Page 4655 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mistral Fans
MR STEVENSON: My question is to Mr Connolly. I bring your attention to the Mistral fans that you spoke on recently, which have been proven to be unsafe and have been linked to at least 100 fires in Australia and overseas. Should not the company responsible for the fans place an advertisement in all national newspapers warning of the defects, recall all faulty models and offer the trusting purchasers full compensation or replacement? I remind you that the makers were aware, so the report said, that the fans were faulty but had engaged in a cover-up. Mr Connolly looks a little bit puzzled. It says in the article that Coroner Graeme Johnstone said in Melbourne on Friday that the makers of the fan knew that it was faulty but had engaged in a cover-up.
MR CONNOLLY: Yes, they are the coroner's words. This occurred because of a coronial finding in Melbourne on Friday. The response around Australia of consumer affairs Ministers in the early part of this week was to get out a quick warning rather than to go through a process of arguing with the manufacturer about who should be liable, who should pay for the ads and what should occur. The decision was taken that it was best to get out a warning fairly quickly. That has occurred. There obviously is an issue of the liability of the manufacturer of goods that proved faulty. There is a potential legal action which is essentially a private matter. Consumer affairs bureaus throughout Australia are looking very carefully at this issue.
There was an earlier recall, I understand, of these products. The products were actually made, I think, in 1985 and 1986. There had been a recall previously, but it is apparent that a number of these products are still out in the community. There will be some close work and attention paid to who eventually should pay for this and whether the consumers who still have these products will have some comeback. But the decision was taken that rather than argue with the manufacturer about that - a process which might take some weeks or months, or, if the manufacturer's lawyers and government lawyers get into dispute, some years - it was better to get out to consumers quickly the message that these products are potentially dangerous and to alert the general public.
I take Mr Stevenson's point that a manufacturer who produces a product that proves to be dangerous obviously can expect to be exposed to some liability, and I assure him that the Government is not unaware of that. I assure him that we took the decision to make the announcement ourselves in order to get the message out to the people quickly rather than go through the process of talking to the manufacturer, which may take some time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .