Page 4329 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 7 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
being committed but also something that might, in the view of a health inspector, be committed is patently ludicrous. There is absolutely no reason, no reason that anybody has managed to give us, or no example that would mean, or that could mean, that this sort of prospective power should be given to anybody. The Government says that it should not even be given to police officers, let alone health inspectors.
Madam Speaker, we believe very strongly that any power given to anybody should be given only when it is necessary, when dramatic problems can be overcome by the giving of that power. We have been given no indications of cases where - - -
Mr Berry: You have. You were not even there. You could not be bothered coming.
MRS CARNELL: You did not ask me. If the Government, in the various briefings that we have had on this Bill, could have given us any indication of a situation where this dramatic extension of power could be warranted the Liberal Party would have looked at it; but they have given us none. This is a quite substantial extension of power to health officers. As there have been so many interjections, I will be very interested to look at any information that can be given to us. It certainly has not been given to us to date, Madam Speaker.
MR MOORE (8.50): Madam Speaker, I discussed this issue this morning with somebody from Mr Berry's office and I found the explanation given to be inadequate. The fact that every other legislature in Australia does something is not reason enough in itself. It is, of course, something that one takes into consideration. The notion that we have legislation that sets up a situation that deals with an offence in the future is unacceptable to me. It seems to me that the problem is the way that the drafting instructions have been given. The example that I was given was about chickens that are sitting out on a bench and being stored at room temperature. Whilst they are sitting there at room temperature there may not be a problem, but, quite clearly, within a very short while there is going to be a salmonella problem, and a very dangerous one.
Mr Connolly: That is what this is intended to catch.
MR MOORE: Mr Connolly interjects, "That is what this is intended to catch". What we ought to be talking about is "an act that will have the consequence of". If you had given drafting instructions in that style it would have been acceptable. The notion of something that will be committed, in the opinion of a health inspector, is clearly open to abuse. That is the problem. There was a way of putting this together. If the Government is prepared to come back with it at some future time, that will be worth considering.
Mr Connolly: But it is on reasonable grounds, which is challengeable.
MR MOORE: Mr Connolly interjects, "But it is all on reasonable grounds". It will be challenged; but, in the meantime, somebody has lost their chooks and so forth on the action of a health inspector. The point is that, when we are dealing with legislation like this that is setting up the notion that something is likely to be committed, it really is a very difficult argument to sustain. Mr Connolly argued very strongly, with reference to the move-on powers, against the notion that somebody is about to commit an offence.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .