Cosgrove Clayton: Consumer Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Consumer Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15176. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): As my colleague Carol Beaumont has said we will be supporting this legislation the Consumer Law Reform Bill. She touched on a very important point that was brought to the attention of the Commerce Committee which was that we can implement any sort of regulation or legislation that we like but if there is not a high degree of financial literacy or consumer literacy—in this case it goes hand in hand—and people are not aware of their rights and are not aware of the protections contained within this legislation then it does not provide much protection at all. So I would be interested to know from the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General whether there are plans afoot from the Government to provide an educative programme—not just a couple of slick pamphlets that we might dish out to those wonderful people at the citizens advice bureaux and budget advisory services or whatever and sort of contract it out to them but a concerted education programme to promote this legislation and the rights and the responsibilities contained within it.Consumer protection law is imperative if one wants to maintain the economic confidence of purchasers buyers and sellers alike and if consumers are to believe that when they are entering into contractual arrangements they are going to be treated in a just way and that those who may try to walk around those contractual arrangements will be dealt to. I note that there is an increase in the maximum penalties for breaches of the Fair Trading Act from $60000 to $200000 for individuals and from $200000 to $600000 for bodies corporate. I think that is a substantial amount of money and it brings penalties in to line with the nature of the offences.I would note with interest though the section of the commentary in respect of unconscionable conduct. I note that it says in the commentary that “Unconscionability applies where courts consider it unfair or inequitable (or ‘against good conscience’) to allow a party to enforce its contractual rights against another party who is detrimentally affected by an oppressive bargain.” I am sure that the Attorney-General whom we are lucky enough to have in the seat tonight and who is an eminent barrister solicitor or both—probably all of the above—could probably give us a dissertation for hours and I would actually be one who would appreciate that in terms of the detail in respect of this clause. Others in the Chamber may not appreciate it but I not being a lawyer would be gratified for his expertise—Hon Maryan Street: In Latin.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well no I was not in the top class at school so we did not get to do Latin. English would be preferable.I do note that even though the Australian cousins have similar provisions in place the select committee chose to wait until they had bedded in and until there was a substantial body of common law and precedent that we could learn from. But I would be interested actually in terms of the definition of unconscionable conduct. For instance we note that in this place the former Minister for Small Business the Hon John Archibald Banks is in some difficulty as we speak although we cannot go into the grave detail of that given the nature of the court proceedings that are yet to come to fruition. But I would be interested in the point of view of the Attorney-General who has been a lawyer in private practice and a senior partner as to whether that in itself given the nature of the oppressive contractual arrangements—a willing buyer and a willingseller money changing hands brown bags and other things—would fit within the definition of unconscionable conduct. It would be interesting to note and I am sure that the body politic in this place would be very very interested to know whether the conduct of the Hon John Archibald Banks who is guilty of one crime already in his political career convicted in a court of law and in some difficulty now would be considered unconscionable.I know that that is a legal term. As I say not being a lawyer myself I would be interested if the Attorney-General would turn his mind to it and dust off the precedent books. I am sure that he has represented and has either prosecuted or defended people in Mr Banks’ situation over the years or has provided learned legal advice. Perhaps he could shine some light for those in this Chamber and also for those consumers who are listening on whether if anybody else was to get into a similar set of difficulties that would be considered unconscionable conduct under the Act. We know of course that there was an exchange of money there was a willing buyer and a willing seller and there was a verbal contract I assume for services rendered—we presume or it will be proved—and I would like to know whether that would fall under the definition. It is a fair question I think. There are other precedents in this Chamber—not as colourful or as graphic as that of the Hon John Archibald Banks—where this definition may come into play.Moving on from that I would also note Ms Beaumont’s comments in terms of the time frame to implement this legislation. This legislation is at its essence about protecting consumer rights—basic folk who go out and purchase goods and services or enter into contracts and who in many cases are probably not aware that they are contracts as such. They are just as I say willing buyers and willing sellers—people getting on with their lives—and they are exposed from time to time to the reprehensible conduct of others.I would note for the record the time line. There is a bit of a pattern with this Minister of Consumer Affairs Mr Foss. It seems that he is unlike the Attorney-General who manages to punch through in rapid fire Treaty settlements and I compliment him on that. He has beaten me to it; he has complimented himself—he was nodding. I tried to get in quickly but he has beaten me to it. As I say in all seriousness—and it is not often that we compliment each other in this place—he does get through his legislation his Treaty settlements in rapid fire and in record time.That is in stark contrast to his colleague Mr Foss and I believe to his predecessor Mr Bridges who sort of began this tawdry pace way back in 2009. Then we had appropriately of course discussion papers in 2010. The bill was introduced on 20 April 2011 which was some time ago. The first reading was in 2012 and the time line went onward and onward and onward until we get to this point. In the dying days of this parliamentary year with 4 sitting days to go we are at the Committee stage of this bill and it has sort of been dragged along as if it has had an anchor attached to it. This is important legislation and that time line speaks a lot I think to the priorities or the lack of priorities of this Government. What is more important to the Government? Asset sales are very important to it and it has botched a few of those in the last few weeks but consumer protection law is not so important. This bill has been hanging around since 2009.I am advised that the Australians—my colleague will correct me if I am wrong—managed to get their consumer reform legislation through in pretty efficient time. I cannot blame the officials and I do not blame the officials for this because officials work to the time frames of Ministers. Ministers set the agenda Ministers say what is important to them and what they want officials to push through and officials—being the honourable folks they are—obey their Ministers. So it seems to us that even thoughthis legislation is very well intentioned—and we will support it because it is very very important—it would have been good to see this come through earlier given some of the other pieces of peripheral and minor legislation we have had to deal with under urgency at other times in this last parliamentary year so that we did not have to drag back to 2009 which is some years ago to actually transact this piece of legislation. It is very important.I had some experience as an Associate Minister of Justice in terms of consumer protection legislation with regard to the real estate industry. There were different sets of parameters but the principles were exactly the same. Those eminent men and women—most of them or 90 percent of them; there are about 10 percent who are sharks—had to change their whole industry. They were forced to do that by this Parliament. I believe that National voted against that legislation and said that it would repeal it but when it became the Government it did not do anything about it because it is a good piece of legislation. That has changed the nature of that industry and that has given protection to people who are engaged in possibly the biggest transaction of their lives—that is the purchase or sale of a property or of commercial premises.We got that legislation through actually in record time—within 12 months I think—because it was important and because there was a groundswell of support from people. The evidence came literally in bags into my office in terms of mail from people who felt they were being dealt to and were vulnerable. This legislation reflects the vulnerability of consumers—ordinary folk as I say; honest folk—who are just trying to transact their business to make purchases and to engage in services or purchase services and they deserve that protection.I end on this note. I would ask the Attorney-General whether he could ask his officials what the process post this legislation will be in terms of providing education to the public.