Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2806 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

I have heard many arguments back and forward about hens. I have listened to arguments about whether the Food (Amendment) Bill, if passed, will actually have an effect or whether it would fail under the Constitution, under our State agreements and under competition policy. I think the amendment that Mr Corbell has come up with to deal with this is a sensible way through the problem of the Mutual Recognition Act. Of course, we should not miss the irony of the Labor Party preparing this amendment and running it, even though it is a long-term thing, at the same time as they are saying that they cannot do anything more about euthanasia and drugs; but rather than getting into that debate I will just leave it with those few words. I am very supportive of the approach taken by Mr Corbell. I think his amendments are very sensible amendments.

I would like to congratulate Ms Horodny for the work she has done in getting this legislation into the Assembly and allowing it to sit on the table for long enough for us to consider the issues seriously. If this legislation goes through today - and I expect it will - this will be the first time a legislature in Australia has said, "We believe that something ought to be done about this style of feedlot farming". Even though it is going to be a long time before implementation, the message is that change is on the way.

Debate interrupted.

MR SPEAKER: I inform members of the presence in the gallery of members of a delegation from the National Association of Chairmen of Prefectural Assemblies of Japan. On behalf of all members, I bid you a warm welcome.

[COGNATE BILL:

Debate resumed.

MS HORODNY (12.01), in reply: I want to talk very briefly about the Mutual Recognition Act, to start with. This is about allowing goods that comply with the regulatory requirements of one State to be sold in a second State. It is to prevent restrictions on interstate trade. As Mr Corbell and Ms Tucker have already said, the Act contains provisions for permanent exemptions to be obtained. Particular goods or laws that are exempted are contained in a schedule to the Act, and this schedule can be amended by the Governor-General making a regulation; but this can be done only if the designated person in each State and Territory - and that is usually, I understand, the State Governor or the Chief Minister - has gazetted a notice requesting that the regulation be made. It is therefore up to the Executive to obtain the consent of other State governments before this exemption can be obtained.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .