Page 1780 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY: I do not think it will come from the Liberals, Mrs Carnell. Under this Bill it only has to be proved that the customer did not get the product asked for. That is all that has to be proved.
Mr Humphries: It is too wide.
MR BERRY: Mr Humphries says that it is too wide. It is not too wide. If I go into a shop and I ask for a particular product and pay the old hard earned cash across the counter, I expect to get what I want - not what some shopkeeper or some seller decides I should have because he has an oversupply of a particular thing that might be just about to go beyond its use-by date.
Mrs Carnell: Then you would be right, under my amendment.
MR BERRY: No, I would not be. If the vendor sold the customer something that he did not want, even though it was a dearer product and was about to pass its use-by date, you would say that the vendor was right.
Mrs Carnell: That is not true. That would be covered under trade practices, and you know it.
MR BERRY: That is what is proposed by what you are saying. What your amendment - - -
Mr Humphries: And other clauses of this Bill.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Kaine: It is all right. The Minister does not understand.
MR BERRY: I hear Mr Kaine. He would be the greatest example of a lack of understanding that I have seen since I came into the place. Mrs Carnell's amendment would require the prosecution to prove that the purchaser was actually prejudiced to his detriment by the sale.
Mrs Carnell: Innocent until proven guilty, you mean.
MR BERRY: To prove that they were actually prejudiced; to prove not that they had been given the wrong product, but that they had been actually prejudiced. In some circumstances this would be difficult to prove, as consumers place different values on particular foods because of dietary, religious or personal preferences.
Mrs Carnell: But then there is detriment. It is easy.
MR BERRY: I would like to see the argument in court. It could go on for ages. There are some groups who, for example, do not eat particular sorts of fish that do not have scales on them; but it might be a more expensive fish and some vendor might decide that a person should have the more expensive fish rather than the cheaper variety and - - -
Mr Humphries: You cannot send someone to gaol for doing that, Wayne.
MR BERRY: Why would you want to strike at the heart of the legislation? You are just trying to create circumstances whereby people can argue that somebody has not been prejudiced by the purchase of a product that they did not want.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .