Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (8 March) . . Page.. 690 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Department of Human Services. Heinz had replaced the wording on the label of the rice cereal packet in September 1998. However, stock with the previously worded label was still available.

A subsequent survey by the Department of Health and Community Care environmental health officers - in other words, they did their own follow-up just to make sure that things were going well - revealed that a similar cereal product with banana still contained the original wording on the label and was for sale in the ACT. Heinz advised the Department of Health and Community Care that that product was also being withdrawn. A survey conducted in July 1999 of ACT retail food outlets revealed that Heinz rice cereal with banana was still being sold with the original label. The complainant is of the opinion that the new label on Heinz rice cereal is still false, deceptive and misleading.

An opinion has been sought and received from the ACT Director of Public Prosecution as to grounds for prosecution and whether we would be successful under section 19 of the Food Act 1992. The Director of Public Prosecutions' advice indicates that whilst labelling on the rice cereal product is probably in breach of the Act, a prosecution would be very difficult and would have to rely on expert witnesses. In relation to fruit juices and gels, DPP have indicated their belief that a breach of the Act has also occurred. We had another complaint about gels and fruit juices so we also had advice from the DPP on that.

More recently, following the consumer's representations to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, negotiations have taken place between the ACCC and Heinz to amend the labels and advertising of Heinz rice cereal and fruit gel products. Heinz has provided undertakings and time lines to the ACCC to change the labelling and advertising of these products. This undertaking would appear to have resolved the matter. However, we are also waiting for supplementary advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions as to whether or not an interstate improvement notice can be served on Heinz in Victoria or not. My verbal advice on that matter is that we will not be able to do that in Victoria under our legislation.

Having been through those processes, I indicated on Monday that the department should approach Heinz to ensure that they understood that we have been through a process and that I was prepared to make this quite a public matter. If they were still not going to label accurately I was prepared to use the public embarrassment of their company as a method of ensuring that they would label correctly. I think that might be a more effective way in the end. I wanted to give them one last chance before I did that.

MS TUCKER: I have a supplementary question. In my first question I did acknowledge the difficulties with the Food Act, but I talked about the Fair Trading Act and you have not referred to that at all. I would like a response because it seems quite likely that we could use that, and you would not have the same problems as you would have with the Food Act.

Mr Hird: As usual, you got it wrong.

MR SPEAKER: Order, please! Ms Tucker is asking a supplementary question.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .