Page 2881 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Question put:
That the amendment (Mr De Domenico's) be agreed to.
A vote having been called for and the bells being rung -
Mr Lamont: Madam Speaker, I advise that Mrs Grassby is paired with Mr Cornwell, who is absent today.
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 6 NOES, 9
Mrs Carnell Mr Berry
Mr De Domenico Mr Connolly
Mr Humphries Ms Ellis
Mr Kaine Ms Follett
Mr Stevenson Mr Lamont
Mr Westende Ms McRae
Mr Moore
Ms Szuty
Mr Wood
Question so resolved in the negative.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 12, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 13
MR STEVENSON (11.11): Madam Speaker, I move:
Page 9, subclause (3), line 28, omit the subclause.
I believe that subclause 13(3) is unnecessary. It says that a supplier of goods or services is not guilty just because a consumer institutes legal proceedings or makes a complaint against him. Common law obviously holds that anyone is innocent until proven guilty, so subclause (3) is superfluous.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.12): Madam Speaker, as we said at the outset of the debate, this is a Bill which essentially is putting into ACT law many of the provisions that are currently in force in the ACT under Commonwealth law, under the Trade Practices Act. While Mr Humphries made a point in principle about that, suggesting that we were going against the general trend of uniformity, I think it was the view of the house at the end of the day that we are putting ourselves in exactly the same position as all the other States with State or Territory based trade practices, fair trading, consumer protection legislation.
During the debate, in answering a point of Mr Stevenson's in relation to the clarity or otherwise of the Bill, I indicated that the explanatory memorandum to this Bill was quite comprehensive and cross-referenced very clearly equivalent Trade Practices Act sections. I draw members' attention to clause 13, which is the clause under consideration, in the explanatory memorandum. There is a clear
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .