Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Australian Greens, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Trade Practices Amendment (Personal Injuries and Death) Bill 2004, because it deals with a very serious issue—namely, the right of those who have suffered injury or death caused by products made by companies or corporations to gain help, redress or compensation from the courts. These amendments reduce consumer rights under the Trade Practices Act.

At its core, with the exception of tobacco products, this bill prohibits people from being awarded payment of damages for death or injury under part V, division 1, of the Trade Practices Act as it currently stands. A glance at the act reveals that part V is headed ‘Consumer Protection’, whilst division 1 is titled ‘Unfair practices’. If this bill is implemented, people will not be able to take action if, for example, death or inquiry has resulted from misleading or deceptive conduct or false or misleading representation. Will companies be able to get away with misleading and deceptive conduct or false or misleading representation that causes death or injury, while people have no rights to take action? This bill strips these protections, which I believe were once one of the envies of the world, from the act and renders them useless. The Senate will be endorsing the removal of consumer protection and enshrining unfair practices. I believe this is unfair and disgraceful.

The Senate should query why tobacco products remain outside this amendment. I do not want you to think that we think that they should not be, but why not other products? Many other products will gain full statutory immunity. What about the many and various claims of new technologies—for example, genetically modified products, particularly in foods? We do not know at the moment what impacts these will have. We also do not know what claims will be made about these products. There are claims now about how much healthier we are all going to be.

Why is the government so concerned about tobacco products and not the raft of other dangerous products? I believe this is policy making on the run. This bill, as has already been highlighted, had its genesis in 2002 with the review of the law of negligence in Australia undertaken by a committee chaired by Justice David Ipp. The final report of the committee was presented in September 2002. The justice and his committee were forced to work with terms of reference that can only be described as narrow. For instance, they were asked to develop and evaluate:

... options for amendments to the Trade Practices Act to prevent individuals commencing actions in reliance on the Trade Practices Act, including actions for misleading and deceptive conduct, to recover compensation for personal injury and death.

This legislation is the result of a fundamentally predetermined report. The Greens are opposed to this bill because it makes it harder for plaintiffs or injured people to successfully sue corporations or companies when those very same corporations or companies caused injury or death.

While we agree that high insurance premiums are a problem for the community—and I have dealt with this on many occasions, having worked for a long time for non-government organisations—we do not believe that undermining consumer rights is the answer. In fact, this bill makes it easier for corporations to avoid liability. That is a very significant outcome of the legislation before us, and I believe it is patently wrong. What kind of message does this give to corporations which make faulty goods—life jackets that do not float, cars that explode, blenders that electrocute or drugs that deform? The message is that it does not matter if you use deceptive language or if a product has an adverse outcome for the community. We believe that this legislation should be opposed. We do not support the reduction of consumer rights. We believe that we should be protecting and improving consumer protection in this country. We agree with other senators who have spoken on this legislation. Previously we have opposed this legislation; we oppose it now.