Page 2860 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
purposes of this Bill. The real possibility of finding oneself in breach of clause 22 should be an incentive for all retail traders to establish and maintain the appropriate mechanisms to ensure price integrity, especially where they are using electronic devices such as scanners to price goods.
The Trading Standards Office of the Consumer Affairs Bureau regularly surveys ACT supermarkets and other retail stores to check on price integrity. Sad to say, the office reports that many traders are unaware of and, indeed, in some cases somewhat cavalier about the need to ensure that shoppers are not misled about the price of goods. It is true that some industry self-regulation exists; but, unfortunately, it is not yet operating widely enough to maintain price integrity across a wide range of retail trading.
I am pleased to note, however, that some sections of the supermarket industry have taken the lead. Quite a few ACT supermarkets subscribe to the Australian Supermarket Institute code of practice for computerised checkout systems in our supermarkets. This voluntary code sets out minimum standards for shelf labelling and procedures for maintaining price integrity and ensuring that checkout staff know and observe the code. If you are buying something from a supermarket that observes the code and find that the scanned price for an item is higher than the shelf price or some other displayed price for that item, you are entitled to be given the item free of charge.
However, not all supermarkets or, for that matter, other kinds of retail stores subscribe to the code. Indeed, I understand that the Attorney-General has been urging all ACT supermarkets to adopt the Australian Supermarket Institute code of practice. I note that Coles, Woolworths, Jewel and Franklins have adopted the code, and they deserve recognition for having recognised the importance of price integrity and observing the law. I believe that the specific prohibition of dual pricing in this Bill will act as a catalyst for increased interest in compliance with the law by self-regulation in the industry.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
MADAM SPEAKER: It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Berry: I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.
Question resolved in the negative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .