Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 15 August 1974
Page: 990


Senator GREENWOOD (Victoria) - The Opposition proposes an amendment to clause 84, namely, to leave out sub-clause ( 1 ). The sub-clause reads:

(1   ) Where, in a proceeding under this Part in respect of any conduct engaged in by a body corporate, being conduct in relation to which a provision of Part V applies, it is necessary to establish the intention of the body corporate, it is sufficient to show that a servant or agent of the body corporate by whom the conduct was engaged in had that intention.

My sense as I have read the sub-clause is that the amendment would have been a consequential amendment if Part V of the legislation had been omitted. In the circumstances which I earlier indicated, there is no point in moving the amendment. It was only when I stood to read the subclause and addressed myself to it that I appreciated that.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 85.

(   1 ) Subject to sub-section (2), in a prosecution under this Part in relation to a contravention of a provision of Part V, it is a defence if the defendant establishes-

(a)   that the contravention in respect of which the proceeding was instituted was due to a mistake, to reliance on information supplied by another person, to the act or default of another person, to an accident or to some other cause beyond his control; and

(   b ) that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the contravention.

(2)   If a defence provided by sub-section (1) involves an allegation that a contravention was due to reliance on information supplied by another person or to the act or default of another person, the defendant is not, without leave of the Court, entitled to rely on that defence unless he has not later than 7 days before the day on which the hearing of the proceeding commences, served on the person by whom the proceeding was instituted a notice in writing giving such information that would identify or assist in the identification of the other person as was then in his possession.

(3)   In the proceeding under this Part in relation to a contravention of a provision of Pan V committed by the publication of an advertisement, it is a defence if the defendant establishes that he is a person whose business it is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements and that he received the advertisement for publication in the ordinary course of business and did not know and had no reason to suspect that its publication would amount to a contravention of a provision of that Part.

(4)   In a proceeding under this Part in relation to a contravention of Part V committed by the supplying of goods that did not comply with a consumer product safety standard or in relation to which the supplier did not comply with a consumer product information standard, it is a defence if the defendant establishes-

(a)   that the goods were acquired by him for the purpose of re-supply and were so acquired from a person who carried on in Australia a business of supplying such goods otherwise than as the agent of a person outside Australia; and

(b)   that he did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained, that the goods did not comply with that standard or that he had not complied with that standard in relation to the goods, as the case may be, or he relied in good faith on a representation by the person from whom he acquired the goods that a consumer product safety standard or a consumer product information standard, as the case may be, had not been prescribed in respect of the goods.

(5)   A person is not, without leave of the Court, entitled to rely on the defence provided by sub-section (4) unless he has, not later than 7 days before the day on which the hearing of the proceeding commences, served on the person by whom the proceeding was instituted a notice in writing identifying the person from whom he acquired the goods.







Suggest corrections