Page 3928 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the bill. The human rights commissioner picked this up in her advice and said that the amendment mitigates the risk of being found unreasonable.
As I said, we agree with the amended scheme that Mr Stanhope has just introduced. We support the shopping precinct idea and agree that this is a good way to ensure the bill covers off both private and public land. We agree also with the proposal for retailers to post warning signs about potential fines at the premises of retailers who have trolleys. The signs also describe the precinct so that customers are clear on where they can take a trolley without breaching the law. This is an important deterrent to people at the site where the trolleys are located, and I am happy that, through our discussions with the government, we were able to settle on appropriate words. I also note that it is sensible that the precincts are defined in regulations in some instances due to the different circumstances and locations of retailers.
The amendments expand the individual offence to include that taking, using or leaving a trolley outside a precinct is acceptable, given it is the requirement to first issue a 24D direction to return the shopping trolley. As I mentioned, the new harsh and unreasonable defence is also very important to ensure that people are not treated unfairly. There are some circumstances where it is unreasonable to require a person to return a trolley. Mr Stanhope mentioned one of those in his speech.
We also support the new power the amendments give the government to give retailers at least 48 hours notice that it will undertake a trolley collection day in a particular area. If the government then finds any trolleys in this area, it may fine the responsible retailers. I do want to point out that the success of this new section depends on the government’s willingness to enforce it. My discussions with the government make me optimistic that this will be the case.
I note that this new power complements nicely the power in my original bill for rangers to issue 24-hour collection notices on individual trolleys. I am pleased that this power has been retained in the amendments. It can be used for spot enforcement rather than having to organise a collection at a whole suburb. It also has certainty. Evidence is collected, and there is no mistaking that a retailer failed to comply with its duty.
I am also pleased that my input into the amendments has meant that all trolleys still need to contain a government contact number. It is not sufficient just to have a retailer’s number on the trolley. It is important to make it easy for people to inform the government of the location of trolleys. This means there is always going to be a way for people to inform the government, who are the ones who have the enforcement powers to ensure that trolleys are cleaned up. It also means that people, when they find trolleys, particularly those trolleys in very out-of-the-way places such as away from roads, actually have a way of ensuring something happens. At present, one of the biggest problems is trolleys on bike paths and trolleys in creeks and drains. These are the places where the retailers simply do not patrol.
We also support the new section 24F(a), which requires that retailers must take all reasonable measures to keep shopping trolleys within the shopping trolley precinct. It is a useful extra avenue of enforcement and it links to the other enforcement powers.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video