Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (27 March) . . Page.. 694 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Further, we are concerned with the Bill's amendment of the Fair Trading Act to secure privacy rights of individuals. Recommendations in a report by the Privacy Committee of New South Wales state that the interwoven issues of privacy and consumer protection that arise from the use of smart cards should be addressed through special privacy and data protection legislation and specific consumer protection in the form of an industry code of practice. This multilayered legislative approach to privacy and consumer issues is preferred by the ACT Government.

I am also advised, Mr Speaker, that our preference for a national regulatory framework is similarly reflected in statements by bodies such as the Credit Union Services Corporation, the peak national body of credit unions; the Australian Consumers Association, which publishes Choice; and the banks directly involved in the Belconnen trial. A national approach will produce not only a consistent regulatory framework but also uniform levels of consumer protection.

Whilst this Government supports this Bill, with the reservations I have outlined about its timing and effectiveness, it will also continue with the following measures. Firstly, it will continue its proactive program through the Consumer Affairs Bureau of raising consumer awareness of the smart card trial and related issues. Secondly, it will evaluate with consumers and industry the outcome of the trial ending in December. Thirdly, it will examine the protection that consumers and individuals may need after the end of the smart card trial. Finally, it will pursue the development of a national and uniform legislative solution to consumer and privacy issues raised by smart cards through the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, including the possibility of an industry code of practice. This course of action will most probably require the amendment or repeal of the provisions contained in this Bill, to give effect to a national regulatory approach. I therefore put the Assembly on notice about the probable need to amend or repeal these provisions.

MR MOORE (11.55): Mr Speaker, how reluctantly do we see the Government dragged in, kicking and screaming, but counting. They saw that the numbers were against them and decided that they were going to lose this, so they might as well do it with good grace. In the end, there was a little good grace, but not without our having heard Mr Humphries again and again saying, "This is not necessary. This is premature. This will not work". Indeed, Mr Speaker, it may be inadequate, but at least it is a sensible step along the lines of consumer protection. If it is inadequate, then responsibility goes right back to Mr Humphries for allowing the trial to commence without having the appropriate safeguards and mechanisms in place in the first place. At least what we have seen from Ms Follett is an attempt to get in place some basic and fundamental safeguards, particularly for privacy. I must congratulate her and the Labor Party for getting this legislation before the Assembly to try to ensure appropriate safeguards for consumers.

It was interesting to hear the Government present some concerns about evidence and whether or not these issues would be able to be carried in court. I must say, Mr Speaker, that over the last six or seven years in this place I have heard the argument put again and again when people in some way have opposed legislation: "You will not be able to actually make it stick in court". Of course, that is not the only purpose of legislation.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .