Page 2890 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A person shall not take any action that enables another person who has a credit card or a debit card to use the card as a debit card or a credit card ...
The reversal of those words has a very real meaning, and the very real meaning is that you cannot change the nature of the card. It is a sensible provision picked up from the equivalent section in the Trade Practices Act, section 63A, and is identical to provisions in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.43): Madam Speaker, I accept the interpretation which the Attorney has put on subclause (3). I must say, though, that, when I looked at Mr Stevenson's amendment and I read the clause, I took the same view as he did. I still think the subclause is badly worded. It says:
... enables another person who has a credit card or a debit card to use the card as a debit card or a credit card ...
The reversal of those two phrases in the second instance is obviously meant to convey the idea that we are talking about a credit card becoming a debit card, or a debit card becoming a credit card. It would seem to me to be much simpler to say, "A person shall not take action that enables another person who has a credit card to use the card as a debit card, or a person who has a debit card to use it as a credit card". That would make it much simpler.
If even lawyers like me are confused, I think there is a case for rewording the subclause to make it a little bit clearer. I do not suggest that we do that today, but I ask that the Minister's officers take that matter away and consider amending the subclause to make it clear.
Mr Connolly: Perhaps through uniform forums, because this is a uniform provision.
MR HUMPHRIES: The Minister raises a question about uniformity again. The whole point of bringing the Trade Practices Act home to the ACT is, as the Minister himself said, to allow us to put our Fair Trading Act into an ACT political and economic environment. We are patriating the legislation. The Minister made it clear yesterday that in due course we are going to make amendments to this legislation which might put it at odds with the Federal Trade Practices Act. That at least is contemplated by the legislation and will certainly be the case when we enact our codes of practice. Uniformity, I would have thought, would be one casualty of this process.
I can say without any hesitation or doubt that in three years' time we will not have an Act which is identical with the Trade Practices Act any more. It will have to be different. If that is the case, let us make improvements. I understand that there is a view that sections of the Trade Practices Act, notwithstanding its fine heritage, are badly worded. I suggest that this particular subclause is one such case. We should, in due course - not today - look at it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .