Page 1776 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Finally, this legislation includes a range of penalties. The scope and extent of the penalties highlights the serious intention of the Government to ensure that the consumer is protected. As I outlined in my presentation speech, these penalties include a $5,000 fine or six months' imprisonment for most offences, and a $3,000 fine for others. A body corporate, that is, a registered company, can expect to pay up to $25,000 for contravention.
The Bill we are now debating, Madam Speaker, is the first step, a very important step - and I see from the reaction of the Liberals that it is a very welcome step - towards bringing the ACT into line with the rest of Australia by automatically adopting the latest food standards as they are published by the National Food Authority. The second stage of this process will be the introduction of a food safety Bill, which could see the ACT set a standard for the rest of Australia to follow. Stage three of the legislation will focus on enforcement arrangements, and stage four on licensing details. The Food Bill is an important and essential piece of ACT legislation. I commend it to you for your consideration and adoption. I look forward to your support as we approach the final stages of the debate.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail Stage
Clauses 1 to 14, by leave, taken together
MR HUMPHRIES (8.32): Madam Speaker, there are some significant provisions within the first 14 clauses of the Bill. Obviously, the definition clauses are very important in providing for the parameters within which this legislation will operate. For example, I draw the attention of members to provisions such as the definition of "premises", which includes vehicles. The standard of food that is served in an aeroplane, for instance, will become very much part of the things caught by this legislation. "Sell" has an extremely wide definition. Mr Lamont has made reference, I think, to the wideness of that definition already.
Clause 5 of the Bill refers to the question of a standard being prescribed. We talk about a national standard, which is a standard which is prescribed by reference, in a sense; but it is also possible for the Territory Minister, presumably the Health Minister, to prescribe different inconsistent standards. That, as I understand it, Madam Speaker - and I am sure that the Minister will advise me if I am wrong - ensures that the ACT can, if it so desires, depart from the national code. It can not accept a National Food Authority formulated standard if it so wishes. I believe that, in certain circumstances, that might be appropriate, and I hope that the Minister will be able to advise me if I am not right in that respect.
Clause 7 contains a number of reversed onuses of proof. This was raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The Minister responded - and I think that this is a point that we take - that the reversal of the onus of proof in those cases occurs because the matters which are assumed to be the case in a prosecution are matters which are peculiarly within the knowledge of a defendant. He or she would be the best person to know whether the food was to have been sold for human
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .