Page 4661 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 15 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY: Yes; health officers seized and destroyed, with no powers to do so, a truck full of meat and meat products on its way to restaurant chains. Temperature measurements showed that the food was no longer frozen after being driven interstate. The food was not rancid, it was not unhealthy, but it was at that point that we have been talking about. It was going in that direction, so they hacked it. That is what local council inspectors do all over the place. That is what local food inspectors in the ACT have done for years. Mrs Carnell interjected and said, "Yes, they have". That was when I said that we are not aware of complaints from the AHA or the restaurateurs about the operation because they acknowledge the sweeping powers - - -
Mrs Carnell: No, that is not what you said. You said that they support the legislation. They do not.
MR CONNOLLY: No. What I said was that they are probably concerned at the way you have played politics to get a weaker level of protection in the ACT. Madam Speaker, it is nearly Christmas. What the Liberals will do is anybody's guess. The Government is not retreating from its position.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (4.29): Madam Speaker, as Mr Humphries said, there has been much debate about this, and I saw Mr Humphries on his feet extending that debate without addressing the issue which is at hand. The issue is whether or not a health officer's powers can be exercised in relation to an offence that there are reasonable grounds for believing is being or will be committed. What Mrs Carnell is saying is that, if, in the mind of a health officer, somebody is about to be or will be poisoned in the future, it is all right for that to happen. She wants to withdraw the protection from the offence that might happen in the future. The Bill says:
A reference ... to an offence shall be read as including a reference to an offence that there are reasonable grounds for believing is being, has been or will be, committed.
That relates to entry to premises where officers can examine matters concerning public health. It is about consent to entry.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Berry: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.
Question resolved in the negative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .