Page 4624 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Page 18, line 27, paragraph (1)(b), add "and".
Page 18, line 27, paragraph (1)(b), add the following paragraph:
"(c) give to that person a copy of section 35.".
Page 18, line 29, subclause (2), omit "paragraph 33(1)(b)", substitute "subsection 33(1)".
Page 19, line 4, subclause (3), omit "paragraph 33(1)(b)", substitute "subsection 33(1)".
These amendments are consequential on the previous amendments.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 37, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 38
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (10.05): Madam Speaker, I move:
Page 20, line 33, omit "as soon as practicable", substitute "within 24 hours".
Madam Speaker, clause 38 of the Bill requires an authorised officer to give notice in writing as soon as practicable of all items seized in an inspection. The Bill uses the words "as soon as practicable", but this is a nebulous statement and the Opposition believes that there should be a stipulation that the provision of such notice detailing those things that have been seized must be given to the licensee within 24 hours. Forty-eight hours was actually our initial time limit, but one of Mr Connolly's officers pointed out - and we thank him for that - that the limit in the Food Act is actually 24 hours. We do not see why it should be different in this legislation. The working party saw that as an appropriate approach as well. This amendment makes it fair to the occupant, who may be innocent of any offence, of course. The things that are taken may be taken just as a precaution to see whether an offence has been committed. The working party, I understand, has agreed with this provision and I am looking forward to the Government's support for this approach.
MR STEVENSON (10.07): The question I ask the Minister is why people's private property or business property should be allowed to be taken without a receipt. It is all very well to say that there is going to be a receipt in 24 hours, 48 hours, a few days or as soon as possible later; but how does that allow for justice? If something is taken, what is taken should be clearly indicated. That would prevent any mix-up later about something being taken, when in fact it was not taken. Why is the person not entitled to a receipt at the time, rather than later on?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .