I move:—
To add at the end of sub-section (3) the words " if such fresh application is refused the applicant shall have the right of appeal to the arbitrator appointed under Part 1 of this Act."
I think the reasonableness of that is self-evident and cannot be objected to.
I wish to support Deputy Milroy. I had intended putting in an amendment on that point. A building may be condemned by an inspector and I think in connection with that it would be a very good thing if the department took under their control a creamery establishment erected without the consent of the Minister so that there may be no recurrence of the defects. If a building is condemned by an inspector for any reason the parties concerned should have power to put that matter before the arbitrator. The inspector's action may be arbitrary. It may not be possible for those people to get another building. It may be necessary that they should get time or it may be possible to reconstruct. The power to put such a matter in the hands of the arbitrator would be useful. That does not mean that the inspector is going to be turned down.
I am not in love with this amendment. I am in favour of their appealing to the arbitrator on specific questions, but we are agreed that there should be no appeal on the question of cleanliness. I do not think this amendment is necessary.
May I ask a question on this. Am I to understand from the Minister that the powers of the arbitrator apply only to Part 1 of this Act?
By Section 7 of Part 1 matters can be referred to arbitration.
The question of registration does not come under Part 1 and therefore it would not be covered by anything in Part 1.
There is an appeal to the arbitrator on every specific question practically except the question of cleanliness. If the Minister refuses to register premises he must refuse for reasons given. He must state specifically what is wrong. There is an appeal if he states what is wrong—an appeal to the arbitrator. In any event I should be willing to make that quite clear. We do provide in Section 3 and Section 6 for an appeal to the arbitrator on practically every point.
I am not quite clear about what the Minister wishes to make clear. If there is an application for registration of certain premises, and if that application is refused, it will be refused on grounds stated, and there will be an appeal against that. The appeal against these grounds stated would be, I presume, to the Minister.
No, to the arbitrator.
The Minister's suggestion is that when the Minister is refusing registration he has to state the grounds, and the grounds which he states will be such as you will find mentioned in the first portion of this Act. As regards the first portion of the Act, if it was an inspector who made those objections, there would be an appeal. Where there is an objection taken on the specific grounds on which he bases his refusal, there may be an appeal from his decision to the arbitrator on each of those specific grounds. The Minister will make that clear.
That is what this amendment does. The object of it is to secure that the person applying for registration shall have access to the arbitrator. That is my point.
Section 3 of the Bill provides that the premises shall be structurally suited for the manufacture of such descriptions of dairy produce as are in fact manufactured therein; that the plant and machinery or appliances or utensils shall be in a state of cleanliness and good repair; that the milk or cream and all other ingredients and materials shall be clean; and that the premises shall be provided with an adequate supply of pure water. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 says: " Where any inspector is satisfied, after an inspection under the foregoing sub-section that any such premises as aforesaid, or any of the plant, machinery, appliances or utensils therein do not comply with the conditions of cleanliness and order, such inspector may serve a notice in the prescribed form upon the person carrying on the manufacture of dairy produce for sale on such premises requiring such person to do in the manner and time specified in such notice, all or any of the things specified therein." And then sub-section 3 states that the notice may require that the premises may be cleansed; that the plant and machinery or appliances be cleansed; that the premises be put in a state of good repair and the plant and machinery put in a state of good repair; that steps be taken to ensure that the milk or cream and other ingredients on the premises be clean; and that any source of contamination be removed or rendered innocuous. Then Section 5 states: " The Executive Council shall appoint a fit and proper person to be standing arbitrator (in this part of this Act referred to as the arbitrator) for the purposes of this part of this Act." And then Section 6 says: " Any person on whom a notice is served by an inspector under this part of this Act (other than a notice only requiring any premises, plant, machinery, appliances or utensils to be cleansed) shall, on payment of the prescribed fees, be entitled to have such notice referred in the prescribed manner to the arbitrator." That makes it clear that in all these matters set out in Sections 3 and 4 you have an appeal to the arbitrator, and these are the matters that govern the registration of premises. So that there is no occasion for the amendment in view of the fact that this particular clause sets out that the Minister must specify the grounds of refusal to register.
I want to make it quite clear. Section 6 says " any person on whom a notice is served by an inspector under this part of this Act." Would not that primarily apply to premises already registered?
No, surely not. Section 3 says: " On and after the commencement of this Act, all premises in which dairy produce is manufactured for sale (whether such premises are or are not registered under this Act) shall comply with the following conditions (in this Act called the conditions of cleanliness and order), that is to say——." They are not registered up to the present, and they will only be registered on complying with these conditions.
If application for registration had been refused would that come under the words in Section 6: " Any person on whom a notice is served by an inspector under this Part of this Act "? Because it is upon such notice being served that the parties supposedly aggrieved would have access to the arbitrator.
A man makes application for registration, the inspector visits his premises, he finds that there is something wrong and he serves a notice.
