Page 2886 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (11.26): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a brief statement about the amendment.
Leave granted.
MR STEVENSON: I very clearly said that the amendment was about clarity. Mr Connolly implied that I had talked about delaying debate because people had not had enough time to consider these matters. That was clearly misrepresentative and does nothing for the debate. I did not say that at all. I certainly commend the Government in this case for allowing time for people to look at the legislation.
Mr Connolly: It will not always be 14 months, Dennis.
MR STEVENSON: It does not need to be 14 months. At least two is reasonable, as most people agree. It is important that we do not drag these things into misrepresentative political arguments, but simply stick to the facts. I said that the amendment was a matter of clarity. I said that it was not of major import. To suggest that I am saying that we should delay debate because people have not had enough time to consider the matters is not correct. Such suggestions should not be made. But I thank the Minister, at the third time on his feet, for explaining the point.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 26, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 27
MR STEVENSON (11.28): Madam Speaker, I move:
Page 17, subclauses (5) and (6), line 15, omit the subclauses.
Paragraphs (5)(a) and (b) talk about types of businesses that are illegal as pyramid sales organisations. Leaving aside the qualifiers, subclause (5) says that it is an offence for businesses to trade in many ways. That subclause places arbitrary power in the hands of government administrators to determine exactly what the provision means. Subclauses (5) and (6) were simply an attempt to clarify what type of trading qualified under pyramid sales. I think their scope is far too wide. These subclauses are extremely difficult to understand. It seems that they were included as a catch-all provision in case any type of scheme that may be considered a pyramid sales scheme had escaped earlier definitions. I think the subclauses need to be omitted, or we need to understand exactly what they say and what their intention is.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.30): As presently drafted, clause 27 mirrors the Commonwealth trade practices legislation precisely, as do the equivalent sections in New South Wales, South Australia and the Northern Territory. So, we start from the point that the law as presented to the Assembly mirrors the existing ACT law - that is, the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act - and mirrors New South Wales legislation. There is always some sensible
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .