Page 4666 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 15 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (4.48): Madam Speaker, the Liberals make light of this matter.
Mrs Carnell: We do not.
MR BERRY: You do make light of it. There are indeed circumstances where a health officer may need entry to private property on the spot and without time to organise a search warrant. I have been given some examples. An example might be the illegal slaughter and dressing of animals in a residential garage - it might be dogs, pigs, cats, or whatever - that might be intended for human consumption. The health officer may visit on the grounds of a complaint that has been laid by a neighbour who knows something of these matters and would not, in the first place, see that as a reason for obtaining a search warrant. If this power is removed it might well involve the procurement of search warrants on a more regular basis, which would, of course, lead to added expense for the Government when it may not, in most cases, be necessary.
Mr Moore: How often does it happen at the moment?
MR BERRY: Not very often. This is about serious risk to public health. We are not talking about - - -
Mr Humphries: About civil rights.
MR BERRY: No, we are not. We are talking about serious risk to public health.
Mrs Carnell: But not people's rights.
MR BERRY: Mrs Carnell says, "But not people's rights". I have heard Mr Stevenson in here arguing about people's rights on the issue of fluoride in the water supply. There are a number of people out there who do not like fluoride in the water supply.
Mrs Carnell: What has that to do with warrants?
MR BERRY: It has. If we went down your path we would take it out of the water for those houses; we would not infringe upon those rights. There are certain judgments made in relation to people's rights when it comes to the protection of the public. That is the nature of law, if you have not noticed.
We have a situation where these animals might be undergoing slaughter or might be being broken down. If people were aware that the health officer was there and he was refused permission to enter and was forced to go away to get a warrant, the breaking-down team, if we can call them that, could clean up the mess and be gone in no time. If the health officer has to leave the premises the evidence could be removed. That is the simple outcome of what is being proposed.
It is not going to be the end of the legislation if this is withdrawn, Madam Speaker. This is just a move by the people opposite to put their scent on every light pole. That is fine, but every one of these steps that they take weakens to one degree or another this very good legislation. Sure, as I said, it will survive; but the strength of the legislation in respect of health officers on this particular matter is a useful tool. It is not often used; that is agreed. But what about a serious situation? I have to draw attention to the wording of the legislation. It says:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .