Territory Stories

Parliamentary record : Part I debates (19 August 1981)



Parliamentary record : Part I debates (19 August 1981)


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




Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory





Publisher name

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly

Place of publication


File type



Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory



Parent handle


Citation address


Page content

DEBATES - Wednesday 19 August 1981 I would add here that I did not see any mention of hay or chaff as a stock food. When I queried this, I was told that these had been excluded specifically because of the impossibility of fitting them into the legislation. This will be seen from clause 16 - label to be affixed to a package - if we consider the definition of a package in relation to a bale of hay. Under clause 16, it appears that hay cannot be sold as a bale of hay. It would need to be broken up and sold as portions of a bale under clause 16(3). This would be ridiculous of course. I think this is the reason why hay and chaff have been excluded. Perhaps some provision will have to be made at some time if somebody is selling baled sticks or baled roots for hay. Comparing the definition of 'stock food' to the definition of 'manufactured stock food', I found some confusion. Some confusion may also have been experienced by the draftsman and the officers of the Department of Primary Production. I think they have done the best they can in that stock food includes manufactured stock food, a byproduct and a stock lick. I thought that a stock lick should be included in manufactured stock feed. This is where we agree to differ. It was mentioned to me also that it was very difficult to include meatmeal because meatmeal could be considered a manufactured stock food or it could be considered a byproduct. That may have been the reason why stock food included those 3 things. Paragraph (d) of the definition of 'stock food' gives the minister power to declare other food as stock food. From clause 5 - exemption for certain importers - it appears that, if stock food from another state is registered legally in that state, the Northern Territory government will accept that registration. It may seem that we make our legislation but rely on other states' legislation. However, I have been told it will make the maintenance of records easier and reduce red tape. Also, fewer public servants will be employed and there will be less drain on the public purse. I was rather concerned by clause 9 which relates to delegation. It says the Chief Inspector may, by instrument in writing, delegate to a person any of his powers and functions under this act other than his power of delegation. That sounds all right as it is written, but under section 7(1) and section 12(2) of the Stock Routes and Travelling Stock Act, the Chief Inspector has powers of delegation, but the Administrator can only grant these powers of delegation if the delegatee is a public servant. Again, this gets back to my particular hobby horse on legislation relating to stock in the Northern Territory. Consistency is lacking between one piece of legislation and another. I would like the powers of delegation in this bill to be the same as those in the Stock Routes and Travelling Stock Act and vice versa. I have been told that the Chief Inspector cannot delegate to any person other than a public servant. This may be correct. I have not read the legislation relating to public servants but I still would like to see consistency in the legislation. In clause 11, paragraphs (1) (a) and (l)(b), a period of 30 days is mentioned and in subclause (2) a period of 28 days is mentioned. I cannot see why these 2 periods of time cannot be identical. I understand 28 days is used because it is a nice round 4 weeks and 30 days is used because it is a nice round month. It is inconsistent, Mr Speaker. I have reservations about clause 11(4). Again I have been assured that my worries will not be fulfilled and I need have no reservations. The person seeking registration of stock feed is required to make a statutory declaration based on the findings of the stock feed content made by an analyst. I assume the anal;Tst would make a statutory declaration on this findings. Even if he did not make a statutory declaration, it seems to me that the applicant is swearing 1322