Page 4673 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 15 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (5.15): Madam Speaker, I move:
Page 16, line 24, proposed new section 19YZ, add the following subsection:
"(2) The fact that providing information or answering questions pursuant to a requirement under paragraph 19YD(j) may tend to incriminate an occupier of premises shall be taken to be a reasonable excuse on the part of that occupier for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b).".
This is the amendment to proposed new section 19YZ. Mr Berry has drawn attention to the fact that the Opposition might, at one stage, have removed paragraph 19YD(j) from the Bill. That is the power that allows health inspectors to require the occupiers of premises to provide information or answer questions reasonably related to the use of the premises. We were concerned about that provision, but we are happy to ensure that proper protection is given to citizens by means of an amendment to proposed new section 19YZ which provides that a person shall not, without reasonable excuse, hinder or obstruct a health officer in the exercise of powers under, for example, section 19YD.
We propose to add a provision which makes it clear that, in answering questions under paragraph 19YD(j), a person may refuse to answer those questions on the basis that they may self-incriminate. The amendment provides that a reasonable excuse for declining to answer those questions or to otherwise obey what will become subsection 19YZ(1) is that the person will incriminate themselves by providing that answer or otherwise cooperating in that way. That is a reasonable requirement. I believe that the Government, the Opposition and the Independents share the view that we should not be requiring people to answer questions that would provide for self-incrimination. This merely makes it quite clear - - -
Mr Connolly: Like, "Is that a rat in the soup?".
MR HUMPHRIES: I think Mr Connolly has eaten something that does not agree with him. We are spelling out very clearly that a reasonable excuse is that persons might incriminate themselves. That is a reasonable excuse, and I think we should spell that out very clearly in legislation of this kind.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (5.17): I note Mr Humphries's earnest presentation on this issue as it relates particularly to paragraph 19YD(j). I will just read from it. It requires the occupier of the premises to provide information or answer questions reasonably related to the use of the premises in connection with the manufacture, preparation, processing, treatment, handling, sale or disposal of food. My understanding is that in the normal course of events a defence is that one was refusing to answer on the basis that it might be self-incriminating. The words proposed by Mr Humphries, therefore, become not particularly necessary, but not particularly offensive to the Government either.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .