Page 3740 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (12.04), by leave: I move amendments Nos 2 to 4 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 3846].
My second amendment to the bill is minor. It relates to the definition of ready-to-eat food. In the original bill the definition of ready-to-eat food was described as food that is in a state in which it is ordinarily consumed. That does not include nuts in a shell or raw fruit or vegetables that are intended to be hulled, peeled or washed by the consumer. Since tabling the bill it has become clear that the second part of that sentence “intended to be hulled, peeled or washed by the consumer” was not necessary and possibly overcomplicated the definition. ACT Health and the Greens are proposing to remove it from the legislation.
The third amendment is technical and does not change the substance of the bill. It ensures consistency in drafting style with other ACT legislation for this kind of provision regarding strict liability.
The fourth amendment is in response to the scrutiny of bills committee. The committee was concerned that the bill provides for the details of an offence to be prescribed by regulation. While I recognise that this is not an ideal situation, the bill did need to be drafted this way because it involves the introduction of a new scheme and there needs to be some flexibility so that parts can be adjusted if required. I am proposing that any future changes to the regulations proposed by the minister are disallowable instruments and do not come into effect until they have sat before the Assembly for six sitting days.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Chief Minister, Minister for Health and Minister for Industrial Relations) (12.06): The government will be supporting all of these amendments. Without the first amendment No 2, the definition of ready-to-eat food would have been anything but clear. I think on those grounds the amendment is sensible and is supported. The other two amendments are largely technical in nature and relate to comments from the scrutiny of bills committee. The government supports these amendments as well.
Amendments agreed to.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Chief Minister, Minister for Health and Minister for Industrial Relations) (12.06): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name and I table a supplementary explanatory statement to that amendment [see schedule 2 at page 3847].
This amendment will make the review provision less onerous and expensive yet more functional and relevant. Like the amendment being proposed by Ms Bresnan, it increases the amount of time the government would have in which to produce a report. The one-year timetable, as Ms Bresnan’s amendment would have provided, would be a more appropriate time frame than the one in the bill. However, this amendment goes further and increases the length of time for the legislation to operate before the review is to be conducted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video