Page 2882 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
cross-reference to section 52A of the Trade Practices Act. We are here mirroring provisions of the Federal Trade Practices Act which have worked well in trade and commerce throughout Australia and which traders are familiar with because they have been the law. Therefore, the Government will be opposing Mr Stevenson's amendment.
MR STEVENSON (11.13): I thank the Attorney-General for his comments. He mentioned that traders are familiar with these provisions. I believe that the vast majority of traders in Canberra are absolutely not familiar with much of the Trade Practices Act or much of this Bill, and certainly this particular clause. Although it is a nice idea to say that we should do it in the same way as the Federal legislation does it, I think we should be more concerned about traders in the ACT. This is a very difficult Bill to understand. If we went out and asked various traders what different clauses in it meant, I think the vast majority of them would not have a clue. So, I think it is incumbent on us to make it as simple as possible. I feel that this subclause is not necessary. My amendment is not a matter of great import, just a matter of clarity.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.14): Madam Speaker, I will take a moment to speak a second time on this amendment. I will say one thing in respect of all the amendments that Mr Stevenson proposes to move and some criticisms that I suspect may come from the Opposition in relation to the old quickstep - fast-fast, slow-slow. Are we too fast? Are we too slow? Mr Kaine is not making political capital out of our being too fast, according to a press release reported in the Canberra Times this morning. This legislation, in the form now before the house, which Mr Stevenson is saying is confusing and has not been properly explained, was tabled in August of last year.
Despite the view that this legislation is too complex, that people do not understand it and that people have not had a chance to be consulted on it - a view which I can sense - it has been on the table and in the public domain since August of last year. It has been circulated to the business community in this Territory since August of last year. These criticisms that Mr Stevenson is coming up with and his raft of amendments have not been brought to the Government's attention by the business community, who have had this legislation for 14 months.
We are sometimes told that we should have a 30-day rule, a 60-day rule, or some other rule, depending on who is writing the press release, in order to give people adequate time to look at legislation. But this Bill has been out for public debate and consideration for 14 months. Any suggestion that it is all too confusing, that people have not had a chance to understand what it is and that they have not had a chance to be consulted is really hollow nonsense. These provisions mirror Commonwealth law and they provide certainty in commerce. I urge that they be supported.
MRS GRASSBY (11.16): I agree with the Attorney-General. Having been a businesswoman in the past, I know that the majority of business people are honest and want to do the right thing. They would be much happier to have a law under which they know what the right thing is, because it would put them in a much better light than those who do not act correctly in business and do not treat business clients fairly. I feel that the honest business people out there - and there are many of them; the majority of them are honest - would welcome a fair trading law that they understand.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .