Page 4669 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 15 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry said, in response to an interjection from over here, that we are talking about the state of the food people eat. Madam Speaker, we are not talking about just that; we are talking also about people's rights. People's rights are important in these circumstances. If someone's goods are seized, goods with which they make a living, be they goods that they sell for consumption or goods that they use to make consumable foods, that person's rights are infringed very seriously because their capacity to earn a living is affected, possibly extinguished, and that is a matter of some concern. It should be a matter of some concern to members of this Assembly. I commend the amendments Mrs Carnell has put forward.
MR MOORE (5.01): I thought I would speak once more to try to convince my colleague Ms Szuty of the difference between this amendment and the Dog Control Act. Ms Szuty proposed a very sensible amendment to the Dog Control Act to provide for powers of this nature. It was a very different situation. If a dog has just mauled somebody or there is a specific danger of a vicious animal attacking people, police officers can act because they have reasonable grounds. For a public health inspector to act, the same degree of urgency is not required. I accept that there is some degree of urgency, but it is a very different situation in terms of the measure of urgency. That is what we are talking about.
This is an opportunity to protect people's civil liberties, but at the same time the inspector does have the opportunity to get a warrant in very quick time. It really does not take that long. It really does not require that much effort. I believe that I am correct in saying that, a warrant having been obtained, even by phone, somebody can move.
Mr Humphries: Without having the piece of paper.
MR MOORE: Without actually having the piece of paper in their hand. In that case there could be a delay of two or three minutes.
Mr Berry: No; an hour.
MR MOORE: In the optimum situation the delay may be only a couple of minutes, but no doubt sometimes one would have to allow 20 minutes or something along those lines. Usually, though, a health inspector would have some suspicion and, thinking that might be necessary, could so move. Madam Speaker, through you, I would ask Ms Szuty to reconsider her position on this. In fact there is a significant difference between this and the Dog Control Act. The same sort of urgency is not required of a health inspector and in this case it is appropriate for us to allow a little bit of time. That is all that this amendment will do.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (5.04): I have to tout for Ms Szuty's vote too. I do not think she would cop what Mr Moore put to her because it did not amount to much. Ms Szuty will recognise that the carcass of a dog that has been broken down in a residential garage and is on the way to a restaurant is as much of a risk to people in the ACT in terms of the numbers. If it happens to be particularly rancid meat or some other product, it might lead to any number of people becoming seriously ill. Ms Szuty would recognise that there is an urgent need to deal with those matters very quickly. Mr Moore, if he has convinced Ms Szuty to go down
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .