Page 1772 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It contains quite general provisions which will catch a large number of acts which currently occur in ordinary day-to-day trade and commerce in this community. It will need to be enforced and policed with great diligence and care. There is the great danger that an overzealous authority responsible for enforcing this legislation could come to the point where we find offences which are not considered, on community standards, to be offences at this time being prosecuted because they fall within the ambit of this Act.
Mrs Carnell has made reference to the representation of food and the way in which people present food. I think the presentation of food is almost invariably much like advertising. It is designed to present the best side of the product, and that invariably involves, to some degree or other, some distortion or misrepresentation. It is part of the nature of trying to persuade people to do something which they might not otherwise think of doing. For example, certain lights are directed on food to enhance its appearance, and food is dressed up to make it look better than perhaps it really is. I think we have all seen food which looks absolutely wonderful but does not taste quite as good as it looks. Those sorts of things are, on the face of it, caught by some of the provisions of the legislation. Let us hope that that is not the way in which this is actually put into practice.
I have had some concerns about provisions in this legislation. Subclause 15(3) gives rise to considerable concern. I understand that an amendment is coming forward from Mrs Carnell on that matter, and I will not discuss it at this point. Rather, I will refer to that when that amendment is reached. There are also concerns about a number of reversals of the onus of proof in this legislation. This matter has been raised already by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee directly with the Minister for Health, who has referred it to the Attorney-General, and an answer has been received. The committee was able to consider that at its meeting this morning. I have to indicate that I personally am not entirely convinced yet that we have settled this matter satisfactorily. My party is extremely concerned at any attempt to reverse an onus of proof and make a defendant liable to prove certain things in order to establish his or her innocence in a court. That is, prima facie, a situation which should be avoided unless there are very good reasons for it to occur. In this case it may be that there are some good reasons. That is a matter that I think we will have to address in the course of the debate.
To recapitulate, Madam Speaker, the Food Bill is very welcome. It will be supported by the Liberal Party, although, I hope, with some amendments. I might indicate to the Government that the amendments circulated earlier in my name will not be proceeded with, the persuasiveness of their advice being what it is; but I do hope that the Assembly will seriously consider and support an amendment to be submitted by Mrs Carnell later in the debate.
MR LAMONT (8.19): I also rise to support the provisions of this Bill. Madam Speaker, on 30 July 1991 a national food standards agreement was signed between the Commonwealth of Australia and all of the States and Territories. This revised food regulation system embodies a Commonwealth, State and Territory cooperative mechanism for establishing and applying uniform national food standards. As part of this mechanism, the Commonwealth has established the National Food Authority as the body responsible for developing and recommending food standards to the National Food Standards Council. The States and Territories participate in the process for developing food standards and adopt them by reference.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .