Page 1789 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries: Was it a Liberal government in New South Wales?
MR BERRY: It must have been more recent legislation. Let us not forget that last July all State and territorial governments signed the pledge, so to speak, to participate in this process. At any rate, you have made your position clear: You do not intend to protect the consumers' rights; you intend to make it open slather. Clearly, the Labor Party has set out to ensure that consumers get exactly what they demand, and that is what they are entitled to; no less.
Question put:
That the amendment (Mrs Carnell's) be agreed to.
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 7 NOES, 10
Mrs Carnell Mr Berry
Mr Cornwell Mr Connolly
Mr De Domenico Ms Ellis
Mr Humphries Ms Follett
Mr Kaine Mrs Grassby
Mr Stevenson Mr Lamont
Mr Westende Ms McRae
Mr Moore
Ms Szuty
Mr Wood
Question so resolved in the negative.
Clause agreed to.
Remainder of Bill, by leave, taken as a whole
MR HUMPHRIES (9.15): Madam Speaker, I referred before to the reversal of the onus of proof. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee referred to subclause 16(4), which contains these words:
... an advertisement is deceptive notwithstanding that every particular of it is true if it creates, or is intended to create, in the mind of a reasonable reader, listener or viewer, an untrue or inaccurate impression.
We are not opposing this subclause; but I will say, Madam Speaker, that it goes some way towards putting the defendant in the position of saying, in effect, "Look, I can prove every particular of what I have said, but because another person - - -
Mr Berry: This is a nonsense, too.
MR HUMPHRIES: It might be a nonsense to you; but the Scrutiny of Bills Committee took advice, and that was the view that it reached and that was what we reported on to the Assembly. So, do not just look to me; look also to the others who are on that committee. We took the view that there was this serious question about, as it were, subjective opinion - making an offence out of something which was technically not an offence because everything that had been said, on its merits, in a statement was true.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .