Page 6066 - Week 14 - Thursday, 9 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
seriously about whether we simply want to block this because we are unhappy with the government’s timing. Do we want to think about a bit of poor management of the legislative process or do we want to take a bigger picture approach and think about the merits of the legislation?
The Greens have also assessed the human rights implications as identified by the scrutiny report. Scrutiny raised questions about the strict liability offences for businesses and asked whether they are justified. Noting that the government’s human rights analysis in the explanatory statement is relatively brief compared to the same work done in Victoria, the Greens are satisfied that the strict liability offences in the commonwealth act are warranted. While we accept the reasoning provided by the government and agree that the public interest in protecting consumers does warrant the offences, we do support the scrutiny committee in saying that more information could have been included in the explanatory statement.
The third question we ask ourselves is: what impact does the bill have on the sovereignty of the ACT Legislative Assembly? This has come up as somewhat of a significant issue in the discussion. Proposed section 8 of the ACT’s Fair Trading (Australian Consumer Law) Act will allow an ACT regulation to disallow any future changes that the commonwealth makes to the Australian Consumer Law. It gives a two-month window in which the ACT must make the regulation, otherwise the commonwealth changes are locked in. This two-month window is enough time for the government to act and make a regulation. This is because they can make a regulation at any time they wish, regardless of whether the Assembly is sitting.
Of course, the situation for private members is different. Should the Greens or the Liberals or any other private members in the future wish to exercise their ability to disallow a change made by the commonwealth, they may miss the window because the Assembly does not sit during that time. There have been instances of two-month recesses in the Assembly’s sitting schedule, and there may again be in the future. I note, having just passed the new sitting calendar for next year, for example, it will be more than two months until the Assembly sits again from today.
At the heart of this issue is whether private members should be given the same opportunity as the executive government to raise a debate about whether a commonwealth law should be adopted in the ACT. The Greens’ position is that it is the proper role of the Assembly as a whole to pass, amend or disallow laws for the ACT. To ensure this is the case, we propose a simple amendment to expand the window for acting from two months to three months. I will be moving that amendment later in this discussion. If passed, this amendment will ensure private members of this Assembly and future assemblies are able to do their job and debate and scrutinise legislation that applies in the ACT.
The final issue we considered was this: on a local level in the ACT, how will business and consumers be told about the new consumer protection regime to commence on 1 January next year? Is a good process in place to communicate and educate the reforms? My office was pleased to hear from ORS staff during a briefing on their plans for communication. ORS plan to visit shopping centres around the ACT, shop by shop, and tell businesses about the changes. This certainly sounds like a big job. I wish the ORS staff well in their efforts to fulfil that, but I am pleased to hear of their plans. I am satisfied that the plans are ready to be rolled out.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video