Page 1058 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The amendment that Mr Connolly has brought forward to the Consumer Affairs Act includes the definition of a durable shelf life for food. The requirement to include a durable shelf life on a food label is at complete variance in that sense with the requirements of the Food Standards Code. The proposed amendment also, I think, duplicates some of the functions of the national Food Standards Code in such areas as food composition, method of manufacture and place of manufacture of a food.
The point, of course, is that by putting bits and pieces of the Food Standards Code into legislation in the ACT - rather inappropriately, I think, in consumer affairs legislation rather than in a proper food Act, I might point out - reduces the flexibility that the Territory has to adapt and adopt the national Food Standards Code. It is, in other places, adopted by reference, not directly into legislation. Obviously, if the States and Territories of this country agree to changes, those changes should occur automatically rather than having to have a whole series of legislation occur in each of the States and Territories concerned. That failure to adopt the code, I think, is the biggest single problem with this Bill. States and Territories have incorporated food shelf life legislation by adoption of the code, with the exception, at this stage, of New South Wales and the ACT. I also understand that even New South Wales is currently transferring the legislative requirements in this area relating to shelf life requirements from consumer affairs legislation into proper food legislation. If that does occur, then, of course, the ACT would be the only jurisdiction to have this legislation in consumer affairs provisions rather than in food legislation.
The ACT's own Food Act has been approved in principle by Cabinet. Drafting instructions, I am told, were delivered some months ago and are in the process of being transformed into legislation. I would expect to be able to introduce that Bill into the Assembly later this year. It will be a far more comprehensive and appropriate response to this problem.
Mr Connolly: The first half of the year or the second half of the year? Can you give us a month?
MR HUMPHRIES: Those opposite are very keen to be the first to win a point here, to be able to say, "We have brought in use-by dates". Unfortunately, this enthusiasm, this keenness to be the first, comes at the expense of proper consideration of the legislation. We are not about sitting around this place proving who can be the first to bring in a particular piece of legislation. That is not what we are here to do. We are here to provide the best possible legislation for the people of the ACT. There is no way that this Bill can be described as the best. In fact, this draft Bill put forward by the Labor Party is clearly not the best. It is clearly already out of date. I think there is every reason to reject it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .