Territory Stories

Parliamentary record : Part I debates (19 August 1981)

Details:

Title

Parliamentary record : Part I debates (19 August 1981)

Collection

Debates for 3rd Assembly 1980 - 1983; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 3rd Assembly 1980 - 1983

Date

1981-08-19

Notes

Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Language

English

Subject

Debates

Publisher name

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly

Place of publication

Darwin

File type

application/pdf

Use

Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

License

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Parent handle

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/220994

Citation address

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/697218

Page content

DEBATES - Wednesday 19 August 1981 That is a lot of money tied up in stock feed. Of the total of 6945 tonnes of processed stock feed used in 1979, 88.5% was mixed in the Northern Territory. That means that by far the greater proportion of all stock feed used in the Northern Territory was mixed in the Northern Territory. That comprised 92.7% poultry feed, 97.8% pig feed, 7.1% horse feed and 56% cattle feed. The third statement in this survey which relates to the current legislation is that, excluding hay, chaff and brewers grain, 17.4% of the 6606 tonnes of feed ingredients used by the stock feed industry were produced in the Northern Territory. This comprised grain 7.2%, grain byproducts nil, protein sources 51.6% and other 24.6%. That shows the importance, in 1979, of stock feed and its use in the Northern Territory. I think it would be very interesting when the Douglas-Daly project has been going for a number of years - and I feel certain that this will be done on a continuing basis - to compare the figures then with these figures on how much locally-produced grain is used in our processed stock feeds. When we compare this legislation to stock feed provisions in other states, it could be said that we take more care with the composition of stock feed than we do with our own feed. It has been drawn to my attention, and I noticed it myself, that tinned dog meat states quite plainly on the label that it is strictly pet meat. I have tried this food on a number of occasions just to see what the dogs do eat. Some of it tastes quite nice and some of it tastes not very nice, but nobody has asked me for a recommendation yet. All they ask for are the dogs' recommendations! I have also tried some dog biscuits. I offered some dog biscuits to guests of mine at a large barbecue some years ago and they were highly appreciated at the time. They were very hygienically prepared and nutritious. They went very well with the cheese, butter and lettuce if you did not mind the little bits of shell. On a more serious note, Mr Speaker, I will reiterate that it is necessary to have competent stock food legislation for 2 reasons. One is not current now, but there was a practice some years ago which used to worry macho Australian males at the time. I do not think it is current practice now, but it was the practice to insert capsules of sex hormones under the wings of young roosters to make them capons, and I think that men worried when they ate cooked chook. The other practice was the addition of antibiotics to stock feed to stimulate growth. There was some fear that it would increase the tolerance of humans to this antibiotic, or it would increase their resistance to the antibiotic if they ate a treated animal or a product of such an animal. With the increase of tolerance or the increase of resistance to this antibiotic, more antibiotics would be needed by the human in medical and surgical situations later on. I hasten to add, Mr Speaker, that I still eat the veal that I produce with a little bit of denkavit, which has an antibiotic in i.t. But it is registered in Queensland quite legally. Commenting briefly had my differences with that my interpretation correct. I have agreed on the bill, I would like to start by saying that I have the Department of Primary Production officers. I feel of certain sections are different to theirs but just as to differ and I hope that they have agreed to differ too. I wish to comment on the clause 4 definitions of 'additives', 'adulterant', and 'by-product'. They are defined to a point but the definition section finishes up with 'and anything else prescribed to be an additive or an adulterant or a by-product'. I assume that would be by the Chief Inspector. It is a bit like saying: 'It is an adulterant or an additive because I say it is'. I suppose it is fair enough because one would expect the Chief Inspector to be slightly knowledgeable on the subject. The definitions of 'container' and 'package' are rather confusing. I get the general idea of "hat is meant by 'container' and 'package', but I do not think it is streamlined enough. 1321


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this website may contain the names, voices and images of people who have died, as well as other culturally sensitive content. Please be aware that some collection items may use outdated phrases or words which reflect the attitude of the creator at the time, and are now considered offensive.

We use temporary cookies on this site to provide functionality.
By continuing to use this site without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies.