-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Consumer Affairs
- Thread starter 1eyedtiger
- Start date
ssstone said:
Don't you just hate those stubbies that aren't a twist-top..... :hihi
Six Pack said:
Sixpack,
I think I have answered just about every question ever asked of me on this forum.
The links and quotes are just information to help people like yourself, who maybe can't grasp what I am getting at.....such as the link to the ACCC focussing on disadvantaged groups, and the responsibility the retailer has in dealing with these groups of consumers.
This link should answer all your questions about disadvantaed people purchasing goods/services.
As for abuse.... :rofl...please....I very rarely abuse any poster, and have never had to post under different names, unlike other posters we know.
How's that "monpoly" question going anyway?
Lucky I didn't say I was holding my breath for it.... :hihi
Six Pack said:
Jools said:
SixPack/Jools,
While hunting for the link for disadvantaged groups....I found this....might answer your questions about petrol-pricing:
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/280309
Six Pack said:
Whilst I rarely agree with Liverpool's right wing views I will defend him in that he does not attack the player he only ever goes only the ball (issue) on the PRE forums. I have had many a good discussion with Livers and it has become quite heated at times - but he has never attacked me (nor me him - with the exception when I call him a redneck and he calls me a chardonnay sipping lefy - which is more good fun that being malicious).
I enjoy his posts for the reason they question my beliefs which makes me think through those beliefs so I can be in a postion to apply the other side of his argument and in hope refute the foundations upon which his arguement is built. With Livers and me we both know we will never change each others fundamental philosophies - but that is the beauty of living in a democracy that provides (in part) for free speech.
As far as the topic of this forum is concerned the consumer has to take a large majority of his/her responsibilty when purchasing otherwise we would have vendor (thought) police making sure the vendor is not only ethically and legally doing right but also thinking right.
In Australia when mistakes occur it is time for the individual to accept his/her responsibilities and stop trying to blame others.
And there are enough laws to protect those who are disadvantaged.............RT
Six Pack said:
That's the world we live in - it was a lot worse when we were hunters and collectors - those that couldn't hunt or collect, starved........
barty boy said:
Protection or education?
Six Pack said:
OK - define a better way for commerce to happen - where people who have the willingness and cleverness to grow both themselves and the nation's economy are not dragged back to the lowest common denominator so everything becomes fair. I can imagine the bright entrepreneurs in Australia simply loving to work their 80hour weeks to be equal with those that can't help themselves.
Whatever society you reside in the rule of the jungle applies - the big and strong survive and grow - the small and weak simply exist - the beauty of the Australian society up until the last 11 years was that everybody had a chance to be educated and create a life for themselves - nowadays the basic foundations of that personal growth - education, health etc. are only available to those who can afford it.
I believe in an Australia where everybody who has the ability should be given the opportunity to use it and advance (currently not happening) and where those that have not got the ability through no fault of their own are looked after. But not - I repeat not looked after to the extent of bringing those that have the ability back to their level.
That's the Australia I grew up in - that's the Australia I want my kids to grow up in........
RemoteTiger said:
Thanks Remote.....I hope that doesn't mean you want to hug me now? :hihi
Yes, we've locked horns once or twice...and yes, we probably won't change each others line of thinking...but I think we respect each other as people all the same.
Six Pack said:
SixPack,
It's called business mate.
A retailer will try and make money for their business, and the consumer will normally shop around, bargain and barter, until they get the best deal for themselves.
As Remote said...there are laws/rules in place to protect such people, and as I have said numerous times already...if people don't fully understand what they are doing, and don't have a capacity to make an informed decision for themselves, then maybe they are the ones who shouldn't be making the decision in the first place.
barty boy said:
I agree....then they should go and seek that education before they purchase something.
Go and ask friends/family....shop around....jump on the net...compare models/prices in the jumk mail when it arrives in your post box.
There are many avenues already for consumers to educate themselves before walking into a shop to purchase something.
Protection?
We already have many rules and regulations, which businesses have to abide by...and their responsibilities towards the conumer:
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/3669
So really...i think as a society, people already have the means to be educated, and are already protected.....and if they still get duped, then really, they need to have a good look at themselves, before complaining about retailers, education, or protection.
Hi Livers
I agree with you that there are countless ways for the consumer to educate themselves,but I also think that many poor people ,immigrants etc dont have the means,understanding to do this themselves.
For example In Industry when machinary is put in its made "idiot proof" so as there is no/little possibility of an incident happening.I think we should strive for something similar in consumer protection.
I agree with you that there are countless ways for the consumer to educate themselves,but I also think that many poor people ,immigrants etc dont have the means,understanding to do this themselves.
For example In Industry when machinary is put in its made "idiot proof" so as there is no/little possibility of an incident happening.I think we should strive for something similar in consumer protection.
barty boy said:
G'day Barty,
Are you trying to tell me that poor people can't go to a local library where internet is free and look up something? Poor people don't have friends or family to ask for advice? Poor people don't get junk mail from various retailers so they can compare models or prices?
The same questions can be used for immigrants as well.
Sorry...but you are making up excuses and trying to lay the responsibility of people who make poor decisions at the feet of the retailer.
Let me ask you this Barty....what do you think should be different?
Example....a "poor immigrant" goes into Myer to buy a new TV......what should happen under you 'idiot proof' scheme to protect this consumer, that isn't aleady covered by the ACCC?
I would assume reputable retailers like Myers arent going to be selling "dodgy" wares.However i do think that if a not so learned person was to maybe frequent "phils electrical discounts "down the back of Brunswick street(not a real place) then I think the consumer needs to be protected from such people.How ?......I' ll leave that up to the lawyers
barty boy said:
Again...it is up to the consumer to find out as much as they can about what is the best place to buy a TV, which places are reputable, which places aren't reputable, etc.
Took me 2 seconds to find this site:
http://online.justice.vic.gov.au/cav/br-search-criteria?mode=bnextr
where I can find out about businesses.
And people can also go to:
http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au
As well as the ACCC, if they feel they are getting a raw deal.
As Remote said....its "buyer beware" and people need to take responsibility for their OWN actions.
Only thing against that Liv is a lot of products sold in Australia are not compliant with Australian Standards, and this is impossible for consumers to evaluate or know (standards are not strongly publicized outside specific industries, and to source the info for free you must know where to look in many cases).
This is a combination of open breaches (product being labelled as compliant and it not being so), ignorance by manufacturer and/or distributor, and finally the fact many standards are voluntary.
While some businesses I deal with want to maintain high standards for ethical reasons, for many others its a case of "how low can I go", and unless regulation is made mandatory they simply ignore Standards.
A good example is the recent Mattel recall. Its only now that lead content rules have been changed by the ACCC as a result of the publicity that a lot of companies are even bothering to check the lead content of their toys.
This is a combination of open breaches (product being labelled as compliant and it not being so), ignorance by manufacturer and/or distributor, and finally the fact many standards are voluntary.
While some businesses I deal with want to maintain high standards for ethical reasons, for many others its a case of "how low can I go", and unless regulation is made mandatory they simply ignore Standards.
A good example is the recent Mattel recall. Its only now that lead content rules have been changed by the ACCC as a result of the publicity that a lot of companies are even bothering to check the lead content of their toys.
good post tiger 74.I wasnt aware that the changes to lead content were only made as a result of the mattel situation.
Livers I understand about ,that its a case of buyer beware ,and for people like you me and tiger74 thats fine.More fool us if we dont take adequate precautions.But I just fear for those who arent computer savy or maybe lack the education to make informed decisions.We just cant let them fall by the wayside.
Livers I understand about ,that its a case of buyer beware ,and for people like you me and tiger74 thats fine.More fool us if we dont take adequate precautions.But I just fear for those who arent computer savy or maybe lack the education to make informed decisions.We just cant let them fall by the wayside.
Tiger74 said:
That's probably true Tiger74....and this affects ALL consumers.
However, what SixPack and Barty-Boy seem most concerned about is the protection of disadvantaged groups.
barty boy said:
As I have said ad-nauseum already....there are laws that the ACCC have that retailers should abide by when dealing with disadvantaged people.
In case you missed it already:
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/705064/fromItemId/3669
And also, as I have said ad-nauseum...if the people you are concerned about cannot make an informed decision without being stooged, then it isn't the retailer that we should be questioning, it should be the mindset of the consumer under review.
However, we have an option.
Instead of having the freedom to go to any retailer we choose, and using that freedom to get the best deal for ourselves....we could be more strictly regulated.
An example is when I was in Scandinavia, where you can't go to a Dan Murphy, or a Liquorland type bottle-shop to buy grog....you can only get 'heavy' grog from the government-owned bottle shops, which sell the same stuff, for the same price, everywhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget
That way, all consumers (including the disadvantaged) are protected from being stooged....would you prefer this type of system where part of YOUR freedom is sacrificed, and YOUR independence is taken away, to make the 'disadvantaged' of this world less likely to be duped?
Does the ethical responsibility that SixPack and Barty-Boy want retailers to adopt also apply to private sellers? How about a private sale of a car? Genuine one owner, little old lady driver, 5,000 kms in 12 years, never in an accident, etc. The buyer has even more chance of being screwed by a private vendor than a commercial vendor because of the absence of any warranty. So the onus must come back to the buyer. Which means that (to be fair) commercial vendors must have the same level of care extended to them as well. Or it's discrimination. Or just plain ant-business mentality.
