Page 4625 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (10.07): Madam Speaker, we are happy to support this amendment, because the working party said that it was reasonable. We have been consistent throughout. We consult and we act as a result of consultation. Mr Stevenson raised a question about issuing a receipt at the time. Again, we will take the worst case example. Suppose that we discover a tattooist operating in very shady circumstances where we may have reason to believe that proper infection control is not being practised. We would want to move - - -
Mrs Carnell: If they are not licensed?
MR CONNOLLY: They may have a licence.
Mrs Carnell: They may be licensed and shady?
MR CONNOLLY: Yes. No system is infallible and, human nature being what it is, you can get problems. You may need to go in and seize a lot of equipment that you perhaps have reason to believe is, in effect, not being properly looked after. You may have hundreds of needles. To give a proper receipt, you would have to properly describe them. That is why we had "as soon as practicable". We thought it could take a long time to sit down and clerically do all that.
The Opposition said that it should be within 48 hours. We looked at that and talked to the industry group and they said, "Yes, that would be better". Then, as Mrs Carnell said, we said, "If you are doing this, we probably should in fact make it 24 hours, because that is consistent". So we are doing that. The industry group said, "In some cases it may be difficult to comply with, but we will obviously seek to comply with it because it will be the law". But to issue a receipt at the time would present significant administrative problems. A receipt within 24 hours is a fairly substantial safeguard. Obviously, if there are abuses of the system, members of this place will raise that abuse and we will address it.
MR STEVENSON (10.09): I accept the Minister's worst case scenario, but let us take the worst case scenario on the other side - no needles are taken from the premises and yet a day later we find out that needles are included in the property that was taken. It would be perhaps unreasonable to suggest that the number of needles counted be included - say, 146 needles - but certainly "a quantity of needles" could be included, together with any other specific items. It may not be exact at that time, but at least the person would have some protection. After all, it is not unknown that some people can get fitted up in different areas, if we look at the worst case scenario.
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (10.10): Madam Speaker, actually I agree with Mr Stevenson in almost all circumstances. I would hope that a health inspector who seized equipment would attempt to give immediate documentation on what he or she had taken. I believe that that would be the best possible practice; but I concede that in some cases it could take a little bit longer, and I think 24 hours is appropriate. I certainly think that the procedure should be that, when whatever is taken from anybody's premises belongs to somebody else, a receipt should be given. I would certainly want one.
Amendment agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .