STATUTES AMENDMENT AND REPEAL (AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 September 2010.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:29): The Greens rise to indicate support—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: One Green rises to indicate unanimous support for the intent of this bill. We think it is incredibly important that adequate protections are afforded to consumers. Consumers can be vulnerable to exploitation because of unfair contract terms, misleading or deceptive conduct, and unsolicited sales.

We all have stories of elderly relatives or friends who have been hard sold on a cold call, who feel they do not have the right to get out of that contract or feel that they simply wanted to talk to the person trying to sell them the life insurance or the bottles of wine every month in their mailbox simply because, in fact, they were looking for social contact. It is very important for those people to have recourse to get out of those sorts of contracts.

We need a really strong regulatory regime to secure product safety, as well. An incredible part of consumer protection will be this Australian Consumer Law. We welcome the fact that this bill is designed to harmonise consumer law in Australia. It is a challenging proposition to explain to anyone why we would have so many different state and territory laws on consumer protections when we are all equally consumers and, in fact, the organisations selling us their products certainly do not respect state boundaries.

I do hope that this will offer some improvements and I do understand, in fact, that one of the areas where this will give some guarantees where they are currently lacking is the area of lay-by. Members may be aware, if they took up the minister's offer of a briefing—and I thank the minister and her office for that briefing—that we do not currently have protections in terms of lay-by if we decide not to pursue the purchase of a product or goods.

Should we have put down $50 on a $60 item, we cannot necessarily get that $50 back if we change our mind. As we know, sometimes circumstances change for people and they cannot afford to continue with payments. It does seem fair that a small administration fee can be secured by the providing body but it seems unfair that a person could not necessarily get their money back when they are not receiving the goods.

I also acknowledge that this bill comes before us with extensive consultation federally. It is part of the commonwealth's Competition and Consumer Act 2010 which is the new name for the old Trade Practices Act, and around the country other state parliaments are also looking at very similar versions of the bill that we have before us. I would like to note that a very controversial area in which this bill give some guarantees is telemarketing and also, of course, door-to-door marketers.

It continues the protections that we enjoy there with time limits being set on when one can be contacted in the sanctity of one's own home with somebody trying to sell us the latest and greatest, best and brightest product that will change our lives and apparently make us happier people. Of course, we know that consumption will not make us happier. This bill will in fact probably make us happier because at least these people will not be able to hound us at all times of the day and night. There will be restrictions placed on that, and that is as it should be.

I welcome the government's pursuit of these standards across Australia at both state and federal level. I think consumers differentiate, depending on which state they live in and what standards they are entitled to. I am sure that the general punter would think that a law applying to somebody in New South Wales or Victoria in relation to their consumer rights is a law that would apply to us here in South Australia and, again, I think that is as it should be.

I note also that there are some protections in here extending to relatively high standards with contract law as well, Increasingly, we pursue items such as mobile phones, for example, and downloads. Young people, particularly, can be very vulnerable seeing those ads on TV that promise to tell them their true love's name should they text a certain number.

We do need protection from those companies that then unscrupulously charge that young person an exorbitant amount and basically exploit their youth and inexperience and also their hope for love. I find it comforting that we are moving forward with that.

The Greens would like to see the highest standards of consumer advocacy supported across the country, and I would pay particular tribute to the state of Victoria where there are several organisations and a great history of consumer advocacy and consumer law improvements. We look forward to the committee stage of this bill and hearing if there are any improvements to be made.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley.

At 15:35 the council adjourned until Tuesday 9 November 2010 at 14:15.