Page 1777 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
consumption or not. It would be very difficult for a prosecution to prove that a plate of sausages sitting in the kitchen of a restaurant was intended for human consumption. One can see that there are reasons for those assumptions, and I believe that therefore the Assembly should support them in that format.
It may be, as I said earlier, in the in-principle debate, that there are some unintended consequences if one reads the provisions of this Bill very widely. For example, subclause 14(2) refers to packaging and labelling. It says in paragraph (b) that a package must "refer to the food contained in the package by a name that describes fairly and sufficiently specifically its true nature". When I read that I thought, for example, of the case of peanut butter, which in fact is not butter at all. That is now commonly accepted as a phrase widely used in some places, at least in this country. However, for example, in Queensland, I am advised, peanut butter is in fact called peanut paste, which would be a more accurate description of what is actually in the jar.
Mr Wood: That is dead right. Spot on, Mr Humphries.
MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, or it might also be called Joh paste.
Mr Lamont: It has some other names that I do not think we should repeat here, either.
MR HUMPHRIES: It has other names. The question has to be asked: Does "peanut butter" on the outside of a jar refer to the food contained in the package by a name which describes fairly and sufficiently specifically its true nature? Actually, there is no butter in it. I have encountered people who believe that they do not need to put butter on their bread before they put the peanut butter on, because there is already butter in the peanut butter. It is not an academic question; it is a very real one. That is just one case that came to my mind.
Mr Lamont: You mix in the wrong circles, obviously, Gary.
MR HUMPHRIES: There will be many such cases where those sorts of issues will arise. As you can see, I have been thinking about this very hard, Mr Lamont. I think, Madam Speaker, as I have said before, that we have to be extremely careful about the way in which this is applied. I, for one, give notice that, if there are any prosecutions which go beyond the obvious intention of such legislation and in fact become nitpicking and intrusive, then certainly my party will be very quick to come back to this place with amendments to this legislation.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (8.37): Mr Humphries raised some issues on, though no opposition to, a number of clauses in the Bill which are significant in the way that they affect the people who will be guided by the intent of the Bill. This Bill does have a wide definition of "premises", and for very good reason - because it is intended to cast a wide net and to ensure that nobody escapes. This legislation is serious about protecting the community from people who sell poor quality food. That is the nature of the Bill, and that is why there is a wide definition of "premises".
The same applies in relation to the definition of "sell". Again it is meant to cast a wide net to catch all in its effect. If we do not cast a wide net - I am sure Mr Humphries would agree - the loopholes would pretty soon render the Food Act meaningless. In relation to clause 5, which talks about standards inconsistency, I think the clause speaks for itself. It says:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .