Page 6065 - Week 14 - Thursday, 9 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
These changes are also good for business. They are good for business because, by having one national law to comply with as opposed to differing state laws, the cost of compliance will be reduced.
It is worth noting that it was Peter Costello in 2006, the former Treasurer, who asked the Productivity Commission what the benefit would be to business from a national approach to consumer law. The answer was $4.5 billion in projected savings to business per year. This is what started the reform process that culminates with this legislation in the Assembly today.
During the development phase of the commonwealth act, the federal Treasury and Senate economics committee conducted five consultations with stakeholders and received hundreds of submissions. These came from a wide range of groups, both national and local, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Master Builders Association, Foxtel and the ACT Centre for Consumer Law. The Greens are satisfied that this is a good reform and that the federal government have extensively consulted upon it.
We know that essentially it does three things. The bill repeals sections of the existing ACT consumer protection law and, in their place, adopts the Australian Consumer Law as passed by the federal parliament. In the ACT, this will be enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the ACT’s own Office of Regulatory Services.
The second thing it does is rename the ACT Fair Trading Act 1992 as the Fair Trading (Australian Consumer Law) Act 1992. Thirdly, it makes consequential amendments to 27 existing ACT acts under which the Office of Regulatory Services have inspectorate powers. A topical example is the Liquor Act, which gives power of entry to ORS inspectors. Because the ACT act will be renamed, references in the ACT need to be updated.
The second question that I alluded to earlier was: has the Assembly had enough time to assess the bill? The Greens believe we have. In the time since the bill was tabled we have taken the opportunity to consult with a range of stakeholders, including a selection of local businesses, the ACT Consumer Law Centre, the National Independent Retailers Association based here in Canberra and the legal academics specialising in consumer law.
What we have learnt is that all stakeholders agree that the reform is a good one. Stakeholders want a national approach to consumer protection. But there is an important point to make about the timing. We believe that the government did not leave any room for error. If there were any issues identified during our work that needed addressing and we needed to adjourn the debate until next year, the ACT taxpayer would have paid the price of the government leaving it to the last minute. It is lucky that this is not the case.
Whilst I certainly listened to Mrs Dunne’s concerns, as I am detailing here, when you weigh it up, at the end of the day the all-care-no-responsibility approach is fine and you can do that when you know the numbers are against you, but we do have to think
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video