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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 3672 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

The Kingston Foreshore Development Authority Bill sets out the functions, powers, membership and staffing of the Authority. The Authority is required to perform its functions in accordance with prudent commercial principles in a manner which demonstrates social and environmental responsibility and in consultation with the residents of the Territory and the residents of Kingston, in particular.

A board of eight members including a public servant member and the chief executive officer will direct the activities of the authority. The membership will draw together the full range of skills necessary to ensure the successful implementation of the project. The authority will be authorised by the Executive to grant leases on its behalf in the declared Kingston Foreshore development area but will be subject to the provisions of the Territory Plan.

Other significant provisions deal with the financial accountability and reporting arrangements for the authority. The authority is subject to the Financial Management Act 1996, particularly Part VIII, which sets out financial provisions dealing with territory authorities. The Bill requires the authority to prepare annual business plans. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mr Quinlan ) adjourned.


MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (10.43): I present the Crimes Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999, together with its explanatory memorandum.

Title read by Clerk.


That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

This Bill proposes amendments to the Crimes Act 1900 to include three offences specifically dealing with product contamination. The Bill provides for the offences of: contaminating goods with intent to cause public alarm or economic loss; threatening contamination of goods for such purposes; and making a false claim about contaminated goods with the intent to cause public harm or economic loss.

The need for such provisions was highlighted in 1997 when Arnott's biscuits were subjected to a food contamination threat. A threat was made that Monte Carlo biscuits would be contaminated if four New South Wales police officers did not undertake a lie detector test with regard to their evidence in a prior murder trial. Apart from the distress and disruption caused to consumers, Arnott's experienced both direct and indirect economic loss which exceeded $30m. In addition, over 300 staff were temporarily dismissed.

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