PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITIES (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 September 2009. Page 4095.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (15:59): By April 2007, the Council of Australian Governments had given in principle support for the establishment of a national scheme for the registration of personal property securities, supported by a referral of legislative power from the states to the commonwealth. It is my understanding, and I think evident at least from the briefing provided on this bill, that some 70 acts of parliament around Australia and 40 registers operate under the relevant legislation, which, under these reforms, will enable the consolidation of the registers into one and under one piece of legislation.

Simplicity is not always the answer, but it appears that, in this case, there is a significant benefit to consumers and businesses, with assurances by the government that there will be less red tape and the claim that it will be more certain, more consistent, less complex and cheaper. It is not always the case that a reduction in complexity or simplicity makes things either cheaper or better, but we have been given some assurance that that will be the case.

It appears that other jurisdictions currently have this matter under consideration. As we speak, both the commonwealth and Victorian parliaments are considering their equivalent legislation for this part of the COAG agreement. The New South Wales parliament passed its bill in June this year.

The four acts of parliament which require registers to be kept are: the Bills of Sale Act 1886, the Goods Securities Act 1986, the Liens on Fruit Act 1923 and the Stock Mortgages and Wool Liens Act 1925.

The only matter that I bring to the attention of the house is the introduction date of 2010. I have assumed—and I hope correctly—that the delay in commencement is to facilitate education about and access to the new arrangements and the setting up of the new register at the commonwealth level for those who will be using the service, banking institutions, and so on, and consumers. There needs to be a necessary delay for that. I have accepted that advice at face value, but I hope that this new regime if it is to provide all the benefits espoused, can be implemented as soon as possible.

I indicate that the opposition will support the bill on the clear understanding that the new set of priority rules which are to be incorporated into the commonwealth bill—I have briefly perused that very extensive document, and this is not a question of what the priority is for liabilities against a particular piece of personal property—have not been changed. They are incorporated in the commonwealth bill. There has not been a change of priority or legal position or entitlement, so that situation remains as it is.

Secondly, we understand that there has been no interference with the opportunity for the states still to be responsible for—and, in fact, retain—the power to confiscate, seize, extinguish or forfeit in connection with enforcement under the state provisions.

It is important to remember—and we acknowledge—that we are talking here about personal property (cars, plant and equipment, hay, stock, and so on) that relates to the current acts. We are about to repeal the need for the retention of individual registers. It does not include land or buildings (fixtures on those properties), but it does include intellectual property.

Again, we were advised at the briefing—and we accept the information that was provided—that there is no expansion of the definition of 'personal property' that currently applies under the four acts of parliament to which I have referred. On that basis I indicate that we support the bill.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.