Page 1787 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries: The punishment is too high, though.
MR CONNOLLY: "The punishment is too high", says Mr Humphries. I fear that we are going to hear this like a broken record for the next 2 years. Under the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act the punishment for a corporation providing goods that do not comply with the description is $100,000 maximum. It seems that Liberal governments did not have any difficulty with that when they held sway. So, that is hardly a problem. In every case, as we have said, the penalty that is prescribed in an Act of this Assembly must cover the most serious offence, and every magistrate will weigh individual offences in relation to a scale of severity. To say that this is too high is to say that the penalty for theft under the Crimes Act is outrageously high because the little boy who steals the peach is liable, on your argument, to 10 years' imprisonment. We know that it is an argument of absurdity. But perhaps we can expect nothing better from this Opposition.
MRS CARNELL (9.07): I think both Mr Berry and Mr Connolly missed the point of our amendment. Mr Berry spoke for a very long time, but not quite as long as Mr Connolly did, about restaurateurs or shopkeepers, small business people, who falsely describe food, who sell food that is different from what the purchaser wants. That is covered in clause 12, which says:
A person shall not sell food that is falsely described.
... ... ...
Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 6 months.
It is totally covered in that area. I think Mr Lamont interjected to talk about ling that would go off tomorrow. Clause 10 says:
A person shall not sell substandard food.
Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 6 months.
Mr Berry: No, it is not substandard; it will be tomorrow.
Mr Humphries: What is wrong with it, then?
Mr Connolly: It is not what you ordered. Honesty is what we are about.
MRS CARNELL: If it is not what you ordered, then the restaurateur or shopkeeper is falsely describing that food, unless they make it clear to the purchaser that the food is not what was ordered. If they make it clear, then clause 15 comes in. It says:
A person shall not sell food that does not comply with a standard that is applicable to the food demanded by the purchaser.
All we are requiring is an amendment which suggests that there should be prejudice in this area. If one would like to look at the definition of "sell" in the Bill, it is very, very wide. Again, I say that false description is already covered by clause 12; substandard food is covered by clause 10; but clause 15 is in question.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .