Page 2891 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (11.45): There are three points I would like to make. Firstly, this is the first time I have heard such an explanation as that given by the Attorney-General, although I did read the explanatory notes. The explanatory notes state:
It is unlawful for anyone to send unsolicited debit and/or credit cards to anyone.
They mention nothing about what the Attorney-General just said subclause (3) means. The second point I make is that I do not really believe that the explanation just provided by the Attorney-General tells us what the subclause means. The word "or" is particularly relevant. The subclause states:
A person shall not take any action that enables another person who has a credit card or a debit card -
in other words, if a person has a credit card or a debit card -
to use the card as a debit card or a credit card ...
It does not matter that the two terms, "debit card" and "credit card", are transposed. There is an "or" in both cases. It says that, if a person has a credit card and they use that credit card, or if they have a debit card and they use that debit card, they come within this provision. My third point is that, if we pass this subclause, I am of the absolute conviction that it will apply exactly as I initially indicated. In other words, it will make it an offence for a corporation to have taken any action that enabled anyone who had a credit card to use the credit card, unless they were given written authorisation.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.47): Madam Speaker, subclause (3) would not have the effect indicated by Mr Stevenson. This provision has been in place in the law in this Territory since 1986. As Commonwealth law, it has not had that effect. The matter has been explained in this debate. So, to the extent that the court might have a doubt, we have made it clear in this debate. It would not have any doubt, because it is in the Commonwealth Act in any event. In order to make the record clear, I say that Mr Stevenson has had the same opportunity as other members of the Assembly have had to get briefings on this legislation. I understand that Mr Stevenson himself had a briefing for about half-an-hour with the relevant officer, and then his staff had a briefing which extended for about another hour-and-a-half.
Mr Stevenson: Three hours in all. It did not clear the matter up.
MR CONNOLLY: You can explain something for as long as you like, but whether it sinks in is another matter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .