Page 1821 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 22 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
unconscionable way, and it provides sufficient protections to consumers in that regard. The gaps in the law, as I have indicated previously, relate to the role of finance or mortgage brokers. These brokers do not face the risks of the credit provider themselves. They often act to engage people, to get people to take out a loan and to do so without properly explaining the risks, without properly making an assessment of those people’s capacity to repay a loan, and they often act in ways that are unconscionable and put those people in jeopardy of moving into default.
It is in these areas that we are seeking to address the issue. The ACT is participating, through the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, on which I represent the territory, in putting in place national uniform legislation to address this issue. That national uniform legislation is being developed by New South Wales and is in an advanced state. The matter has been discussed in detail at the last two meetings of the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs. All states and territories agree that a national uniform approach is needed, and New South Wales is the lead jurisdiction.
Given that New South Wales is the lead jurisdiction, it would be irresponsible for the territory to have a regime that is consistent with that of the region that surrounds us, and the fact that it would be a national approach is even more to the benefit of all consumers. The sticking point to date has been the role of the commonwealth. The commonwealth, through the Office of Best Practice Regulation, has indicated that it does not yet believe that a sufficient regulatory impact assessment has been done to justify the introduction of national uniform legislation.
This has been a matter of some concern and frustration for all consumer affairs ministers, including me. We believe that there is sufficient demonstration of the need for legislation to protect consumers against unscrupulous practices by mortgage and finance brokers. The commonwealth, through the department of finance Office of Best Practice Regulation, does not agree, and has put a series of additional requests over an extended period of time for more information to justify regulation in this area.
The states and territories are working to respond to those requests, because we are convinced that there is a need for national regulation in this area. It is frustrating when we hear complaints, as we did most recently by the commonwealth Treasurer, about the lack of activity by the states and territories on this matter when the legislation has effectively already been developed and it is only the consent of the commonwealth itself around the need for an appropriate regulatory impact assessment that is holding up the introduction of a national, uniformly consistently regime to protect consumers. Nevertheless, we will continue to work though those issues. We will address them. The Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, when it meets again later this year, will be discussing the issue again. Hopefully, we will have a resolution on the matter and ministers will be able to agree formally to introduce this national uniform legislation in each of our jurisdictions.
In conclusion, I welcome the proposal by Dr Foskey. She raises an important issue. Our preference is for this to be dealt with in a nationally uniform manner, which I think is in the interests of all parties and consumers across the country. I am hopeful that in the coming months we will see the matter finally resolved and legislation able to be introduced.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .