Page 4337 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 7 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Where a police officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a person in a public place is engaged, or is likely to engage, in violent conduct in that place, the police officer may direct the person to leave the vicinity.
It is very similar, is it not? Is it not precisely the same issue? It is precisely the same issue.
Let us look at the question of who might exercise the power. In the case of the Police Offences Act the power is exercised by a police officer. In the case of the Food (Amendment) Bill the power is exercised by a health inspector. What is the substantive difference? Very little, except that the police officer probably has more years of training than does a health inspector. That is probably the only difference I can point to in these two pieces of legislation.
Mr Connolly: And there is not a single record of a complaint against a health officer. You put out a press release about complaints against police and said that there were too many.
MR HUMPHRIES: Let us come back, Madam Speaker, to this other issue. He keeps on raising them. Mr Connolly has said, "No-one can give us an example of it", meaning the powers exercised under this legislation - - -
Mr Connolly: Prospective-style powers, yes.
MR HUMPHRIES: No-one can give an example of the prospective-style powers having been abused, and therefore we should support those powers. How many complaints were received about the move-on powers, Mr Connolly? To quote Mr Connolly, "Give me one example".
Mr Connolly: I can tell you lots of groups that lobbied against the powers. You show me one organisation that objects to this.
MR HUMPHRIES: Sure, lots of groups, yes. Madam Speaker, the double standards being exercised tonight are absolutely sickening. Mr Berry and Mr Connolly cannot accept the fact that they have applied in this place a standard which they cannot now accept in respect of a different piece of legislation. Listen to your own words, Mr Connolly:
... the Government has always taken the view that you should not use an arbitrary power to give the police power to deal with a citizen who has committed no offence.
Later on he refers to the use of statutory powers against individuals who have committed no crime. Madam Speaker, a health inspector comes into a restaurant and sees, for example, to use Mr Berry's example, a tub of galvanised metal in which flour or salt has been placed. That health inspector says, "In a month's time that galvanised metal is going to leach into the flour or the salt and it is going to poison that flour or salt by contaminating it with zinc. Therefore, a person who consumes that flour or salt in a month's time is going to become ill or maybe even die". That is a very good point to make; but, Madam Speaker, we have no proof, we have not the slightest evidence, in fact, that a person to whose attention a possible breach of health regulations which might occur in the future is drawn will not, in those circumstances, take some steps to rectify that problem.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .