Page 5618 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

The Minister is correct; when we were in government we did take advice on this matter because we were concerned about it, and I am sure that the Minister is also. I suppose there is always the possibility, when you write something into a Bill like this and it becomes law, that it can be misused; but I think we have to assume that the people who will operate under this new law will operate in good faith, unless it is demonstrated otherwise. So, I am prepared to allow these provisions to go through. I think there is a case for them; but, as with other aspects of this Bill, I think that the Government, and certainly the Opposition, will keep it under review.

I have said before, publicly, that this Bill is changing in a very significant way the law relating to planning. It is a new benchmark. It is not going to remain static. From the day that this Bill is signed into law there will be motions to amend it. The dynamic process related to any law will continue; but it will continue from a new benchmark, and clearly this is one aspect of the Bill which, in the future, may cause such concern that people will seek to amend it in some way. If there is justification for doing that, then we, whether in government or in opposition at the time, will look at the circumstances and whether the Act needs to be changed. With that proviso, the Liberal Party in opposition supports these provisions.

MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.26): Mr Deputy Speaker, I referred to an amendment I had circulated. I did not actually move it. I now move:

Clause 151, page 68, line 34, add at the end the following subclauses:

"(3) Where an authorised person obtains the consent of the occupier to enter a place under subsection (1), the authorised person shall ask the occupier to sign a written acknowledgment -

(a) that the occupier has been informed that he or she may refuse to so consent;

(b) that the occupier has consented; and

(4) Where it is material, in any proceedings, for a court to be satisfied that an occupier has consented to the entry of premises by an authorised person under subsection (1) and an acknowledgment in accordance with subsection (3) signed by the occupier is not produced in evidence, it shall be presumed that the occupier did not consent, but that presumption is rebuttable.".

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .