Page 1782 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Another example could be where a customer wishes to purchase a particular type of fish, because of a preference for the taste or texture of that fish, or because of a religious preference, and is sold a more expensive type for the same price. Mrs Carnell says - - -
Mr Humphries: What a terrible thing to happen! My goodness! Put them in gaol. Lock them up.
MR BERRY: Okay. What a foolish attitude! Say that somebody goes into a fish shop and orders a cheap cut of fish, for example, mullet - it is usually cheap - and the vendor thinks, "I do not have any mullet and I am going to lose this customer, so I will quickly wrap up some leatherjacket. It is a bit more expensive, but I will give it to him for the same price".
Mr Connolly: And not tell him.
MR BERRY: "I will not tell him. I will give it to him at the same price". If the customer had a religious preference for the fish with scales, under your argument you would be able to go to court and prove that it was not to the prejudice of the customer. That is absolutely ridiculous.
Mrs Carnell: If they do not tell them, it is misrepresentation and it is covered by other bits. If they do tell them, they get done anyway.
MR BERRY: No. You are quite clear in what you are trying to achieve with this amendment. You are trying to strike at the very heart of the Bill. You are trying to take away the right of consumers to demand. So there we have it; the Liberals were searching around, thrashing around, to find something wrong with this legislation and could not do so. The best they could come up with was something ridiculous. They are trying to undermine the whole intent of the clause, which is headed, "Sale not complying with purchaser's demand". Surely the customer is right.
Mr Humphries: Not to the extent of six months in gaol, they are not.
MR BERRY: Here we go with this silly penalties argument.
Mr Humphries: It is there; six months in gaol.
Mr Connolly: The boy at the peach tree.
MR BERRY: Yes, the old "boy with the peach" story. Oh, go away! It is unbelievable. The Bill says:
(1) A person shall not sell food that does not comply with a standard that is applicable to the food demanded by the purchaser.
(2) If -
(a) a person demands any food by name; and
(b) there is a standard that applies to food of that name;
the person is to be taken to have demanded food that complies with the standard.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .