Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise in support of the Personal Property Securities Bill 2009. I thank the member for Berowra for giving a little bit of the history of this initiative. Looking back at significant meetings in history, we talk about initiatives coming out of Bretton Woods and the like, and it is great that this is the ‘Coolum initiative’, the ‘Sunshine Coast clause’ or something like that. It is great that we can trace this back to a part of Queensland that is so beautiful. This is another bill which is shredding red tape, removing duplication and delivering greater consistency across this great nation of ours. It is part of the Rudd government’s cooperative approach to deregulation rather than the big-stick style of our predecessors.

On 2 December 2008 through COAG all states and territories agreed to refer their legislative power on personal property securities to the Commonwealth. When it comes to security interests on personal property there are more than 70 Commonwealth, state and territory laws, as we heard from the member for Berowra, but only about 40 substantive differences, which is still 39 too many. These laws vary between jurisdictions and this can significantly add to confusion and transaction costs. I declare an interest: my wife is in her last year of law and she is doing the personal property law subject next semester. If we can simplify this before she starts that semester, hopefully that will make my life a little bit easier!

There are also various registers operated by different states and territories and some of these registers are firmly entrenched in not the 20th or the 19th century but the 18th century and are devoted to paper records. I do not think they quite roll out the vellum or anything like that, but my understanding is that it is not far from that. In Queensland we have the Torrens title and the like, so we are a little bit advanced, but some of the other states are very much entrenched in the 18th century. This bill will bring into force one national law governing security interests in personal property and a single national online register. This single register will replace more than 40 registers operated by or on behalf of the various jurisdictions. One of the joys of being an articled clerk, or an articled slave, was going off to search some of those registers. I remember the delay and how your life was in the hands of some clerk who might or might not let you look at or search for something. I am sure that people with a background in business like Andrew Burke would understand that it is timely in the 21st century for the nation to have a simplified approach.

The legislation before the House applies to all transactions which create an interest in personal property, usually through a loan or other obligation. The bill defines personal property as any property other than land. So we are talking about tangibles like cars, boats, machinery or crops and intangibles such as shares or intellectual property. It is what a lot of suburban solicitors, apart from those in conveyancing, would class as their bread and butter, providing support to small businesses and the like. Personal property securities are interests in personal property that secure a payment—for example, a car loan for an individual or multimillion-dollar company charges.

This bill is good for the finance sector, it is good for business, it is good for customers and it is even good for solicitors and especially the articled clerks that work for those solicitors. It is not often that we can tick all four of those boxes together. Consumers will have greater protection, as they will be able to search to see if property they are considering purchasing is encumbered. For example, if an individual is in the market for a used car—and certainly used cars are big business in my electorate—for a small fee they will be able to do an online search to see whether a particular car is being used as security for a loan.

Small businesses will benefit as they will have greater access to finance at reduced costs. The new system will enable them to use more personal property to secure finance. It will also benefit banks and financiers, who will have greater access to international finance. Now more than ever we need to ensure that our banks can access international finance to boost investment in Australia, which in turn obviously provides jobs and financial security for Australian families.

As we transition to this new system, there will be some compliance costs, as you would expect, but nothing like the costs associated with red tape from the present system. As I said, the present system in some of the states involves searching through documents and wading through boxes—not quite trotting out the calf skin, as I suggested for some of those houses, but not far from it. So there will also be some costs associated with the Personal Property Securities Register. However, these costs will be covered by the small costs associated with the use of the register—all those articled clerks submitting all that money.

States and territories will have to formally pass legislation to refer their powers to the Commonwealth, and New South Wales, at the forefront, has already done so. As I said from the outset, all states and territories are on board with this long overdue reform. Any legislation that seeks to cut red tape, reduce compliance costs and bring about a more efficient system is welcome. The Labor Party have taken up this initiative, which, as we heard from the previous speaker, has its origins in the preceding government. We are particularly keen to do so because it will benefit those in society who need a helping hand. While it is easy to talk about going off to buy a big boat, the reality is that some of the people who need to access these securities are, unfortunately, using the services of a same-day moneylender or something like that. So anything that can reduce costs and hopefully defray some of the costs associated with lending money to people is a good thing. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context