 |
 |
|
|
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I rise to support the second reading and to note that on 19 May, less than two weeks ago, I received correspondence from the Attorney-General seeking Democrat support for the passage of these two cognate Bills. A draft Bill was not even available at that time. Regardless of the merits of the Bill, I am gravely concerned about the increasing number of occasions where this Government has sought the passage of legislation through the Parliament with undue haste, with no real attempt to give members of the Parliament adequate time for scrutiny. Not only do we have the two financial sector Bills before us but we have a mutual recognition Bill, which in fact entered the Lower House yesterday and which the Government wants passed by tomorrow. That is becoming increasingly typical of the contempt with which this Government holds the whole parliamentary process.
The Hon. R.R. Roberts: And the people of South Australia. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes. It is becoming far too typical; in fact, during the previous session there were some similar occurrences as well. The Democrats have always aimed to progress Bills speedily in circumstances of proven urgency, as evidenced by the passage of the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act 1999 during the previous sitting. In that matter there was a genuine realisation that it required urgent action to which we were prepared to respond. In this case we have legislation that the Government has clearly been working on for a long time elsewhere, but it simply did not inform us of its progress and at no stage showed us any drafts or any indication of what was happening. That simply is not good enough, and it is about time the Government lifted its game because, frankly, it deserves to have a few measures thrown out. In the limited time available I have been able to consult with several stakeholders in relation to this package of Bills. I spoke, first, with my colleagues at the Federal level who have dealt only in the past few days with complementary legislation in the Senate. The Democrats agree with the broad intention of the legislation aimed at extending the power of the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority to effect transfers of business between authorised deposit-taking institutions to credit unions, building societies and friendly societies. This move has the strong support of those institutions as they anticipate that it will improve their perception in the retail market. They do not anticipate that it will cause them problems in the transfer from existing State regimes to a national regime. One concern raised by my Federal colleagues in relation to remuneration and working conditions of former Commonwealth employees was addressed by the Federal Government in an amendment passed on 26 May. At a South Australian level, the Finance Sector Union, which I understand was not informed about this planned legislation by the Government, believes that the deposit-taking process should not be affected by the winding up of the existing regulatory bodies. Several South Australian banking institutions contacted my office and welcomed the legislation, which they believe will strengthen Australia's financial system by requiring all types of deposit-taking institutions to be subject to uniform prudential regulations. They believe that this will ultimately be of benefit to the customers of these institutions. The Credit Union Services Corporation, representing the South Australian credit unions, has also urged us to support the passage of these Bills. In summary, no concern has been expressed about the legislation in itself, but I do think there are important matters of principle here. Just occasionally, legislation has accidental errors. Occasionally, there are unintended consequences. It is supreme arrogance that members of this place were not kept better informed, rather than receiving draft legislation several days before the session resumed—and I stress `draft legislation'—and being told that it had to be passed within two weeks; that simply is not good enough. But I indicate that the Democrats will support the second reading.