Page 2857 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are a couple of questions I would like to ask Mr Connolly, and he might care to answer them in the course of his remarks. Clause 23 says that traders must not use referral selling techniques which induce consumers to buy goods or services in return for a future uncertain benefit. I would like to ask a question about American Express. As Mr Connolly might be aware if he is a member, American Express from time to time offer inducements if you sign up friends or relatives or what have you. I wonder whether that is also - - -
Mrs Grassby: Ask Gary. He got a computer, or was it a trip? What was it you got, Gary?
MR DE DOMENICO: I am not aware of Mr Humphries getting anything, whether trips or computers; nor honestly do I care, Madam Speaker. I just want to know whether that is caught up in clause 23. Mr Connolly might answer that question.
I can recall that in the debate on the parental leave legislation last week in this Assembly Mr Berry unfortunately said things like, "No, we cannot accept your amendment, Mr De Domenico, because it alludes to codes of practice, and we will not accept anything that we do not know anything about". Can I say that this Bill and other Bills that have come before this house have mentioned codes of practice. Once again, Mr Berry ought to realise that he has been doing it all the time himself. His argument was flawed, as it always seems to be when he gets up on his feet. I just mention that. I am also delighted that, because a code of practice is prescribed by regulation, it is subject to the disallowance procedures of this Assembly. That is of great benefit, I believe, and is what makes this good legislation.
We will be moving an amendment to clause 6 and we will also be accepting the amendments Mr Connolly is putting up as a result of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee consideration. It is sensible legislation. Hopefully, it will mean that other pieces of legislation will be taken away to make it easier for businesses to do business in this town. It is good legislation, and for that reason the Liberal Party will be supporting it.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.18): Madam Speaker, I want to make some brief comments. As Mr De Domenico indicated, the Opposition is supporting this Bill. It is a package that goes with the Consumer Affairs (Amendment) Bill, which is next on the notice paper. The effect is substantially to enact into ACT legislation provisions of the Trade Practices Act, an important piece of Commonwealth legislation. It is very hard to argue with any provisions that occur specifically in the Bill, for that reason. What we are doing is simply restating, in effect, the present law in a different format. Arguments have raged backwards and forwards in the Federal Parliament from time to time about the efficacy of the Trade Practices Act, and this is not the place to enter into them now. The point of this legislation is that we now have, in a sense, a patriated version of the Trade Practices Act, and it is possible for us to effect at the ACT level those changes that we might feel appropriate.
It does raise in my mind a slight confusion about just what the Government's direction is with respect to legislation of this kind, however. We have seen a fairly consistent desire by successive governments to provide, as far as possible, standard laws to apply across the whole of Australia - legislation that either is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .