Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (15 February) . . Page.. 27 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
probably would have no difficulty with them, but I am uncomfortable about proceeding with the Bill in the face of such an extensive number of amendments. I indicate to the Attorney that we are quite prepared to support this Bill in principle, but we would be grateful if it were not to proceed beyond that stage today.
Just on the Bill, the Attorney indicated at the time he tabled the Bill that the principal feature of it is the replacement of the office of Director of Consumer Affairs by a statutory office of Commissioner for Fair Trading. The Attorney has indicated that this reflects the restructuring that has taken place within his department. It should be noted, however, that the Attorney has also taken the opportunity to change the emphasis of the Fair Trading (Consumer Affairs) Act 1973. I think this is a significant change in this suite of amendments. The long title of that Act has been changed to an Act to make provision for the protection of consumers and for the protection of traders against unfair commercial practices. The legislation is being extended somewhat to embrace the protection of traders.
The functions of advisory committees under the Act have been extended to advising on unfair commercial practices affecting traders, meaning that the Commissioner for Fair Trading may receive complaints about conduct, including fraudulent or unfair practices. That means that the Act will cover more than consumer interests and could be used by local retailers to lodge formal protests about, say, out-of-town traders hiring the Albert Hall to sell goods at a cheaper price. I could probably suggest - perhaps it would be being unnecessarily cynical of me to do so - that it is an example of the Government being less than entirely open about the true effects of these amendments. I am always interested in and a touch bemused by legislation propounded by the great proponents of open competition that, in fact, might have an adverse impact on competition. But I just make that as an aside. It is unnecessarily cynical of me, I am sure.
The scrutiny of Bills committee did report in relation to this Bill that it contains a Henry VIII provision in clause 24 but, given the purpose of the clause in this instance, the committee raised no concerns about it. I think that was a reasonable conclusion by the committee. The clause simply permits regulations to be made to cover any transitional situation that was not foreseen by the transitional clause included in the Bill and the Opposition has no difficulty with the legislation containing a clause of that nature in this instance.
As I said, the Labor Party is quite happy to support the amendments contained within this omnibus Bill to the in-principle stage and would just like a little bit of additional time to look at the impact of the large number of amendments lately delivered.
MR HUMPHRIES
(Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (12.18), in reply: I thank the Opposition for its support in principle for the Bill. Mr Stanhope made reference to the transition towards having a Commissioner for Fair Trading and the restructuring within the Department of Justice and Community Safety to effect that kind of position. It is true that this is, in a sense, the end point of a transition that has been going on for some time to reorient the work of what was the Consumer Affairs Bureau to reflect the fact that, in a commercial
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .