Page 4339 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 7 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR LAMONT: If Mr Humphries would care to listen for once, he might understand what his responsibilities are. It is the responsibility of this chamber to assess the different circumstances that exist within our community, when judging laws that should be passed. That is the reason why it is quite consistent for the Government, on the one hand, to oppose the move-on powers continuation, and on the other to propose - - -
Mr Cornwell: I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. I cannot hear the speaker because of the heavy lobbying going on by the Government on the two Independents.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms Follett: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.
Question resolved in the negative.
FOOD (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 2) 1993
Detail Stage
Clause 6
Debate resumed.
MR LAMONT: I believe that it is competent for this chamber to determine the difference between the two issues. There is essentially a significant difference between the philosophy that Mr Humphries is keen to march around the Territory as his pet subject, the move-on powers, and the issue we are discussing tonight. It is quite clear that the circumstances warrant the type of wording contained within the legislation. It is consistent with the regime of legislation that, although convoluted, has provided us here in Canberra with probably one of the best records in Australia as far as food and public health are concerned. What is being proposed is a 180-degree turn as far as the authority of our health inspectors is concerned, a change to the basis upon which they have been able to ensure that the public can proceed with confidence to a restaurant or an eating house, conduct a function and know that a health inspector may have seen foodstuffs or matters prescribed within the Act and prevented them from being used.
Madam Speaker, it is not an offence under this Act to allow the chook to go rancid, but it is an offence to sell it. A health inspector is a person of considerable expertise and considerable training. Mr Humphries shows his ignorance of policing as well when he suggests that a policeman, let us say a constable, is as qualified as or has gone through the same sorts of requirements as a health inspector. That plainly is not the case. Even Mrs Carnell knows that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .