Page 4342 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 7 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I fear that what I see here is a government's desire - not necessarily this Government's, but almost any government's - to control things, and this is something that I believe this Assembly has to be very careful about exercising. There is a natural tendency when something is perceived to be a problem for the Government to step in, to regulate and to control. I believe that we members of this Assembly - all of us, but particularly those on this side of the house - have a responsibility to see that this type of thing is not abused. I would suggest to members that it is being abused in this case. I do not believe that there is any justification in saying that there has been no case reported where it had been abused, any more than I believe that Mr Connolly's interjection, "Well, what about the case of the Australian Hotels Association, or some other body?" is justification. Most of these groups, I would suggest, probably have maintained extremely high standards within their kitchens and would not be troubled by this, but that does not mean to say that it is right.
The fact remains that we should not be putting in pieces of legislation which prejudge and which suggest that over a period - - -
Mr Berry: What about half a dozen dogs taken from the dog pound, dressed and on the way to the restaurant?
MR CORNWELL: No, there is no time limit. Mr Humphries has indicated that it could, in fact, be a month, and if a health inspector thinks an offence might be committed action can be taken. I do not believe that we should give that sort of power to anybody in that area. Certainly, we should not give it to a health inspector if we are not prepared to give it to a policeman.
Debate (on motion by Ms Szuty) adjourned.
PRIVILEGE
Statement by Speaker
MADAM SPEAKER: Members, I would like to bring to your attention a privilege matter. On 29 November 1993 the former chairperson of the Select Committee on Estimates 1993-94, Ms Szuty, gave written notice of a possible breach of privilege concerning the premature and unauthorised release of information in the Government's response to the Estimates Committee report. Ms Szuty alleged that the response was based on an early draft of the report and not the final report which was presented to the Deputy Speaker on 12 November 1993 and subsequently to the Assembly on 23 November 1993.
Under the provisions of standing order 71 I must determine whether or not the matter merits precedence over other business. If, in my opinion, the matter does merit precedence I must inform the Assembly of the decision and the member who raised the matter may move a motion without notice forthwith to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedures. Assembly standing order 241 provides:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .