Page 1778 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Where a standard is prescribed, a national standard does not apply in so far as it is inconsistent with it.
It suggests, on the face of it, that standards can be prescribed here and, in so far as any inconsistency exists with the national standard, the national standard does not apply. That seems to me to be a pretty clear interpretation of that. Subclause (2) says:
Where a prescribed standard provides for the interpretation of a national standard, the latter -
the national standard -
has effect as interpreted in accordance with the former.
I think that is pretty clear. I do not think it is a matter that Mr Humphries should be concerned about. Madam Speaker, I am hopeful of fully-fledged support for clauses 1 to 14.
I should refer to Mr Humphries's peanut butter argument. I think it would be fair to say that some foods that are marketed under their traditional names may well be affected by this legislation. I think it would be fair to say that some foods will be caught in the net.
Mr Humphries: So we cannot call it peanut butter any more?
MR BERRY: I am not going to make a judgment about peanut butter, but I think there will be some foods caught in the net and they may well have to be sold by a name that describes fairly and specifically their true nature.
Mr Cornwell: Aeroplane Jelly is going to be ground jelly, is it?
MR BERRY: It is not a laughing matter. Many humorous things could be said about the names of certain foods. I will not refer to them. This is groundbreaking legislation for the ACT and I am sure that there is going to have to be a bit of tolerance about foods and practices which are caught in the net. It might appear, by the intervention of the Government, that there is an overzealous approach to the enforcement of the legislation, but enforce it we will. It has to be enforced. At the same time, we have to recognise that there will be effects from the legislation that might warrant a more compassionate approach to the concerns of people affected. In all, I am pleased that Mr Humphries and the Liberal Party will be supporting clauses 1 to 14 inclusive.
Clauses agreed to.
Clause 15
MRS CARNELL (8.42): I move:
Page 6, lines 21 to 23, subclause (3), omit the subclause, substitute the following subclause:
"(3) A person must not to the prejudice of the purchaser sell any food that is not of the nature, substance or quality of the food that is demanded by the purchaser.
Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 6 months.".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .