The issues paper seeks evidence and views about whether consumer detriment is caused by the purchase and use of gift cards by Australian shoppers.

In releasing the paper, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, David Bradbury, said the gift card market is estimated to be worth around $1.5 billion.

“Gift cards are often subject to terms and conditions which consumers need to ensure they read and understand,” Mr Bradbury said.

“As gift cards have grown in popularity, fair trading regulators have received complaints from consumers about a range of issues related to the cards, including the application of expiry dates, restrictions on using gift cards for low-value purchases, and the rights of gift card holders in the event of a company becoming insolvent.

“This issues paper invites members of the community to come forward with their experiences of purchasing and using gift cards to help inform CCAAC’s inquiry.”

University of Southern Queensland law lecturer Nicky Jones argues it is unjust for retailers to accept consideration for gift vouchers and then refuse to deliver promised goods or services when the vouchers expire.

In her paper “Gift Vouchers and Expiry Dates: When the Gift Stops Giving” (Queensland University of Technology Law & Justice Journal 213), Dr Jones recommends amendments to Australian consumer laws to protect shoppers from losing the benefit of unused and expired gift vouchers.

“Currently, the retailer can rely on the gift voucher’s expiry date to avoid providing goods or services under the voucher. Indeed, retailers have a commercial interest in their gift vouchers expiring unused,” she writes.

The CCAAC issues paper says gift cards are a popular choice with consumers for a number of reasons.

“Gift cards offer ease and convenience in choosing a suitable gift, are easily posted or delivered and allow the recipient the freedom to choose a gift they want,” the paper says.

“Retailers are also attracted to gift cards because they increase sales, reduce the return of unwanted gifts, build store loyalty and result in incremental sales as consumers may spend more than the face value on the gift card.”

In discussing expiry dates, the paper points out that card issuers have accounting considerations, such as financial reporting and the treatment of lost cards.

In North America, most US states and Canadian provinces regulate gift cards in some fashion. That’s not the case in Australia.

Group-buying schemes

I welcome the review and hope there is more discussion than there has been so far before public consultation ends on March 2, 2012.

Perhaps the inquiry should have been extended to cover group-buying schemes like Living Social and Groupon. The difference, I suppose, is that people generally buy group discounts for themselves, whereas gift cards are for others.

The issue of redemption is common though. I have been caught several times with restaurant vouchers having expired.

In relation to gift cards, I believe they should be valid for at least five years. They are effectively cash and if I choose to give my son a $100 voucher he should be able to redeem it at any reasonable time in the future.

It isn’t reasonable if a card expires in less than 12 months. As Nicky Jones observed, the retailer then has a vested interest in cards going unused.

• Visit here for details about how to make a submission.
• Here is the issues paper.

However, my philosophical objections to capital punishment have receded as I get older. In some circumstances I believe it may be appropriate.

In February 2009, I wrote an article elsewhere about what should happen to arsonists who ignited the terrible Victorian bushfires. I said the time has come for the community and politicians to seriously consider reintroducing capital punishment.

The fact many of Victoria’s horrific fires were deliberately lit begged the question of a suitable penalty if the offenders were caught and convicted.

I considered that execution was a fitting punishment given the lives that were lost.

The strongest argument against capital punishment is the risk of getting it wrong and killing an innocent person.

Religious objections fail scrutiny considering mankind’s history.

If the facts of a case can be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, and reasonable appeals and reviews are exhausted, judges should have the option to hand down a death sentence for terrible crimes of mass murder.

People on the street of all political backgrounds formed that view in the aftermath of the bushfires.

It could be argued that capital punishment is too good for homicidal arsonists in that they should be made to live with the guilt of their crimes forever.

However, society should not have to bear the cost of keeping them in prison.

And the ultimate message of deterrence should be sent to anyone who might contemplate deliberately lighting a destructive fire in the future.

A life sentence seems too light for the perpetrators of devastation and misery who causes untold tragedy.

It’s an unpleasant subject, but unless one holds strong views on ethical grounds, it seems logical to me that capital punishment is appropriate for heinous crimes when the guilt is beyond doubt.

One published on November 19, 2008 related to smoking in public places. The issue was a subject of community debate following the Mount Gambier Christmas Parade.

Things have moved on since then, with smoking bans planned or enforced in hospital grounds, children’s playgrounds and Rundle Mall.

I would like to go a step further and ban smoking anywhere in public where people gather.

I dislike running the gauntlet of smokers in Adelaide laneways. They congregate there during the smoko breaks the rest of us don’t get to have.

Smokers pollute bus stops and footpaths across the city.

Walking past the Royal Adelaide Hospital last week, I saw a sorry collection of patients and staff gathered outside the fence, puffing away miserably in the humid heat.

They were also blocking the footpath and sharing their pollution with passers-by.

If it sounds like I regard smokers as second-class citizens, I do if they insist on making a public nuisance of themselves.

I know they pay more taxes than the rest of us, but they also cost more for provision of health services.

I don’t imagine that governments will ever make smoking illegal (lock this in a capsule and see if I’m wrong in 50 years’ time), but I do think we’ll reach a point where people will only be allowed to smoke on their own properties, and not in the presence of children.

Here is the full text of my 2008 article:

There has been some understandable debate following the successful Mount Gambier Christmas Parade about the suitability of allowing people to smoke in public at events where children are present.

The simple answer is that such behaviour is not acceptable.

Smoking is a major risk factor for the three diseases that cause the most deaths in Australia: heart disease, stroke and lung cancer.

It is responsible for about 80pc of all lung cancer deaths and 20pc of all cancer deaths. Smoking has also been linked to cancers of the mouth, bladder, kidney, stomach and cervix, among others.

There are known risks associated with passive smoking.

And for non smokers, it’s generally unpleasant to be forcibly exposed to another person’s bad habit.

With smoking widely recognised as being dangerous behaviour and increasingly anti-social, it seems irresponsible to allow smoking in public when children are present.

Not only is smoking a physical risk to the children, observing adults indulge their habit sets a negative example.

This newspaper has previously decried the “nanny state” and only calls for new social regulations with reluctance.

However, times move on. What was acceptable 100 years ago may not be today (such as using opium). Smoking may have been acceptable as recently as 20 years ago, but should not be today.

Smoking is sensibly banned in buildings and at work. It is banned at major sporting events.

Smoking should also be banned at major public events and in cars when children are present. Adults can made choices, children can’t.

The government needs to legislate accordingly.

We visited the Old Adelaide Gaol at Thebarton today. The gaol was the first permanent one in South Australia and operated from 1841 until 1988.

It was a grey day, which highlighted the bleakness of the stone and brick buildings. Although a harsh place, the haunting impression was sadness at the broken lives which must have been lived there.

The history of punishment was also on display, from floggings and picking oakum through to hanging.

I had heard of sailors picking oakum, but didn’t realise that prisoners were forced to do it during the Victorian era.

Prisoners serving hard labour would cut the rope into two foot lengths and then strike it with a heavy mallet to remove the very hard tar in which it was coated. Once this was done, it was passed to prisoners who were serving a lesser sentence: men, women and children. They then had to uncoil, unravel, unpick, and shred the rope into fibres. The work was monotonous, unpleasant and created sores on blackened fingers. The rope was held in place by a iron hook held between their knees as they worked. Sometimes they would use an iron nail or spike, or a piece of tin or knife to work on the fibres, but fingers were found to be the best.

Scandal surrounded the building of the Adelaide Gaol, with unauthorised works blowing out the cost.

The other interesting fact I discovered was that St Mary MacKillop and her Josephite nuns were regular visitors.

One story was that Mary calmed the murderer Hugh Fagan, prayed with him and brought him to confession before he was hanged.

The last hanging at the gaol was on November 24, 1964. The gaol was decommissioned in 1988 and is today a museum and tourist attraction.

It cost $3 each to visit today; normally it is $12 each or $30 for a family.

The kids had their mugshots and fingerprints taken and printed on cards as a souvenir. James looked a real criminal!

It’s been confirmed the pair shared a brief relationship three years ago when Bingle was 19 and while Fevola was already married.

According to Wikipedia, Bingle was born on June 5, 1987 in the delightfully named Yowie Bay and is “best known for appearing on Fingal Spit in the controversial 2006 Tourism Australia advertising campaign So where the bloody hell are you?”

Bingle is no stranger to legal action.

In May 2006, she sued EMAP Australia, who allegedly published photographs of the model without her permission in Zoo Weekly.

Lara Bingle and Michael Clarke

I can understand her being unhappy with Fevola, but I don’t support the grounds of her argument.

Her manager Max Markson says Bingle is taking legal action for breach of privacy, defamation and misuse of her image.

I heard a media lawyer remind everyone tonight there is no right to privacy under Australian law. It will be hard to argue the photo was defamatory and as for “misuse”, I’m not aware of any law against that.

If the argument hinges on damage to reputation, I think Bingle will struggle to win.

It was widely reported she had a “meltdown” after the 20/20 cricket match in Sydney last week.

Witnesses at the Members Stand in the Sydney Cricket Ground claim the glamor couple got into a verbal altercation after the 22-year-old, nicknamed ‘Posh Bingle’, told Clarke she found the sport ‘boring’. It’s understood Bingle’s emotions were running so high that fiance Clarke was forced to make himself into a ‘human wall’ to shield her dummy spit from enthralled spectators.

The media lawyer thought the matter should be settled out of court.

Fevola may have been a cad, but consider that Bingle had an affair with a high-profile man for five weeks and supposedly didn’t know her partner was married.

Invading someone’s privacy by taking and distributing a compromising photo of them is wrong, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard says.

Wrong yes, but illegal? I don’t think so.

Ms Gillard was also right to say that anyone who behaves this way should apologise and make good the damage they had done.

Good idea, but settle the matter out of court.

• Cartoon by Broelman
• Other post: Clarke abandons teammates and fans.

They are no joy for journalists either.

You sort of become hardened after a while, but it’s never easy to write about a life being lost, especially if it was a young man speeding.

Nothing can restore a young life to family and friends.

When the passenger of a hoon driver dies it really rankles.

While the alleged driver has to contend with the judicial system, it’s interesting to ponder the culture that condones young people driving recklessly and the responsibility of passengers in such circumstances.

Hoon driving continues to be a major social problem.

Fearless young men continue to drive fast, often under the influence, with little thought for their own safety or other road users.

You have to wonder why the lesson is never learnt.

No amount of education, public awareness or punishment seems to have the desired outcome of preventing tragedies.

Responsibility must ultimately rest with the young people themselves.

While an intoxicated young man may have false bravado, the people around him need to step in and apply restraint.

Perhaps the government should legislate against passengers who knowingly travel with drunk drivers.

If a driver records a blood alcohol level of more than 0.1 the passengers should face the same penalties as a driver who records a blood alcohol level of .05.

That may deter some from putting themselves at risk.

The mother, who went full term, had earlier tested negative to the bacteria at 39 weeks, which was why no antibiotics were given.

However, she had a very long labor and only delivered the baby 43 hours after her waters broke.

Neither the parents nor the Coroner are seeking to blame anyone for the infant’s death.

I heard the Coroner say that he wants to establish if consistent guidelines are needed for how doctors and midwives should handle particular situations.

The court heard there are different practices among midwives, doctors and hospitals for determining how long a mother should wait after her waters break before being induced, and how much time should pass before antibiotics are given.

I heard one midwife say that each patient is assessed according to her age, health and how many previous children she has had.

Even so, I’m surprised there isn’t a textbook approach that medical professionals follow as closely as possible.

The interesting thing about an inquest is how it’s less adversarial than other courts.

Cross-examination was polite and there was no attempt to embarrass or harass a witness.

There was some discussion about why the doctor had determined 8am as the time the mother would be induced if her labor hadn’t begun.

It went unsaid that this time was probably convenient to the medical staff.

The parents have shown good grace in only wanting to prevent future tragedies like the one they experienced.

That was news to me because I was in Queensland at the time and my vehicle was locked in a long-term car park in Melbourne!

The letter went on to say it’s a legal requirement to report accidents to police as soon as possible or within 24 hours at the latest unless there are exceptional circumstances.

“The driver of the vehicle is directed to attend any SA Police Station in person as a matter of urgency to report the collision,” the letter said.

I rang the enquiry number and explained my circumstances.

The officer was friendly. He said a parked car had been struck by another vehicle and someone had left a note giving my vehicle’s registration and a phone number.

He went on to say the phone number had proven to be dead.

To close the matter from my point of view however, I was required to attend a police station and give identification.

I went immediately to the Mount Gambier station and told them the story. I also gave the officer a copy of my airline travel booking.

Stating the obvious, I said it appeared someone had given false details. “Surprise surprise,” was her comment, as though this happens all the time.

I’m fairly innocent, I suppose, but I was shocked. I would never think to mislead anyone like this.

What probably happened is there were witnesses to someone colliding with a vehicle.

Rather than flee the scene, the driver must have acted contrite and scribbled a note for the absent owner, thereby mollifying observers.

Of course, he gave false details which a casual passer-by would not have thought to verify.

Lowlife.

I am probably more familiar with court procedure than most of his guests, but I found it interesting to compare what happens here with what I have seen in Kalgoorlie and Myrtleford.

There were far fewer indigenous defendants than Kalgoorlie, but many cases involved people from the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum, which was also true in WA and at Myrtleford.

I can’t believe as many people turn up for court as they do in casual clothes, work gear or jeans/track suits.

Here’s a memorised summary of some highlights from my 90-minute session:

1) A woman stole a blouse from a store. She was on a good behavior bond and bail at the time. She pleaded guilty, but despite the trivial offence is facing a prison sentence. Case adjourned.

2) A young man was charged with various motoring offences. The vehicle involved was found at the Kentucky Fried Chicken car park and a bouncer from a nightclub across the road claimed in a statement to have seen the defendant leaving the car from the driver’s side.

The woman he was with identified him as the driver, but has apparently made a contradictory statement to the young bloke and his parents, recanting her story.

The defendant said he was in the back seat of the car with this woman for about an hour! It was hard to keep a straight face on the bench as I maintained a magisterial pose! And apparently he’d just broken up with his girlfriend.

None of this was sworn evidence. The magistrate was simply being asked to overturn the driver’s automatic licence disqualification pending trial. He rejected this notion, saying he needed to be convinced an acquittal was likely and that wasn’t the case.

3) A 48-year-old man from Naracoorte appeared on charges of possessing child pornography. He was caught in the international sting by Federal Police earlier this year. The matter had to be adjourned because police haven’t yet sorted through the million-plus images.

Yes, that’s right. He allegedly had more than a million pornographic images involving children on several hard drives and numerous CDs. The defence is arguing that not all the images are pornographic, so some poor police officer is going to have to classify them all. This irritated the magistrate, but he was helpless to do anything.

4) There was a bail application from a man who has been in jail for several weeks after breaching his last bail. He allegedly assaulted his girlfriend, who he was not supposed to associate with, while on bail previously. She has now tried to drop the charges, but the police are concerned for her welfare and opposed bail.

The defence lawyer suggested his client had learnt his lesson the hard way in prison, offered a guarantor and home detention.

I said to the magistrate afterwards I thought he took a hard line in rejecting the application and maybe he could have made an alcohol ban part of the bail, as a few drinks the previous time preceded the trouble.

He said he wanted to know if the man has a criminal record in his home country before making a final decision, but hinted he would call the matter back and grant bail on stricter terms if his record is clear.

The magistrate now has an invitation from me to help edit a future edition of The Border Watch.

The man was found not guilty.

This type of trial troubles me for several reasons.

Firstly, there was no forensic evidence and no corroborating evidence from witnesses who actually saw anything incriminating.

Basically it was the woman’s word against the man’s.

I’m not saying these cases shouldn’t go to trial. In fact, I’m not really sure what to think.

How do the police and the prosecution determine if there is sufficient evidence? Shouldn’t there need to be some corroboration before a case like this gets heard?

Allegations can seriously damage a person’s reputation.

I wonder if there isn’t another way. Perhaps counselling or mediation. Or maybe a mandatory psychiatric assessment of both the accuser and the accused before the Crown considers proceeding with charges.