RETAIL TRADERS

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (15:44): I seek leave to make an explanation before asking the Minister for Consumer Affairs a question about retail traders.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: On 9 September this year, the minister issued a press release headed 'Stores caught misleading shoppers during mid-year sales'. This press release was issued some 53 weeks after a similar release in 2008. This particular release quoted the minister as saying:

Some traders clearly did not understand their legal responsibilities when it came to fair trading. Just because items are on sale it doesn't mean that stores can become lax about providing correct information to customers.

The minister claimed that retailers were displaying incorrect refund signs, with statements such as 'No exchange on promotional or end of season stock items'.

Members and consumers are aware that some traders do allow customers to return goods, especially clothes, either in exchange for a different size, or to return for a credit or a refund if the consumer has changed his or her mind. However, there is no obligation to exchange, repair or replace goods which are not defective and, if traders do provide cash exchanges and returns, that is not a legal obligation in all circumstances.

Members and traders are also aware that traders are bound to honour statutory warranties that goods are fit for purpose and are of merchantable quality. My questions are:

1. Will the minister acknowledge that she engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by issuing a statement saying that it was unlawful for a retailer to display a sign 'No exchange on promotional or end of season stock items'?

2. What steps will the minister take to ensure that traders and consumers are provided with accurate information about their rights and responsibilities?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (15:47): Indeed, the matters to which the honourable member is referring are the statutory warranties that apply to all goods and services that ensure that goods and services are fit for the purpose intended. Obviously, as long as they are used in the way that they are intended to be used and not abused in any way and if the warranty is breached, that is, the item is defective in some way, whether or not it is a sale item, the consumer does have the right to redress, and the right of redress entails a right—

The Hon. R.D. Lawson: Not in all cases.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: If the item is faulty and it breaches its statutory warranty; that is, it is fit for purpose and the item is not fit for purpose. Obviously, we are not talking about exchanges because a person gets the item home and does not like it or the person returns it because their partner or child does not like it. The statutory warranty does not apply to that. However, to put up a single sign saying that no refunds or returns are available without qualifying that there is a statutory warranty provision that no-one can remove is incorrect. The sign is incorrect because, if the item is not fit for purpose, the person is entitled to redress, and the redress can take the form of a refund, repair or replacement, and that is required under the law.

Therefore, a sign that does attempt to remove the statutory warranty by stating that there is no provision for exchange or replacement is incorrect. Under the statutory warranty provisions a person, if the item is not fit for purpose and is faulty, is legally entitled to redress. No-one can take away that right. Whether or not it is a sale item, no-one can take away that right, so a sign that proposes that is unlawful.