Page 1784 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a restaurant but I get a T-bone steak, that is pretty reprehensible. I may choose not to pay the bill or not to give a tip, or something of that kind. But to say that, as a consequence of that, that person should be liable for criminal offences, criminal charges, a very substantial fine or even imprisonment in extreme cases, even in the case of repeated offences, is going too far.
Mr Lamont: You have admitted it now - extreme cases.
MR HUMPHRIES: Even in extreme cases. If I have suffered no detriment, why should an offence have been committed by the defendant? Madam Speaker, I do not ask you to accept the logic of the ACT Liberal Party; you are obviously not prepared to do that. Instead, accept the logic of the Victorian Labor Party. The Victorian provision says:
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.
Mr Berry: It is one of the rare occasions when the Victorian Government has been wrong.
MR HUMPHRIES: It is all coming out now, is it not? The rats are deserting the sinking ship, as they say. Madam Speaker, there is no logical reason why we should be prosecuting people in these circumstances. Other examples were given by those opposite. If a person is allergic to a food, clearly they will have had a food which is to their detriment, and the supplier will be prosecuted in the court, for the full extent of the $5,000 and the six months in gaol, if you want. If the person suffers some kind of demonstrable detriment by reason of that purchase, they ought to be able to face the full force of that subclause (3). But, like the Victorian Labor Government, we cannot see why you should be able to establish an offence without proving some detriment. That is logical and sensible.
Mr Berry: Time passes; we are moving on.
Mr Connolly: Probably the Victorian upper house - your mates - did this.
MR HUMPHRIES: No. Time passes! You have to pass legislation in both houses, Mr Connolly - in case you were not aware of that - and that means going through the lower house, where the Victorian Government has the majority. The Victorian Government must have agreed to that amendment. So, the Victorian Labor Party sees the need for this; why cannot you? There is really no logical case. You cite the example of someone ordering margarine but getting butter. If they are not allergic to the butter or do not have a religious principle against butter, no detriment of any kind can be established.
Mr Berry: What about somebody who has a heart condition?
MR HUMPHRIES: They will have suffered a detriment, will they not? Therefore, they will be in the position of being able to claim some damage. With a heart condition, it is usually the case that you suffer some damage as a result of taking the food that you should not have; that is fairly clear.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .