Page 5964 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Can that consent be a consent at large to allow the police to go back time and time again? I was not too worried about it in the planning context; but, having signalled my concern, I am concerned that we have not discussed it again since. It says, literally:
Where a police officer obtains the consent of the occupier to enter upon land ... the police officer shall ask the occupier to sign a written acknowledgment ...
Arguably, the consent relates only to that entry. But I think that, in civil liberty terms, we need to look at the wording of subclause (3), where it says:
... in any proceedings, for a court to be satisfied that an occupier has consented to the entry of land or premises ...
The word "the" suggests an event - singular - but I am not sure that it is altogether clear. I am not going to press the issue tonight. When this provision is used again - as undoubtedly it will be, because it is becoming a form used by parliamentary draftsmen - I would like to be assured, since the matter does not appear beyond doubt to me, about what is intended. I trust that the words I have just said and the reply that the Attorney gives will be the extrinsic aid, in any event.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (6.07): I think that it is appropriate to respond. I would not agree with Mr Collaery that this is somewhat ambiguous, but I would certainly interpret it - as I think he would, on balance - as meaning consent to "the entry" rather than "entries". I would assume that the consent is valid for that entry.
Mr Stefaniak: Commonsense; common English applies.
MR CONNOLLY: As Mr Stefaniak says, it is a commonsense approach. But, as we know, lawyers make their careers on pulling out other than a commonsense construction from what are otherwise plain words.
Mr Stefaniak: We would be happy with them going back a few times, though, Terry.
MR CONNOLLY: Yes. It is helpful if it is made clear for the record that it is the Assembly's intention that, clearly, a consent is a consent for a particular visit and not a consent at large. Also, I guess, we will need to watch what happens in the courts as these matters are litigated. If there appear to be abuses or problems with consent forms, we will need to revisit the issue.
Amendments agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .