Page 4281 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
While we do not propose to prevent the passage of this Bill, there are several concerns which we believe must be addressed before we can agree with it. The Bill states that the code of practice will be published in the Gazette and in a local daily newspaper. The Opposition believes that it should be a requirement to inform all licensees directly of such codes by posting a copy of the code to them. If the Government is going to introduce this legislation, they must make sure that the licensee knows the rules by which they perform these procedures.
The Bill also provides powers to enable the entry of officers to licensed premises, either by consent or where reasonable grounds of seriousness and urgency require entry to the premises. The Opposition does not believe that an authorised officer should be able to enter premises when consent has not been obtained. There should be a requirement that an order to enter premises must be accompanied by a notice signed by the Minister. The inspector must have this signed notice if he or she wants to enter the premises without consent. If the situation is urgent enough, obviously getting such ministerial consent will not be difficult. In addition, the occupant should also be made aware that, once consent to entry has been granted, the inspector has a wide range of powers to seize and inspect goods. If this is to occur, prior to consent the occupant must be provided with a statement which informs him or her of exactly what the inspector has the power to do. Those powers are outlined in clause 35.
Still in relation to this matter, clause 38 requires the authorised officer to give a notice in writing as soon as practicable of all items seized. But how long is "as soon as practicable"? There must be a requirement that such notice which informs the occupant of what has been seized be provided within 48 hours. Seizure of goods is not proof of any offence, and innocent licensees could be adversely affected if their goods are seized. Licensees should have a right to know quickly exactly which ones of their possessions have been taken. Clause 41 requires goods seized to be returned within six months should no proceedings be commenced. The Opposition believes that this could drive an innocent operator out of business within that period. Six months does seem too long, Madam Speaker, and an amendment is required to reduce this. We are suggesting two months. Why should a business suffer if the authorised officer was wrong in his or her suspicions?
While we have other concerns, the final matter with which we are mainly concerned is the power vested in the Minister to determine fees. The clause in question authorises the Minister to determine fees for the purposes of the Act and the regulations. This grants the Executive the type of authority which should be vested in the Assembly. Accordingly, an amendment is required that fees be set by regulation and be subject to disallowance by this Assembly. Madam Speaker, this is an important Bill, and the Opposition objects to it being rammed through - and I make that comment advisedly - with little analysis of the effects of such legislation. Remember that this legislation was tabled only at the last sitting, and on the final day of the last sitting.
Finally, I would like to comment on the workings of the working party which apparently was set up to look at the code of conduct for this Bill. The member of the working party to whom I spoke seemed to have very little knowledge of the Bill and was not even aware that the Bill was scheduled for debate in this Assembly tonight. He said that he had
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .