Page 698 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
clinical waste, our local hospitals, could breach this Act without a challenge.
I believe this is totally unacceptable and would weaken the legislation to the point at which it would become almost worthless. Although it would be unusual for the Crown to initiate action against itself, the inclusion of clause 5 prevents private persons taking action to prevent the Crown breaching the legislation. I believe it is important for a private individual to have this right. I therefore give notice that during the detail stage I will be asking members to vote for the deletion of clause 5 from the Bill. I had a meeting with Mr Duby, and I believe that this will be agreed to. Of course, he could have changed his mind since that meeting; I do not know.
Mr Collaery: Smile at him.
MRS GRASSBY: He changes his mind a lot; therefore I am never sure.
Mr Berry: If you had a mind like that, you would change it, too.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Please proceed.
MRS GRASSBY: Good one.
MR SPEAKER: Order! The house will come to order.
MRS GRASSBY: I am interested to see how the Government responds to the other matters raised by Professor Whalan. In particular, Professor Whalan points out that there are plenty of precedents for improving the return of licence provisions in clause 26(1). He suggests that a "without reasonable excuse" element be inserted into clause 26(1) and a "within reasonable time" provision be inserted into clause 26(2). I am interested in hearing the Minister's response to these suggestions.
Professor Whalan also points out that clause 34(1) of the Bill, which deals with the requirement of any person on premises which have been entered by an inspector to answer questions, does not provide any of the usual protection against self-incrimination. This is, of course, a matter of some concern to all people who are concerned about civil liberties, and I will be interested to hear the Minister's response also to this point.
Finally, Professor Whalan points out that under clause 35 a sample is split and labelled only if the occupier requests part of the sample for analysis within 14 days. The Pesticides Act 1989, which was introduced by the Follett Labor Government, provides that splitting and labelling of the sample occurs automatically. Professor Whalan suggests that clause 35 should be amended to make the procedure similar to the Pesticides Act. The Opposition would fully support such an amendment, and I wait to see what the Minister does in this regard.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .