Page 4332 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 7 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (9.04): This clause would grant power to a health officer to act under unusual circumstances where he considers, on reasonable grounds, that an offence will be committed. Mr Berry says that a common defence for someone charged with that sort of matter would be that the person was taking the action on reasonable grounds. There is no limit to the powers that one could give officers in protecting people for their own good. We have a situation in Australia with consumer affairs, as an example, where people are well protected. They have trade practices regulations. They have consumer affairs associations, national bodies, State bodies and local council bodies. We also have the media. Programs like The Investigators, A Current Affair and a number of others are largely dedicated to protecting people against being defrauded, ripped off, taken advantage of, or whatever. What has this resulted in? It has resulted in many people handing over to government bodies their responsibility for looking after themselves and their families.
What is the record of those government bodies in looking after people? I suggest that it cannot be too good, because at this time we have more people being ripped off than ever before in the history of man. It is simply not working. You set up a situation whereby you say, "You do not need to worry. You do not need to accept any responsibility for your life, for the lives of your families. Trust us. We are doing the job properly". What happens if you do not do the job properly? Have you committed an offence? Should there be some offence if you tell somebody, "We will protect you", and you then do not protect them? Would that be a reasonable offence? Would it be a reasonable offence if a person, a consumer, on reasonable grounds thought that you may commit such an offence in the future by passing a Bill like this? The problem is that there is absolutely no limit whatsoever to the powers you can grant to someone to look after someone else.
Mr Berry: Were there any around to protect people from depilation?
Ms Follett: They got their hairs ripped off.
Mr Berry: It was all right to rip their hairs off, wasn't it, Dennis?
MR STEVENSON: I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that Mr Berry should not talk about hair removal.
Mr Berry: I would not let you near me. I would have none left.
MR STEVENSON: It would depend on where you were talking about. Madam Speaker, I consider, along with Mr Moore and the members of the Liberal Party, that this clause goes too far. It gives a power that is unreasonable. To suggest that the person who has been charged, who is hauled off before a court, has a defence is not a reasonable situation. This is one we should knock out.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (9.08): Madam Speaker, there have been lots of giggles and chuckles and carrying-on tonight. It is a case of "We have all got together and we are going to roll the Government, and that is a jolly funny thing"; but this is a serious step that members are taking. Members should not be under the misapprehension that you are removing from the Government's desire a sweeping power which we wish to introduce.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .