069

69

The bill before the Assembly is the flow-on from the statement I made yesterday. There is no need for me to canvass the issues again and certainly the Assembly would not wish me to do so. As I indicated, the bill before the Assembly is accompanied by the complete committee notes and also the schedule of amendments which cross-references the existing bill to the bill now before the Assembly. Mr Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. 809 DEBA'lliS- Thursday 25 August 1983 Debate adjourned. STOCK DISEASES AMENDMENT BILL (Serial 309) Bill presented and read a first time. Mr TUXWORTH (Primary Production): read a second time. Mr Speaker, I move that the bill be now In the course of the national eradication program for tuberculosis and brucellosis, it has been found that the most efficient method of establishing disease status is to grade holdings according to the level of infection and permit inter-property movement only on the basis of this grading. The grade or status of a holding in terms of its state of infection with TB or brucellosis or both is determined by following nationally-established guidelines. Currently, the status of a holding is announced to the owner by the Department of Primary Production and changed when disease information indicates a need. It is considered improper that decisions of such prime importance to the operation and the economy of holdings should be so casually based. Indeed, it might invite challenge from an owner who considers he is severely disadvantaged by a decision concerning his status. In the interests of all parties, it is considered desirable to vest the power of issuance of disease status formally in the Chief Inspector of Stock under the act. The bill seeks to amend those provisions contained in the act dealing with the powers of the Chief Inspector for the control of diseased stock in the Northern Territory, including all stock movements. This will enable the Chief Inspector of Stock to formally declare a disease status for a holding and allow disease control and stock movements in later years to be handled in a similar manner by establishing variable status between holdings. I commend the bill to honourable members. Debate adjourned. CRIMINAL LAW (REGULATORY OFFENCES) BILL (Serial 335) Bill presented and read a first time. Mr ROBERTSON (Attorney-General): read a second time. Mr Speaker, I move that the bill be now This bill is part of the legislation consequential to the introduction of the Criminal Code Bill. Clause 3 of the code establishes the concept of offences being classified as crimes, simple offences and regulatory offences. It is necessary to classify regulatory offences specially as certain defences available under the code are not available to them. Mr Speaker, the task of determining what are regulatory offences could be left up to the courts. However, I believe that this is properly a role for the legislature. It is a function which we should assume. A regulatory offence is a strict liability offence where the intention, or lack of it, on the part of the defendant is irrelevent in deciding whether or not it occurred. Thus, no offences requiring intent, such as theft, could be classified as regulatory. In fact, the person who made a mistake could still commit a regulatory offence. Mr Speaker, because of this, there must be a public policy reason for making 810 DEBATES - Thursday 25 August 1983 offences regulatory such as the need to secure public health or safety in the mining industry. Also, an offence may be regulatory because a particular action, such as not lodging documents with a relevant authority within a certain period, could be detrimental to the operation of any act. In addition, where penalties exceed $2000 or 12 months in prison, offences are not classified as regulatory. I will give 2 examples of possible regulatory offences as categorised by this bill: firstly, section 98 of the Food and Drugs Act requires food served to one person not to be reserved and, under regulation 32 of the Mines Safety Control Regulations, rescue equipment must be kept at a mine. I would foreshadow that amendments identifying regulatory offences in other legislation will be introduced. Mr Speaker, as an aside I would draw honourable members' attention to this very wide range of regulatory offences put before them. Some of them are very antiquated. No new regulatory offences are introduced by this bill but many of them, of course, go back many years as offences under existing legislation. In conjunction with all departments which have a role in the wide range of regulatory offences, and acts under which these regulatory offences are made, I shall review each of them as to their relevance. This exercise will take some considerable time, probably years. Within our present regulatory offences fall such things as the distance between a pigeon coop and the wall of a house. In 1983, one tends to wonder as to relevance of such provisions. There are also provisions in relation to the type of water and hygiene to be maintained in a barber shop when a shave is effected with a cut-throat razor. I do not think that practice is followed much these days. Therefore, I ask honourable members not to regard some of these offences as a source of humour. They are laws that have been in existence in the Northern Territory since the turn of the century or before and they will be addressed in due course. Debate adjourned. SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS Mr ROBERTSON (Attorney-General)(by leave): Mr Speaker, I move that so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent 10 bills relating to the establishment of a code of criminal law being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee's report stages, and the third readings of the bills together, and the consideration of the bills separately in the committee of the whole. Motion agreed to. BAIL (CRIMINAL CODE) AMENDMENT BILL (Serial 334) ELECTORAL (CRIMINAL CODE) AMENDMENT BILL (Serial 336) EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CODE) AMENDMENT BILL (Serial 337) INTERPRETATION (CRIMINAL CODE) AMENDMENT BILL (Serial 338) 811 DEBATES - Thursday 25 August 1983 JURIES (CRIMINAL CODE) AMENDMENT BILL (Serial 339) PRISONS (CORRECTIONAL SERVICES) (CRIMINAL CODE) AJv1ENDMENT BILL (Serial 340) SU}fr1ARY OFFENCES (CRIMINAL CODE) AMENDMENT BILL (Serial 341) SEXUAL OFFENCES (EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE) BILL (Serial 343) JUSTICES (CRIMINAL CODE) AMENDJv1ENT BILL (Serial 344) POISONS AND DANGEROUS DRUGS (CRIMINAL CODE) AMENDMENT BILL (Serial 346) Bills presented and read a first time. Mr ROBERTSON (Attorney-General): read a second time. Mr Speaker, I move that the bills now be Members will no doubt recall that I have, on a number of occasions, informed them of the need for consequential amendments to give effect to the proposed passage of the Criminal Code Bill. I propose now to deal with those

ctx:genes/edward-herbert-father/source/nt-parliament-debates-23-august-to-1-september-1983

ctx:genes/edward-herbert-father/source/nt-parliament-debates-23-august-to-1-september-1983-fulltext

donto:Chunk