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

The Personal Property Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Bill 2017 seeks to amend the Personal Property Securities Act 2009, a piece of legislation that the coalition voted for. I cannot see any members from the 2009 parliament from the coalition that voted for this in the chamber at the moment. But certainly nearly the entire frontbench of the coalition voted for this piece of legislation. The member for Hughes is clearly seriously confused, because that 2009 PPS act was introduced by Labor, proudly, by the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland. It created a single national online register of security interests in personal property within Australia.

I could almost take a personal explanation later in the day, because I need to correct the member for Hughes, who is seriously flawed. Firstly, he referred to my speech of Wednesday, 16 September 2009—my wife's birthday, incidentally—so I went back to my speech. The member for Hughes said that I supported the legislation because it made more work for articled clerks. He totally misread my speech. I clearly said that we were clearing up the process—we were removing work from articled clerks. I referred to my time as articled clerk running around to those 70 different registers. The more legal work you do, the more people will pay. We turned 70 security registers into one. It was a great piece of legislation. It reduced red tape. It was a good thing to do. That is why the coalition supported it. That is why any sensible person would support it.

I looked at some other things that the member for Hughes said. I quote from Hansard:

With this legislation we are changing the minimum duration for which leases apply down from two years to one year. It was previously two years; it is now one year.

Member for Hughes, that is not what the legislation does. You need to talk to your Attorney-General. You need to actually read the legislation. This bill actually amends the Personal Property Securities Act to extend the minimum duration of a PPS lease from more than one year to more than two years. You have totally misrepresented what your government's legislation does. You need to make a personal explanation after question time, member for Hughes, so that you can actually point out what your legislation does. It was quite bizarre—what he was on—when the member for Hughes was speaking last night. I thought he was going to come in this morning and set the record straight. But no, he has chosen not to. And I would point out to the member for Hughes, going on about why this legislation has not been changed, that he is in his fourth year of government—the fourth year of government, member for Hughes. You are a member of the coalition government. If anything is going to be done, surely you are the ones who can do it.

So, I bring you back to my great pride in Labor's Personal Property Securities Act, because when it was introduced it was described as important microeconomic reform. I actually referred to it, in my speech, as basically stealing jobs from articled clerks. And I know that anyone who has been an articled clerk would have done a lot of that work in the fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties and noughties. But now that work does not exist, because we got rid of the red tape. Prior to the Personal Property Securities Act, a purchaser of property could be misled by an apparent owner that clear title was held by them. There was no independent way to determine whether anyone else held an interest in the property that was contrary to the interest being offered. The PPS regime allows a party to secure its interest in a property and to provide anyone who searches the register with knowledge of that security interest. Any interest in personal property can now be perfected by registering on the PPS register—effectively the Torrens title of non-land-based property, I guess.

The second reading speech by the then Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, described the regime as replacing:

… the existing complex, inconsistent and ad hoc web of common law and legislation, involving over 70 Commonwealth, state and territory acts. It will implement a single national law, creating a uniform and functional approach to personal property securities.

How could someone who is supposed to be a champion of small business not praise bringing 70 bits of red tape down to one? I mean, it is bizarre. I really am starting to wonder whether the Liberal Party has totally disconnected from those Liberal Party values Menzies used to trumpet. I am seeing so much erratic behaviour. Maybe it is from being too close to the Nationals. Maybe that is what it is. The Nationals are leading them astray, maybe. But the Senate committee: I call on all those present to try to set them straight—

See this speech in context