Page 4335 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 7 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
To retreat in the ACT, to have the ACT an island for rancid food, or food that is about to go rancid, is a highly irresponsible course of action. It started from a silly press release that pulled together the move-on powers debate and sought to make a political point to embarrass the Government - to say that the Labor Government is not prepared to give police move-on powers but it is prepared to give health inspectors these sweeping powers. That is fair enough. That is fair, rough-and-tumble political debate. But for members, on the basis of that sort of a glib little political stunt - a fair political stunt to make, but a political stunt nonetheless - not to allow in the ACT the sort of power - - -
Mrs Carnell: You must have had a bad night.
MR CONNOLLY: You think it is funny, but it is not.
Mr Humphries: No-one is laughing.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order!
MR CONNOLLY: No, they should not. You want to not allow in the ACT the continuation of a type of power that has existed probably since about 1931 - in Mrs Carnell's view anyway, for a very long time - and which no-one is able to give an example of it being abused. You had in your little speeches all these shock, horror scenarios of its abuse, but not one example. You have not one example of an industry body that is in daily contact with these health inspectors saying that there have been abuses of power, that these powers have been unreasonably exercised. Every other jurisdiction in Australia has that legislation. You are not having the straightforwardness - I am careful of my words - in your remarks to acknowledge that this has always been the law. When pressed you say that it has always been the case. In your little speech earlier, your great presentation of principle, you did not think it necessary to say to members - obviously, not every member can be across the full detail of every piece of legislation - that your objection was in principle but members should realise that that same principle has been there for many years. But you do acknowledge it.
It is a very important move that is being proposed tonight. It is not denying this Government some desire for sweeping powers. It is saying that you think public health legislation in this Territory should be weaker than it has been hitherto, despite there being no complaints about its exercise, and should be weaker than public health legislation that applies in other States and Territories. If you think that is a clever thing to do, by all means support the Carnell amendment. If you have concerns about that proposition, reject the Carnell amendment.
MR HUMPHRIES (9.18): Madam Speaker, the Government, as usual when it finds itself outnumbered in this place, tends to resort to all sorts of rather despicable tactics, like accusing members of wanting to poison members of the public of the ACT, and of having a giggle about public health - that kind of stupid comment. I think people examining the seriousness of the debates and the arguments that have been put up in tonight's meeting of the Assembly will know that those issues that have been placed on the table by Mrs Carnell's amendment are not frivolous. They contain extremely important points.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .