Page 1783 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Liberals are trying to superimpose on that a condition which would provide a let-off for vendors who sell people products that they do not want, because they have not asked for them, and products that the vendor has decided the consumer should have. That is absolutely ridiculous.
Mrs Carnell: But they might be quite happy.
MR BERRY: The vendor has decided that the customer should have a particular product, not the customer.
Mr De Domenico: What if the customer is happy with what he or she got?
Mr Connolly: Then he will not bring a complaint. There will be no prosecution.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Mr Berry has the floor.
MR BERRY: You take away the right of a consumer to choose and demand. That is what you are saying to us. You are saying that the vendor should have that right to impose. Well, we are not going to have a bar of that.
MR HUMPHRIES (8.54): Madam Speaker, obviously the Government does not have any intention of keeping an open mind about this. Therefore I hope that the Independents at least will listen seriously to the argument being put here. Nobody is suggesting that the consumer ought not to have rights to demand things and to get those things. That is inherent in the whole thrust of this legislation. Provision after provision after provision in this Bill sets standards for food that is sold. It cannot be substandard food - - -
Mrs Carnell: It cannot be falsely described.
MR HUMPHRIES: It cannot be falsely described; it cannot be falsely presented; it cannot be incorrectly packaged; it cannot be incorrectly labelled; it cannot be falsely advertised; it cannot be presented in a misleading fashion. All those provisions apply there. Even in clause 15 there are protections for the consumer. It states:
(1) A person shall not sell food that does not comply with a standard that is applicable to the food demanded by the purchaser.
That stays. It continues:
(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.
That also stays, under our amendment. We are talking about whether a person who actually gets something which is not to their detriment ought to be able to take somebody to court and make them face serious consequences when they get there. That is the basic question. I agree with you that, if I order a sirloin steak in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .