Page 1818 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 22 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
certainly was not in any way a rip-off merchant. He genuinely got great delight from helping people out of financial problems. I think there was only one instance when someone lost their house, and that was because they had some complex business arrangements—the business went bad. Unfortunately, those things happen.
There is certainly a market for loans which are different from normal bank loans and which provide a bit more flexibility. But I agree, Dr Foskey: it is crucially important that these things are regulated, that people are not ripped off and that the law is sufficient to ensure that people’s rights are protected. At the end of the day, I do not think it serves any purpose if someone has to default on their mortgage and lose their house. They and their families suffer. It is a problem also for the financier. It is a problem for everyone, so it is important to get this right.
Mr Mulcahy’s amendment to the motion that is before the Assembly refers to the regulation of consumer credit being the responsibility of all the states and territories, and ensuring that all state governments develop uniform legislation for the regulation of the mortgage broking industry. The wording is slightly stronger than that contained in the government’s amendment, which notes that the government is working with other state and territory governments through the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs to investigate the extension of the general principles relating to responsible credit card lending to other forms of consumer lending, such as low doc loans. I would certainly agree with the government about the desirability of ensuring legislative consistency with other jurisdictions. That is what the national approach does. I think it has largely been very successful in consumer affairs. It can be a little slow but it is quite thorough, and it has served us well.
I understand that progress on this issue is underway. The Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, on which Mr Corbell represents us, agreed in September last year to develop a uniform approach to the regulation of mortgage brokers, which would involve the imposition of licensing, conduct and disclosure requirements on brokers. Having had a brief chat to Mr Quinton before we commenced today, I know that that is well advanced. New South Wales has been tasked with drafting legislation, and that is well advanced. I think that process should be allowed to continue. I move the following amendment standing in my and Mr Mulcahy’s name:
Omit all words after paragraph 1 (b), substitute:
“(c) the responsibility of States and Territories for the regulation of consumer credit; and
(2) calls on the ACT Government to press to ensure that the Labor States and Territories develop, as quickly as possible, uniform legislation for the regulation of the mortgage broking industry to be considered by the Legislative Assembly.”.
I will now speak to that amendment as well as to the substantive motion. As I said, that process is well underway, and progress is being made. I think the benefit of a motion like this—and I do commend you for it, Dr Foskey—is that it does encourage our Attorney-General to press his colleagues on the need for this to be expedited as quickly as possible. The problem with these ministerial meetings is that they can be rather slow. But I found that, when you go in there and press the issue with your
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .