A ABC article about the emergence of consumer laws and the push for selling of safe products…
4 Likes
Here is another sad case of product safety laws failing us. Even if Sea World is telling the truth that they don’t understand how the accident happened, a general safety provision might have encouraged them to proactively test the toys, or recall them as soon as this happened.
Therein lies a problem with our [lack of] safety laws. Should every business have the responsibility to test everything they sell or give away, or should there be a requirement that all products be tested by an independent laboratory and certified against a standard, and it be illegal with more serious penalties than normally handed out to sell anything not tested and labelled?
The content of standards and how tests are conducted could be arguable, but a process is long overdue. A grand daddy of the genre is the American (now global) Underwriters Laboratory that would serve as a decent example. Or Choice testing.
3 Likes
Not on the evidence available. We have no idea how this happened, the toy could be a disaster or blameless, we don’t know.
1 Like
Perhaps not the explicit play-by-play details, but
Unfortunately only the view of a relative of the family. Not an independent assessment of the toy or situation involved.
One will have to wait until investigations are completed by relevant authorities to determine the circumstances.
Seaworld has possibly taken a precautionary step to remove the toy from sale, pending results of investigations and in response to media enquires.
1 Like
While distraught parents might be less than unbiased and possibly not completely objective, they were there. Do they really need an independent assessor who was not there to inform them what they think they witnessed and ‘let us know’ if it was safe, a funeral notwithstanding?
1 Like
The quote was from a cousin, and it wasn’t stated if the cousin was present at the time. It could be the cousin was there, is a spokesperson for the family or a family relative willing to comment when approached by the media.
As outlined, it is best to wait for investigation outcomes rather than jumping to conclusions.
1 Like
I was a little tired when I posted that one. It is correct that the toy could be blameless. I just struggle to picture how a safe toy could result in a fatality so quickly.
1 Like
It looks like with the stiff pole and loose cord it may have acted as a noose, I sort of understood it may have been this?
As has been said we really need to await the investigation and probably the Coroner’s verdict before we can judge it properly. If we had a program of Safety Inspection before sale, this may have made all this unnecessary or at least made it clearer where fault lies.
3 Likes
That reminded of a skit in a Mad Magazine when I was a teenager regarding a person who refused to spend all day removing all the pins from a boxed shirt way back then before putting the shirt on.
It ended by the person thanking everyone for all the get well soon messages he had received at the hospital he ended up in.
The most recent effort of Choice for improving product safety,
Did you know that in many cases businesses aren’t legally required to ensure the products they sell in Australia are safe?
Australia’s lax product safety laws mean that there’s little to stop unsafe products ending up in our homes. It often takes something going terribly wrong, like someone being injured, for a product to be recalled. This is why we need laws that require businesses to proactively ensure that products are safe before selling them.
Similar safety laws are already in place in the EU, Canada and the UK, but Australia is lagging behind. If we can show that thousands of people support an end to dangerous products the government will know they have overwhelming public support to introduce strong new safety laws.
3 Likes
While I do understand that Australians must feel that the products they are buying have passed safety checks, I feel that putting the onus on businesses, many of them small businesses already struggling with inflation, increased wages and costs,plus never ending red tape, may not be the way to address this issue. Any new law should be for the manufacturers to comply with, having fines and even bans on products entering Australia that don’t meet safety standards, rather than adding further red tape to the end-sellers. If an Australian company is having products manufactured overseas using their own brand then it should be their responsibility to ensure safety checks are made before the products are on sold to retailers. But expecting smaller wholesalers or retailers to be responsible for the added cost of ensuring that products they sell are safe, seems unreasonable. Too many small businesses are already closing their doors due to the increasing anti-business attitude of the Government and Unions.
4 Likes
I fully agree as many business won’t have the ability to test or know that their products are safe. They will only know after a incident where there has been an injury or death - which is too late as the consumer becomes the ‘guinea pig’.
The onus should be placed on manufacturers or the importers of products. The onus should be on them so that they don’t produce/import unsafe goods. This would have a greater effect and encourage product change as they become responsible for non-compliance, and it will be in their interests in the longer term to comply with safe product requirements.
Possibly Choice should consider the wording of the campaign to ensure that the manufacturer/importer and not the retailer/seller (who isn’t also the manufacturer/importer) is responsible.
2 Likes
Seems to be suggesting a backward step similar to how warranties once were?
IE The seller/retailer had no responsibility, could make any number of doubtful representations about product performance, quality, and lifetime. Only to pass the buck when the product failed and say not our problem, see the manufacturer.
Fortunately we now have the Australian Consumer Law and consumers can hold the retailer responsible for delivering a suitable remedy.
Consumers know the ACL we have now provides far better outcomes by making the seller/retailer responsible. Why make it any more complicated when it comes to selling safe products? It’s the seller/retailers choice of which rabbit hole to go down when sourcing a product. It’s not a pathway accessible to the consumer/purchaser.
These days many if not most consumer products sold in Australia are manufactured outside our borders. The decisions on what to sell to consumers are ultimately those of our retailers. They make the calls to find the products, choose from the various importers or even go OS direct to a manufacturer. For many store brand name products this years product will not necessarily come from the same factory as last year.
If a product is unsafe the retailer owes a duty of care. There are many ways the seller/retailer can demonstrate a product is safe. They have the greatest control over who their suppliers are, and hold the contractual power to demand evidence of the tests, assessments and standards that ensure a safe product. If a seller/retailer fails to do so, how can they be excused from responsibility? It’s a very straight forward proposal Choice is asking consumers to support.
3 Likes
Getting overseas manufacturers to comply with a safety testing regime is not going to be done by simply asking them. Who will be the gatekeeper who checks goods at the boarder, how will testing be done and where, who will certify the testing has in fact be done properly? I can see the potential of a whole new bureaucracy being established. What will it cost and who will pay?
On the other hand a voluntary self operated control system will work as well as all the others we have that attempt to look like something useful is done.
I agree that doing nothing is not acceptable but nor is just calling out “aorta doosumfin”.
I would like to hear just how it will be done and what the consequences of that action will be. We are told countries overseas do this. Well how? Hopefully there is some efficient process that does the job and does not cause great delay or increased cost. I think the proponents with policy making skills, including Choice, should explain.
2 Likes
This call by Consumers International for a global approach to product safety gives the impression that there aren’t many (if any) countries that do this effectively. Or at least they aren’t holding any up as shining examples.
I think it makes sense to have a global approach to product safety, especially when so many manufacturers have been busily off-shoring production to places where costs are lower and standards are different (or may be non-existent).
Having an ISO international standard would mean national governments can require products to meet that standard, and importers and distributors can easily check whether an overseas-sourced product complies before they begin to import it.
As they can currently do with, say, electrical cabling.
3 Likes
As indicated, the onus is on the manufacturer and/or importer. This ensures those who import products are responsible for their safety.
It is worth noting that many Australian products are imported and many need to already meet Australia safety and design requirements. This is done by tools/methods Choice is proposing - that is to meet a minimum standard set by legislation. That being products are safe.
No is isn’t. It make those who produce (or import) unsafe products responsible for their safety. Pushing the onus on retailers won’t stop unsafe products injuring or killing consumers. It will be the case that:
Retailers don’t have the expertise, resources or capability to determine if products they sell are safe or not. Such only determined through rigorous testing or use. Post prototype use testing is widely done before products go into production. This use testing will pick up flaws in product design which can lead to safety issues.
One injury or death affects individuals and familes involved. Allowing consumers to become ‘guinea pigs’ is unacceptable as one injury/death is one too many. This is why manufacturers/imports need to be responsible for product safety. They are the ones who can prevent them being available to consumers.
1 Like
