Trading Bill ‘vaguely worded’

Press, 26 February 1986, Page 8

Trading Bill ‘vaguely worded’

Wellington reporter The Fair Trading Bill was not needed and its penalty provisions could create a “tyranny” for honest traders, Parliament’s Commerce and Marketing Select Committee was told yesterday. The Retailers’ Federation argued in a submission that the bill was vaguely worded and could have serious consequences for honest traders. The federation’s executive director, Mr Barry Purdy, told the committee that the federation had’no evidence that there vgte-a

problem “of any consequence” relating to fair trading. Fair-trading legislation would create more problems than the “mischief it was trying to cure, Mr Purdy said. However, he said there was a need for legislation on product safety, which is part of the bill. “The fair-trading provisions represent vaguely worded dictates, the breach of which constitutes strict liability offences which have a very heavy penalty,” the federation’s submission said. It argued that if the legislation were to be-

come law, it should have a distinction in the penalties applicable to offences committed by honest traders and those with an “intention of unscrupulousness”. The submissions said it was “highly unlikely” that an honest trader could infringe the legislation, and if such a person were prosecuted a court could always impose a smaller penalty. “In the commercial world, the fact that a prosecution is initiated, let alone a conviction entered, could have serious consequences,” it said. )

The submission said that in view of the vagueness of offences defined in the bill it created "a tyranny of sorts” for traders. The bill provides for fines up to $lOO,OOO to be imposed on any company breaching the criminal offences of false and misleading conduct, unfair practices, and supplying goods which do not comply with a consumer information standard or the supply of which is prohibited under product safety provisions. The submission said the bill might be appropriate for "totally unscrupulous

traders who are intentionally duping the public,” but was inappropriate for “genuine but mistaken traders.” The federation argued that the bill should include a requirement that intention be proved before a trader could be convicted of a criminal offence, and objective criteria against which alleged misleading or- deceptive conduct could be measured. The submission said that provisions on misleading conduct in relation to employment should be deleted from the bill.