, going to lose his place on the ministerial council? He had legislation passed in New South Wales in recent months that goes further than the reforms in the code, in regard to payday lenders. Is New South Wales going to be kicked out? There is no suggestion that New South Wales is going to be booted out, so here we have a precedent. If the ACT were a genuine candidate to be kicked out, then New South Wales would also have to go because my bill is totally consistent and the New South Wales bill is not.

But what an outrageous proposition it is to say the ACT will be excluded from the council designed to protect consumers as a punishment for passing a bill to protect the interests of consumers-and protecting consumers with a safeguard to compel credit providers to do something they should be doing already. I see the expulsion threat as just that: a threat. Apparently, the majority of members cannot see through this tactic.

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