Page 1785 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Lamont: What happens when the shopowner has five tonnes of ling that he is trying to get rid of because it is going to go off next morning? Because he wants to get rid of the ling, if I go in and ask for mullet he wraps up ling.
Mr Kaine: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Are we engaged in a one-to-one debate here, or are we operating in accordance with the standing orders?
MADAM SPEAKER: I remind members that Mr Humphries has the floor.
MR HUMPHRIES: I think it is reprehensible. Frankly, I would like to put some people who have served me some food in some of the restaurants around this place in gaol, too. But I realise that that is the sort of sentiment which is not best reflected in legislation that we pass in this Assembly, much as it might be desirable in the eyes of some people. If a person sells somebody ling when they have asked for mullet, they have a better quality fish and they cannot prove any detriment because of that. Why should they be able to sue? They would not be able to sue or prosecute in Victoria. Why should they be able to do so here? It really does not make sense. We are getting silly in prosecuting people for supplying better goods than were ordered. That really is quite silly. We have to be sensible about this. Let us consider whether this really is the most appropriate provision to have here. If we look very hard, I think we will see that it is not.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (9.00): Madam Speaker, I had to agree with Mr Humphries when he said that we are getting silly here, referring to the Liberal Party's desperate attempt to find a point of difference in this legislation, reflecting, as Mr Berry said, their adherence to the ACIL charter. The line of argument that they are running betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about what consumer protection legislation is all about, but that is perhaps not surprising coming from the Tories.
Consumer protection legislation is about honesty; it is about consumers getting what they order. This basic commitment to honesty is not new. This basic provision that what you order is what you should get and that it should be sanctioned by law is hardly a new proposition. Mr Humphries is fond of older legislation, the honourable precedents of the law. The Sale of Goods Act 1954 has this proposition, going back, I believe, to the Usury, Bills of Lading and Written Memoranda Act 1902 of New South Wales and, I think, even back to 1890 sale of goods legislation in Britain.
Mr Humphries would be familiar with the basic proposition of sale by description; where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description there is an implied condition that the goods should correspond with the description. It is true that it gives rise to civil penalties, not criminal penalties; but the basic proposition is that where there is a sale by description the goods shall meet the description, not that they might be better than the description and that is okay. It is the basic proposition of honesty.
The proposition was picked up in 1974 by the Trade Practices Act, which has never been tampered with by any government, Labor or Liberal. Section 53, about false or misleading statements, states:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .