Page 4340 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 7 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would have thought that she would have been able to advise Mr Humphries. It is quite clear that they have not been talking; otherwise Mr Humphries would have told her what happened in the briefing that she did not attend this afternoon.
What we are talking about here is the ability of a health inspector to look at the chook, as an example, and say, "Stored in the current condition, this chook will be able to be eaten without it causing food poisoning". If a health inspector is not in a position to do that it defeats the whole purpose of the Act. That is how significant this change will be to public safety in the ACT. The people opposite have not been able to argue that in those circumstances that power is not reasonable. What they are arguing is a philosophy of objection. They are actually saying that their objection is not based upon this Act; it is not based upon public safety; it is not based upon history; it is not based upon the record of the health inspectors in this town; it is based upon the small-mindedness of Mr Humphries.
What this amendment talks about is just how small-minded Mr Humphries has become. He is bitter that he has not made the front bench and bitter that he never will. Now he is trying to force his imprimatur as far as issues are concerned on his current leader. It is interesting to note that one of the few people who have been consistent on the matter of public health - - -
Mr De Domenico: Look at who is bitter at not being on the front bench.
MR LAMONT: Could bubble-and-squeak quieten down for a minute? The only person who has been somewhat consistent on these types of matters is Mr Kaine. I am sorry, Mr Cornwell; the two of you. Both you and Mr Kaine have been somewhat consistent on these matters.
Mr Cornwell: You have not heard me yet.
MR LAMONT: Okay; Mr Kaine has been consistent on these matters, Mr Cornwell. I can understand why there now appear to be two camps over there. They have no real argument in relation to the Food Bill or the principles in it. They cannot, in reality, argue against this issue being continued in the Food Bill. Mrs Carnell has acknowledged that, clearly, and is even now trying to backtrack from that acknowledgment. That is the simple position. What has happened is that Mr Humphries, in order to continue to perpetuate this myth about his brilliant legal mind, has decided to pursue his phobia with the move-on powers by having a look at this piece of legislation and saying, "Despite the public health issues, this is the way we are going to proceed".
Madam Speaker, I hope that the Independents are prepared to accept that. I hope that that is the way that the press report this debate tonight. It is one of the more significant debates about public health that have occurred in this chamber since I have been an MLA and so - - -
Mrs Carnell: No-one has talked about one thing to do with health.
MR LAMONT: No, you have not. Mrs Carnell, you have not. The person squeaking behind you has not, and neither would any of your other members. You have not talked about the issues. All you have talked about is the drivel that your shadow legal spokesperson continually goes on with, his pet phobia, the move-on powers. The philosophy of objection is about all he has raised. You have failed the test, both being - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .