Page 580 - Week 02 - Thursday, 21 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
James Hardie group of companies - certainly not small business. The company had a lifelong guarantee on the product. Once it was put in the ceiling, it was guaranteed for life. Indeed, it could be guaranteed for life. Those people who had the product installed 20 years ago still have no problems with the product.
Let me make an important point. There were problems with some companies manufacturing cellulose fibre installations. What were the problems? The problems were that it was not manufactured correctly; that the chemicals that should have been used were not used.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Stevenson, is this relevant to the debate?
MR STEVENSON: It is highly relevant to the debate. People in this Assembly have next to no understanding of what door-to-door trading is. This legislation suggests that we make it almost impossible for people to work effectively in that area. I will go into the points on exactly how it does that. There is a point concerning the types of products that are supplied. Some people have been incorrectly led to believe that because a company operates in this manner there may be something wrong with them and they need severe controls. What the legislation is saying is that people in Canberra do not have the mental capacity to make a decision by themselves.
The whole principle of looking after people is borne out in this Door-to-Door Trading Bill 1990. It suggests that if you make a decision in your home or elsewhere you have to be protected from making wrong decisions. There is a situation where that applies: If someone who is mentally retarded is sold goods, then that sale can be held to be invalid. Are all Canberrans to be treated as being mental retards? Are they to be told by this Government, "We will look after you from the womb to the tomb" - it is no longer the cradle to the grave?
Mr Collaery: Mr Speaker, I move that the question be put.
MR SPEAKER: Order!
MR STEVENSON: That is an absolutely appalling situation. I have worked in this industry for a long time and you would gag me from making valid points. It is appalling.
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Stevenson! I would suggest to the Attorney-General that Mr Stevenson is within his rights to continue the debate, provided it is to the point. I will not allow that closure. Please proceed, Mr Stevenson.
MR STEVENSON: What an appalling situation that I would be prevented by Mr Collaery from making this point. It is disgusting. This is highly relevant. Once again, I make the point that you have next to no understanding of this area.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .