Page 4620 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If there is an emergency situation, there must be methodology under the legislation to allow for entry into those particular premises. We do not step away from that. But to allow a departmental officer, whether it be a food inspector or an inspector under this legislation, simply to enter somebody's premises without consent, without a warrant and without written authorisation, I believe, is an invasion of privacy and potentially subject to abuse. We argued the same line under the food legislation. At that stage the Assembly supported this particular approach, and I certainly urge the Assembly to do the same at this stage. The other amendments involved are consequential.
MR MOORE (9.51): It really is a very serious issue when we are talking about entry to premises. In fact, Madam Speaker, I recall raising this issue when the Land (Planning and Environment) Act went through. I believe that arguments that were put forward for such a need under that legislation were certainly much less than with this legislation; but, even so, Madam Speaker, I think all of us can perceive of a situation where an officer may have reasonable grounds to enter premises. Whilst the amendment improves the situation significantly, it surprises me that the Minister did not use the same method they use with police - that is, having a warrant - especially if the Minister is concerned about his own availability or the availability of his delegate. The sensible approach may well have been a warrant obtained in the normal way through a magistrate. In that case an authorised officer would have a range of possible approaches. The Minister has had that opportunity. If the Minister, believing that the Assembly is inclined to support Mrs Carnell's amendments, would prefer a magistrate to issue a warrant, then I think that would also be a sensible approach. In the interim, Madam Speaker, I am quite happy if the genuine power to enter is vested in the Minister.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (9.53): Madam Speaker, the Government's position on these amendments is much the same as it was on the previous ones. We took a Bill that had been developed over a lot of time with a lot of consultation with industry groups. Everybody was happy with it. Mrs Carnell came up with some amendments. She seems to think this is a passionate, vital issue of principle. We took it to the industry group. The industry group said, "No; it is fine. Go ahead with it". Mr Moore said that in more serious matters this power has been rejected. This is pretty serious stuff we are talking about here. We are talking about the tattooist with a dirty needle. We are talking about the - - -
Mr Moore: I said that there are less serious matters.
MR CONNOLLY: I am sorry. You said "less serious". I appreciate that. This is a very serious matter. Mr De Domenico says, "Ah!". We are potentially talking about the tattooist with the dirty, infected needle. In terms of public health, it would be hard to think of a more serious matter. Hence we had an emergency entry process. When some little while ago we passed a piece of legislation reviewing police powers and developing a modern form of police powers, members may recall that we foreshadowed that there was a fairly major exercise going on within government which probably will not see the light of day until after the election, well into the next Assembly. I am looking forward to bringing that forward then. Madam Speaker, that involves looking at all of the powers for all of these officers who are not police officers but who have various entry and search powers, and trying to come up with a logical and consistent across-the-board approach to these sorts of emergency entry and search powers.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .