Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

FAIR TRADING (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 2003 (No. 104)

Second Reading

[11.46 a.m.]

Mrs JACKSON (Denison - Minister for Justice and Industrial Relations - 2R) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

Mr Speaker, Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading administer more than 40 statutes dealing with consumer protection and fair trading matters. The agency has identified four areas where consumer protection, and enforcement, could be improved.

Statutes administered by the agency contain a variety of offences with various limitations on the time that a prosecution can occur after commission of the alleged offence. Most offences have a very short limitation period. The majority are governed by the Justices Act 1959. It limits the period during which prosecutions can take place to six months from the time of commission of the offence. This creates difficulty when more than six months elapses before the office becomes aware of a problem. This most often occurs with odometer wind-backs in motor vehicles but can occur in relation to any consumer complaint.

Presently, the limitation of time for prosecutions in Tasmanian is significantly out of step with the rest of the country. For example, offences against most provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1975 can be prosecuted from three to six years after the event. In Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia the limitation is three years. In South Australia prosecutions must commence within two years but the time may be extended to five years with the permission of the minister. Individuals may pursue civil claims in all jurisdictions up to six years after the event.

This bill facilitates prosecution of offences by extending the time within which prosecutions may be brought to three years from the commission of the offence. The bill also requires that any prosecution may not commence if more than six months has passed since the matter came to the attention of the director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading. This provision requires consequential amendment to a number of statutes that are administered by the agency.

The Fair Trading Act 1990 prohibits pyramid selling. However, prosecution of pyramid-selling schemes is hindered because of a drafting error in the way the schemes are defined. To fall within the definition, pyramid-selling schemes must include the provision of goods and services. Schemes generally do not provide both. The definition should refer to the provision of goods or services.

The Fair Trading Act provides a statutory right for consumers to sue for misleading or deceptive conduct but does not impose a statutory penalty. Government is therefore unable to intervene to prevent business engaging in misleading or deceptive behaviour. Where consumers experience a detriment as a result of such behaviour their only redress is to sue for compensation in a court. It is preferable that the Government have the capacity to intervene to prevent misleading or deceptive conduct should it occur. The bill also adds a statutory penalty to the existing provision to enable government to prosecute for misleading or deceptive conduct. Similarly a consumer may sue a business for unconscionable conduct, but no statutory penalty presently exists. The bill adds a statutory penalty to the existing provision to enable government to prosecute for unconscionable conduct towards a consumer.

I commend the bill to the House.

[11.50 a.m.]

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN (Denison) - Mr Speaker, the Attorney will be pleased to hear that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition will support the legislation. It is very late in the day and once again, under this arrogant Lennon Labor Government and its predecessor, Tasmania is coming in last in the race.

Mrs Jackson - Yes, because the TCCI would not agree with it for months.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - We know you are not very well this morning but I thought you would be pleased to hear we are supporting the legislation, but not without some criticism. I am getting sick and tired of Tasmania coming in last in Australia under the administration of this Attorney-General and this Government. And in this matter, I would like to suggest to you, we have had no explanation at all as to why this bill was not dealt with when it was introduced in 2003, nor have we had information in the Parliament today as to how many cases have escaped prosecution because the statute of limitations has expired. Now, do not tell me the Attorney does not know; there will be on record within areas under her direct ministerial control a list of cases where, notwithstanding the extremely hard work of Mr Ormerod and his staff and other law enforcement officers, no prosecutions occurred because the time expired.

This State is a laughing stock in the rest of Australia in relation to the failed salmon importation prosecutions. We fought so strongly against the Federal Government decision to allow imports of Canadian salmon, yet ironically while there have been no Canadian imports of salmon there has been a flood from Norway, Chile and New Zealand. And this State, which is the home of the salmon industry in Australia - because with the exception of a small industry in South Australia, all salmon farming in Australia is right here in Tasmania - under this lazy, incompetent Government has allowed two breaches by major supermarket operators to go unprosecuted. I want to commend my colleague, the shadow minister for Primary Industries, Mr Jeremy Rockliff, for repeatedly bringing this scandal to the attention of the Parliament. Once again we have a situation where you can bet London to a brick that guilty parties have escaped prosecution here because this lazy, arrogant Government has failed to do anything about the legislation.

Look where we now lie in relation to the other States. In the State of South Australia, prosecutions may be brought up to five years after the commission of the offence - five years. Ministerial approval is simply required between three years and two years after the offence. In Commonwealth prosecutions, under the Commonwealth legislation, the Trade Practices Act 1975, prosecution can be brought up to six years after the event. What is the situation in all the other States? In Queensland, in our nearest neighbour Victoria, in New South Wales and Western Australia, the limitation period is three years. What is, on the Attorney-General's own admission, the situation in Tasmania? Most offences, she says, occur within a very short limitation period. What is the period in Tasmania? Six months! And what are the sorts of offences where she says they have discovered a problem? Winding back odometers. Doesn't the Attorney-General know that the Supreme Court of Tasmania, no less, has said that that offence is so serious that prison is the appropriate penalty? When a leading motor vehicle dealer in the north-west of Tasmania was convicted, he received a prison sentence. It is a very serious fraud. Somebody goes along, looks at a car, reads the odometer and says, 'This car has only done 100 000 kilometres', but in fact the car has done 350 000 kilometres; the odometer has been wound back. Well, the news for winders-back in Tasmania has been that as long as you are not picked up within six months, you get off scot-free.

Do not tell me that this slow-moving and, on this issue, utterly incompetent Attorney-General was not aware of problems in relation to prosecutions in this matter, when the serious ones are dealt with, no less, through the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If she cannot remember who that is, it is Mr Tim Ellis, SC, and he is the one who complained publicly last year, following a briefing to myself and to Mr McKim, that he had asked for $940 000 additional funding. When we raised it in the Parliament I was accused of lying and making up the figure, but unfortunately in the Estimates hearings the very figure was proved because the documents were produced.

The Attorney-General, who fought so hard for the position, now clings to it by the skin of her teeth. In response to her comment made earlier in the House today, I will be around long after she has gone, in exactly the same way that I have been around long after Mr Robert James Lee Hawke has gone. It was in the Marine Board building in Hobart in 1987, following a change of the boundaries of Denison, when Mr Robert James Lee Hawke confronted me and said, 'Ah, we've got you this time, Michael'. I said, 'You might well have, Bob; you'll win the battle but I'll win the war and I'll be around long after you're just a fading memory'.

Mrs Jackson - And who's going to be remembered and who's not? You'll be forgotten -

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - I will be around long after you have departed the scene, and I will have a little private bet with you now that you will not be Attorney-General and Minister for Justice at the end of this year. You are hanging on by the skin of your teeth, as you well know.

Mrs Jackson - You said that last year.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - We know you are not well this morning, but if you keep bringing legislation like this into the Parliament you are going to cop it. In another piece of legislation that you are shortly going bring before the Parliament you are actually defying what you have agreed to as a member of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Whatever view one takes of the Legal Profession Act, you are right out of line with what the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has decided in relation to model rules for professional conduct.

Mrs Jackson - They have not decided on the model rules. You're wrong.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - We will be dealing with it - whether people agree or disagree with you, you are out of step. You are known on the mainland in some circles as out-of-step Jackson, and here we are again, Tasmania coming in last. Under Judy Jackson, Tasmania comes in last. As I said, we support the legislation, but it is long overdue and we call upon the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to explain why on earth it has taken her so long to get around to doing something about this. We remind her that she has been Her Majesty's Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania since August of 2002, coming on to two years. She did not get around to bringing the bill into the Parliament until 2003 and we are one-third of the way through 2004 before we get the opportunity to debate it. In relation to the limitation period, I have to say that once again the Attorney-General in her second reading speech has failed to clearly articulate a very important part of the legislation. Whilst we are supporting the extension of time to three years from the commission of the offence, we think it appropriate to say to business and commerce in the Tasmanian community, 'You ought to realise that this Opposition does not, and in government it will not, readily move to extend times for prosecutions unless there is a very good reason'. We believe there is a good reason, so business and commerce and industry in Tasmania is now warned that the prosecution period has been extended to three years. But then the Attorney, in classic Sir Humphrey language, says:

'The bill also requires that any prosecution may not commence if more than six months have passed since the matter came to the attention of the Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading.'

What does that mean, Attorney?

Mrs Jackson - Don't you understand?

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - You look at the schedule and it does not help you because it says 'six months from the time when the matter of complaint came to the attention of the Director'. Are you seriously saying that you mean the director personally - in which case you are going to drive the hardworking Mr Ormerod into a situation where he will be driven underground - or do you mean when the complaint is given to a member of the staff of his office? Do you mean a written complaint? Do you mean a verbal complaint? It is a pretty significant point. I accept that you have never actually practised law in the private sector, but a first-year law student who is given instructions to defend would say, 'I wonder if this prosecution is being commenced within six months from the time when the matter of complaint came to the attention of the director?' When does it come to the attention of the director - if somebody says, 'I put it on his desk' or, 'I e-mailed him'? What if the director was not there?

This is a classic example of sloppily prepared legislation for which you must accept responsibility. It is a bizarre provision and, funnily enough, it does not appear in any other legislation in the Commonwealth of Australia that I have been able to find. If you can tell me I am wrong on that, Attorney, with your limited knowledge of practical law, please tell the Parliament. I think this is a badly drafted provision through which a first-year lawyer could drive a truck. How is the prosecution going to answer it? Are they going to make Mr Ormerod keep a personal diary where he records to the day, the hour and the minute when it was first drawn to his attention? What do you do in a situation where Mr Ormerod and his hardworking staff - grossly overworked, grossly under-resourced as you well know - might well have had documents put on his desk but he is in the middle of another major matter and does not get the chance to even look at them for seven or eight days? Does he have to record, 'Arrived on my desk on 2 April but I wasn't able to even look at it until 9 April'? Why did you put this provision in, unless you want to give a free kick to unscrupulous operators who will say, 'We have a good defence. We know that Mr Roy Ormerod and his staff are grossly over worked We will just drop it in one Friday afternoon, leave it at the front desk at about 5 o'clock and we will make a note of the time.' Do you expect the staff to record the time it was received at the office of the director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading, the time they then handed to M r Ormerod's secretary, the time that Mr Ormerod's secretary handed it to the director, and the precise time that the director was able to look at it?

I am sorry if I am criticising the draftsperson; I am criticising the Attorney. This is the fluffiest bunch of words I have struck for many years. It is six months from the time when the matter of complaint came to the attention of the director. What does that mean? He is told about a complaint about the 'XYZ' motor firm: is that when the clock starts ticking or is it when he receives 50 pages of statements from witnesses who say they purchased vehicles from XYZ and have since been told by a disgruntled former employee of that firm that it was common practice to wind back the odometers?

It is not as though this is a problem that has just arisen in the last week. You have been Her Majesty's Attorney-General for Tasmania since August 2002. Most of the time limits referred to in your second reading speech were in force before you became Attorney-General. The Commonwealth Trade Practices Act was brought into law in Australia by the Government of the Honourable Edward Gough Whitlam QC, Labor Prime Minister of Australia, so the time limit of up to six years has been about since 1975 for Commonwealth prosecutions. I quote the precise words -

'that it has been a three-year limitation period in every other State in Australia for a considerable period of time and that in South Australia the period of time can be extended to five years simply on the say so of the minister'.

So in your conclusion of the debate will you tell the Parliament, and through the Parliament the people of Tasmania, Attorney, when you first became aware of the problem, what action you then took and why it has taken you so long to bring it to the Parliament?

Mrs Jackson - I will welcome that.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - You will?

Mrs Jackson - And you will have egg all over your face.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - I will be delighted to hear that if is like your threat earlier today. The media were very amused by it and you will probably get some questions. I get up in the House and ask a question quoting allegations in the Hayes Prison Farm final report which was completed by the Attorney-General in May last year. When she was shown it at a media conference she said, 'I have never seen this before'. When a journalist who had received a copy, because we had distributed it, asked her about Mr Charles McAuliffe and his colleague who assisted in the preparation of the report, Mr Steve Grimsey, she said, 'Who are these people. I do not know them.' They only happen to be two very senior officers under her ministerial control.

There you are; I get up and refer to the allegations and I am told I have made it up. I have not made up any allegations. I have not in fact referred to any allegations. I simply asked her a question if anybody has been suspended, reprimanded, stood down or prosecuted and you get this tirade of abuse for that. Well, the media are going to have a bit of a field day with you on that one, Attorney. She will probably say, 'I made it all up about the time for prosecutions' and I am going to finish with egg on my face.

Mrs Jackson - We'll find out, won't we.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - Your venom for me is reaching almost paranoid proportions when all I am doing is reading from your own second reading speech and asking you why it has taken you so long to do something about it.

Finally, in relation to the Fair Trading Act 1990, which prohibits pyramid selling. I do not think you understood, with respect, the importance of this amendment. The amendment which you are bringing into the Parliament is to make it quite clear that prosecutions will lie either in the case of the provision of goods or in the case of the provision of services. I do not think you had even noticed that there are italics in your second reading speech which meant you were to emphasise the word 'and' and the word 'or'.

The next point is this. We do not at the moment have any explanation from this slow-moving Government and this slow-moving Attorney-General - moving, frankly, at the speed of a comatose snail - why this one has taken so long to come before the Parliament. Last, but not least, the Fair Trading Act, which she has been in charge of since 2002, whilst everybody knows it provides a statutory right for consumers to sue for misleading or deceptive conduct - that means they can sue and recover damages - it did not impose a statutory penalty. Consequently, the Government of the day, which is her, was unable to intervene to prevent business engaging in misleading or deceptive behaviour.

So what happened? Somebody becomes a victim of misleading and deceptive behaviour and loses a lot of money, so the Government says, 'We're awfully sorry; we can't impose or get a court to impose a statutory penalty but you can go along and sue and if you win you will be able to get damages.' 'Ah', says the person, 'that's good. I can go to the court and sue. Will you give me legal aid?'. 'No, we're very sorry, we don't in this State give legal aid for civil matters involving commercial claims. So bad luck.' 'But I would still like to sue.' 'You can, but you know what will happen if you lose; you will be ordered to pay the costs.' 'But I haven't the money to pay the costs.' 'No, but you have a little house in West Moonah and that can be taken possession of and sold.'

Did the Attorney-General not know about this when she was appointed, and if she did why has she done nothing about it. Let me read her own words -

'Where consumers experience a detriment as a result of such behaviour their only redress is to sue for compensation in the court. It is preferable that government have the capacity to intervene to prevent misleading or deceptive conduct should it occur. The bill adds a statutory penalty to the existing provision to enable government to prosecute for misleading or deceptive conduct.'

Quite right, Attorney, but why is it now coming so late? Why?

Finally, she said to the House -

'Similarly a consumer may sue a business for unconscionable conduct' -

Can one get legal aid for that? No, not one cent -

'but no statutory penalty presently exists. The bill adds a statutory penalty to the existing provision to enable Government to prosecute for unconscionable conduct towards a consumer.'

So this lazy, sleepy, arrogant Government has allowed a situation to develop for the two years that she has been Her Majesty's Attorney-General of this State where the Government sat on its hands and did nothing to amend legislation to enable it to intervene in cases of misleading and deceptive behaviour and unconscionable conduct.

Quorum formed.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - As I was saying, this lazy, sleepy, incompetent, arrogant Government, spearheaded by its Attorney-General, has sat on its hands for the two years that she has had the big white ministerial Attorney-General's car and the salary of the Attorney-General, the chief law officer of the State of Tasmania, and they have done nothing about taking statutory action to enable this Government to take action against businesses which engage in misleading or deceptive behaviour, or unconscionable conduct.

That is nothing short of an absolute disgrace, and we will wait with interest for the attack which will come when the Attorney closes the debate, because she will say I have made it all up. If she says that or that I am telling lies again, the interesting thing is that I based my entire speech on her second reading speech, plus the fact that I made inquiries to find out about the other States. I must say the Attorney will have to have a very good explanation as to why she has been so slow if the business community and the consumer community of Tasmania are not to say she was derelict in her duty and the Government was arrogant and slothful in the extreme. They are to be condemned for that.

[12.17 p.m.]

Mr McKIM (Franklin) - Mr Deputy Speaker, the Greens will be supporting this bill. Members will be aware that the Greens have often gone into bat for the rights of consumers, not only in Tasmania but in fact right around the world. Members who follow international politics would know that perhaps the most famous consumer advocate in the world, Ralph Nader, who -

Mrs Jackson - Ralph Nader!

Mr McKIM - Just to follow on from what the Attorney was about to interject, he did run for the Greens as our presidential candidate in the States last time, but he is not running for the Greens this time.

Mr Michael Hodgman - He got George Bush elected.

Mrs Jackson - But he's still running.

Mr McKIM - Well, he is, but the Greens did not nominate him.

Mr Michael Hodgman - But they're going to support him again.

Mr McKIM - No, no. The Greens have not made any commitment to do that.

Mr Llewellyn - He's a spoiler and he's going to put the US through further agony..

Mr McKIM - We live in a democracy and Mr Nader is entitled to nominate himself -

Mr Michael Hodgman - You got George Bush elected and you're going to do it again. You're going to get him re-elected.

Mr McKIM - for president in a democracy, and he has taken that chance.

Mrs Jackson - Do you support George Bush? Do you? Come on!

Mr Llewellyn - He won't say.

Mr McKIM - Just for the purposes of Hansard , could I say that the Attorney is actually directing that question to the member for Denison, Mr Hodgman, not to me.

Mr Michael Hodgman - Are you talking to me?

Mrs Jackson - Yes, and he won't answer.

Mr McKIM - We have been slightly sidetracked by international affairs, but it is good to know that there are some well read and knowledgeable people sitting in Tasmania's Parliament. Mr Nader was a tireless consumer advocate and the Greens do have a close association with consumer advocacy right around the world.

In relation to the bill we are debating today, there are a couple of matters that I would like to raise and the Attorney might be able to answer them in her response to the second reading, or we could deal with them in more detail in committee, if that is required.

The main question I have relates to something which is in the clause notes and the bill but I do not think was alluded to in the Attorney's second reading speech. It concerns the penalties in relation to unconscionable conduct towards a consumer, being a fine not exceeding $100 000 in the case of a corporation. I would like to point out to members that some corporations that act or sell goods and services to consumers in Tasmania would regard $100 000 in the same way that I regard 20 cents for the parking meter - when I remember to do that. So $100 000 is basically pocket money to a big corporation. I would like an explanation as to why there is not another zero on that sum in order to provide a serious disincentive to large corporations. I am aware that to some smaller corporations $100 000 is a serious impost and may well act as a substantial deterrent to engage in unconscionable conduct towards a consumer. But it really seems to me that large publicly listed multinational corporations who sell goods or services to consumers in Tasmania would not be put off at all by a potential fine. In fact, without stretching the imagination too far, I can conceive of a circumstance where they might profit by more than $100 000 through engaging in unconscionable conduct, if they got away with it for long enough, if all we can do is slap them on the wrist for $100 000. I think there is a fair argument that it should be a bit more than that. Moreover, without stretching my imagination too far, I could come up with a scenario whereby a person could profit by more than $20 000 by engaging in unconscionable conduct towards a consumer and yet we are proposing in here to allow them to be fined only $20 000. I will be indebted to the Attorney if she could perhaps inform me a bit further in relation to those maximum sums.

The other matters which are dealt with in the bill appear to be sensible measures. The lengthening of the limitation of time for prosecutions in Tasmania is clearly a sensible measure. It does offer a greater degree of protection to consumers than is afforded them under current legislation. I accept the point made by the member for Denison, Mr Hodgman, who said that we have lagged behind the other States in relation to extending the limitation of time for prosecutions in Tasmania. As the Attorney has acknowledged in her second reading speech, all other States in Australia have a limitation longer than that which currently exists in this State - three years in the case of Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia and two years in South Australia.

The bill also seeks to clarify the matter of the prosecution of pyramid-selling schemes in this State. The Attorney makes a very valid point, I think, in her second reading speech that such schemes generally do not provide both goods and services and the definition should be the provision of goods or services. The matter of statutory penalties is also, we believe, a sensible provision. It allows the Government to have the capacity to intervene to prevent misleading or deceptive conduct and that is clearly something that ought to be the case.

Mr Speaker, with those comments and with the proviso that the Attorney can satisfactorily explain the issue of fines, the Greens will support the bill.

[12.25 p.m.]

Mrs JACKSON (Denison - Minister for Justice and Industrial Relations) - I thank the members opposite for their support of this legislation. I am probably wasting my breath, but I have had to sit here for some time and listen to the member opposite, the member for Denison, vilify me every time he has the opportunity to stand up in this place. Every time, he goes through my employment history or my lack of understanding of the law and all the other things that he repeats time after time. I suggest he should perhaps read Hansard today and see what he says about me. I know he is only trying to rile me and that is fine. I am not riled but I think you are casting a huge aspersion on yourself. You do not look good when you do this. People in the gallery here, my advisers, every time they hear you carry on like this, say to me, 'Do not worry about it because it is he who looks foolish and is denigrating himself in the way he speaks'. So I will just give you a little bit of advice that it is not doing you any good at all. I do not know whether you realise you are doing it. But every time you stand up in this House to speak on a bill that I am taking through you go through exactly the same speech. Whether or not you want to change that is up to you. I do not have respect for you. I suggest that you go and read Hansard and think whether that is really what you want to say every time about me because, as I say, it does not do anything for you. It does not worry me. I am the Attorney-General. I know that is what you want to be and I understand it is a great sadness for you that you have been in politics for 40 years and not achieved your ambition. But we do not all achieve our ambitions.

Mr Michael Hodgman - I was a Federal minister; you will never be that.

Mrs JACKSON - But the fact is I am the Attorney-General. If you want to denigrate that position and me, that is fine.

Quorum formed.

Mrs JACKSON - As I was saying, I was just trying to give some advice. It is unsolicited advice, I accept, but I am just trying to be helpful. The member opposite might like to stop this tactic. It does seem that he does not remember what he said the last time because he repeats it each and every time. It does not, I believe, do him any good and certainly does not give a very good impression of his role in this Parliament. As I say, I am sorry that you will never be Attorney-General because I know that is something you really wished to be. I am the Attorney-General and I know that upsets you but these things happen. It does upset you and it comes through every time you open your mouth and speak to me. You are so jealous that you really cannot contain yourself.

Mr Michael Hodgman - You're not very well this morning. I think somebody has put something in your water.

Mrs JACKSON - I would like you to retract that because, again, this is trying to disparage me. I am perfectly well. In fact my health is absolutely A1 and it is every day, unlike yours where you unfortunately have emphysema and find it very difficult to stay awake in this House. I have neither of those conditions and my health is very good and I am very fit. I go for a beautiful walk along Nutgrove Beach and I would recommend it to anybody; it is a great way to start the day.

I would just like to address the issue of how long this bill has taken to get to this House and why it is delayed and why in this case we are the last in Australia, but I also refute what the member opposite, Mr Hodgman, says. On many things we are leading the world and Australia. In fact, I had a very nice letter from Mavis Fagan the other day, a person I respect very much, and Roy Fagan was probably one of the greatest Attorneys-General Tasmania has ever had. On the recent death of my mother she sent me a beautiful letter. It touched me very much and I suppose this means a lot more to me than what you say, Mr Hodgman. She said that Roy would be very proud that Tasmania is now leading the western world with the Relationships Bill and how, if he had been here - and it is a pity that he is not - he would have been proud to see that. It is just not true that we are not ahead of other people in the area of law reform.

Mr Roy Ormerod does a fantastic job and I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that he does not have enough resources - most people do not in government. Despite that, he and his office do a fantastic job and are very committed to what they are doing. He has been trying, to my knowledge for nearly a year if not longer, to convince the TCCI, and Mr Damon Thomas in particular, that this legislation should be introduced, and they have resisted this continually. We have tried to get their agreement because obviously that makes it more likely that it will pass the upper House because, as we know, the TCCI do have influence in the upper House. We have seen over many years that legislation does not get support in the upper House if the TCCI oppose it, therefore Mr Omerod thought it was important to try to get their support.

He enlisted some people like Graeme Samuel to try to encourage the TCCI to recognise that this was, as you quite correctly say, very fair legislation, only doing what other States have done for some time. It is not going to change and destroy business in Tasmania. So, Mr Hodgman, I suggest that if you have a problem with why this bill has taken so long to get here, you go and get on the phone now to Mr Thomas and tell him that you think he has been remiss in holding up this legislation for so long.

I am very pleased to announce to the House today that they have now come on board. We were going to bring this legislation in anyway; it has been listed but in the last few weeks they have come on board and we appreciate that. That is why I said, Mr Hodgman, that you will have egg on your face because the TCCI are your constituents, not ours, and if you had spoken to them you would have realised why this bill has been delayed. As I say, I am very sorry it has been delayed but we were trying to negotiate this position with the TCCI. Therefore, perhaps if you go and talk with your constituents you will find out a little bit more about the background to some of this legislation.

Regarding the issue raised by Mr McKim about the fine, my advice is that this is consistent with the other fines in this legislation. If it were a corporation and it was a complaint of a more serious and complex nature, of course it would be prosecuted by ASIC under Commonwealth legislation. We are reviewing this whole act and fines will be one of the areas across the whole act that we will be reviewing. But because this is fitting into an existing act we did not want to have an amount that was out of kilter with other penalties in this act.

Mr McKim - Can I ask, just by interjection, Attorney, what the time lines might be for the review of the whole act?

Mrs JACKSON - We do not know. As soon as possible and as resources allow. There is an ongoing program. As I said in that speech, there are 40 pieces of consumer affairs legislation. As I have been in Parliament over the years I have watched with fascination how there always seems to be a piece of legislation before the House. I believe if you were to go back over the notice papers of the last 10 or 15 years you would always find at least one piece of consumer affairs legislation. I always thought, before I had this job of course, that there is something wrong with them; why do they keep having to change their legislation all the time? Why can't they get it right the first time? That was just my uninformed reaction. But having now been in this job for a few years I realise that it is because it is law that is being updated all the time, either through national bodies with uniform legislation - there is a lot of consumer law that is now uniform and they have templates. Queensland is responsible for a lot of that . It really is very much a developing area of the law and it is improving consumers' rights all the time. So it is fantastic. So now I fully support and understand why there is always a piece of consumer legislation before the Parliament. It is certainly not because they did not get it right. It is because it is a continually improving area of law for consumers and that is how it should be and I would always support that. I know the Office of Consumer Affairs do too.

Of course, they are at the coalface of this and every day they get the complaints that people make to them. I will just read out here, for example, a case study that the office has put together; it was doing this and keeping this record to try to convince people like the TCCI that this legislation was necessary. It was putting these case studies together to try to illustrate that there was a problem here in Tasmania -.

'For example, a consumer purchased a car from a motor trader. He was influenced in his purchase by the relatively low odometer reading. He had no reason to believe that the reading was not genuine. The sales person also used the low kilometreage as an important selling point. After having the vehicle for 12 months the consumer noticed a number of mechanical problems, unusual for a vehicle with such a low number of kilometres. After carrying out some investigations he discovered that the odometer had been wound back. The vehicle had in fact travelled twice the distance that the reading indicated. The consumer complained to the Office of Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading and they could not help because the alleged offence was more than six months old. The dealer had effectively escaped prosecution for a serious offence. His action damages the image of the motor vehicle industry.'

That was the method or the argument that the department and Roy Ormerod made to TCCI, that this sort of behaviour is impinging on and affecting the image of the industry and therefore they should be supporting it. As I said, I am very pleased that after many months - over a year - of negotiation they have agreed with this legislation, which of course will make sure, I hope, that it will now pass the upper House. I might say here, that has been one area where consumer legislation has often come to grief if you look back on the history of Parliament in the last 20 to 25 years; consumer legislation has been often resisted in the upper House and not passed. So it has not been because of Governments in the lower House but because of reactions in the upper House. It has been one of those areas in which some conservative people have been slow to agree and see the benefits.

Another case study shows a retired couple who purchased a unit in a retirement village, and that is very topical today. A key service that attracted the couple to the village was removed by the owners some 18 months later. The couple were upset and wanted to be released from the contract. They engaged a solicitor to negotiate with the owners and after 12 months of unsuccessful negotiations the couple came to Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading. They could not help them because the offence was stale even though there was strong evidence to suggest that the operator had engaged in misleading conduct. The alleged offence occurred more six months prior to the complaint coming to this office. The couple may have a civil remedy for breach of contract but they decided that the financial and emotional cost of such an action was too great for them.

In other words, there was still an action there but because of the limitations of the bill the department could not take that action on their behalf. The operators escaped litigation and the couple, together with many others in the complex, have to accept what was done to them.

I have some other case studies here but that gives you an example. It is not intentional; it is not people themselves who are delaying. Many things can occur: a complaint might not be made; there is no realisation that they need to make a complaint; perhaps there are negotiations or perhaps the situations do not reveal themselves for some time.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased that we are accepting this legislation. I suggest you urge all the people whom you know in the upper House to also support it otherwise it will not pass through this Parliament and it will not protect consumers in the way that I totally support them being protected.

Bill read the second time.