Page 4663 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 15 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I also commend the Opposition for the research they have done in examining legislation that applies in other States and Territories across Australia. We have been very proactive in gathering this information and it is disappointing that we still have a rather invective debate in this Assembly today. I believe, as a result of Mr Moore's attempts to investigate the matter further, that the advice from the Parliamentary Counsel is quite correct, as it always is. I believe, from that perspective, that Mrs Carnell's very sensible amendment to this legislation should be supported.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.35): Madam Speaker, I do not think Mr Berry is well advised to talk about playing the fool, because when it comes to - - -
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Humphries, I think you have spoken twice already, so you need leave.
Leave granted.
MR HUMPHRIES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think that the two Ministers who spoke on this matter deserve a bit of a rap on the knuckles for their very poor interpretative powers. Mr Berry suggested a moment ago that by moving this amendment Mrs Carnell is putting at risk the power of health inspectors to enter premises and to do certain things as set out in proposed section 19YD. My response to that argument, Mr Berry, is that that is garbage. If Mr Berry looks at proposed section 19YB, it says that a health officer may enter prescribed premises in certain circumstances. The provision that Mrs Carnell is seeking to amend is the provision in proposed section 19YA which deals with the definition of offences. It says:
A reference in this Part to an offence shall be read as including a reference to an offence that there are reasonable grounds for believing is being, has been or will be, committed.
Now Mr Connolly is telling Mr Berry, "You might have got it wrong, Wayne. Do not worry about it".
Mr Connolly: I am explaining how you are wrong.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, there is nothing in proposed section 19YA that affects the capacity of officers to enter premises under proposed section 19YD. It does affect the capacity to do certain things once they are in there, but there is no problem with them entering those premises. The power of entry is governed by proposed section 19YB, which is not affected by proposed subsection 19YA(2) because there is no reference to offences in proposed section 19YB. That is Mr Berry's rather inane point.
I come back to the comment made by Mr Connolly about this minute he has circulated. He talks about it as if to say, "Here is the Government making all this information fully available to the Opposition". I got this about an hour ago. I might say that this is one of the least helpful minutes or pieces of information I have ever seen released by a member of the Government or by a public servant to anybody else. The information in this is extremely unhelpful. It is so brief as to be incomprehensible. It is also rather incomplete. It says, "NT, no formal seizure powers at present; Tas, South Australia could not contact". What sort of advice to the ACT Assembly is this supposed to be?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .