Page 2859 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As I said, I cannot argue with the provisions of the Bill. They provide very wide protection for citizens of the ACT and they are matters that I think are desirable, although, as always, the operation and administration of the Bill will greatly affect how successful it is in protecting their rights and also ensuring that traders, as providers of services and goods to consumers, are protected in that process. That is also very important. I support this Bill and hope that the Attorney will be able to enlighten us on the issues I have raised.
MS ELLIS (4.25): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the Fair Trading Bill. As the Attorney-General noted in his presentation speech, this Bill is the first stage of the Labor Government's strategy for developing up-to-date legislation to promote and enhance fair trading in the ACT. The Attorney-General has already provided the Assembly with a detailed outline of the Bill's main provisions, so I will not repeat what he has said. Instead, in lending my support to this very important piece of legislation, I would like to highlight an aspect of the Bill that I think demonstrates its particular value to the ACT community.
The aspect I would like to address is the unfair trading practice known as dual pricing or double ticketing. At some time in our lives as consumers most of us will have been a victim of this misleading marketing practice. In some instances we may have treated the experience as a minor irritation, not worth the bother of drawing it to the attention of the checkout assistant. At other times we may have been incensed by the deception and determined to address the issue because it was a matter of principle. Either way, we would have preferred it not to have happened at all.
Unfortunately, these days this kind of misleading conduct appears to be happening more often. Perhaps this is because, when we shop, the price is often the basis of our purchasing decisions. Perhaps we are also more aware shoppers; we like to have sufficient information to enable us to make accurate comparisons between competing goods or services. Everybody is interested in getting value for money. However, comparative shopping by price can be very frustrating if there is an inconsistency between the advertised or shelf price and the price we are finally asked to pay at the checkout.
In the retail trade, consistency between these prices is known as price integrity and, as the name implies, it has a lot to do with fair and honest trading. It also has a lot to do with observing the law. Observing the law has a lot to do with understanding when and how it applies. The prohibition of this kind of unfair trading is not new. Section 53(f) of the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act prohibits false representations about the price of goods and services. This Fair Trading Bill mirrors that general prohibition in clause 14(g). Clearly, dual pricing of the kind I have described can be characterised as false representation. However, its prohibition has not eradicated the practice. Perhaps this is because more attention has been given by the Trade Practices Commission to misleading pricing practices of the "Was $100; now only $10" kind of advertising with which we are familiar.
The Government believes that one way to encourage traders to know and observe this aspect of the law is to prescribe the minimum standards the traders must observe when pricing their goods. Setting minimum standards, as contained in clause 22, so that Territory consumers and traders will know when and how these practices constitute unfair trading, is, in my view, one of the most important
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .