Page 4626 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 39 and 40, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 41
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (10.11): Madam Speaker, I move:
Page 22, line 6, paragraph (1)(a), omit "6", substitute "2".
Madam Speaker, clause 41 requires that goods which have been seized must be returned within six months to the licensee, should no proceedings be commenced. If this clause and the last clause we debated stayed in place, health inspectors would have to give, as soon as practicable, a list of what had been taken and could keep the goods for six months, even if no particular proceedings are commenced. That would be a pretty unusual circumstance, particularly as they could have gone into the premises without a warrant or without the okay from the Minister.
We believe that six months is simply too long. I do not know how this clause was drafted into the Bill, and I think we will never know. It would obviously be irresponsible if a provision along these lines were to drive an innocent operator out of business within a six-month period. Surely, six months is a very long time for a business to operate without those things which allow it to operate. We have suggested that the period should be two months. We believe that even that is probably too long, but we understand that the process of law takes a quite large amount of time. We understand that there are often problems with getting space in the Magistrates Court and so on. The last thing that we want to do is create a situation where a potential case against an operator falls apart because potential evidence has to be handed back and an offence cannot be proven. Two months should be the absolute outside. It should be possible well within a two-month period to get the implements of trade back to a person who is not going to be proceeded against. The Opposition is flexible in its approach; but I understand that it is necessary to set a time. So we have moved to make it two months; but six months would obviously be ridiculous.
MR STEVENSON (10.13): A friend of mine said that there is no limit to the number of rules and regulations that politicians can think of. The idea that six months is an okay time in which to get your business property back so that you can go on running your business is bizarre, but I understand why it was proposed. It is like wage and salary claims. We claim an extra $5,000 and expect to get about $500. Here we have provided for six months, thinking, "Someone will come along and amend it to two months. We would accept even a month, although it is extreme". If you agree with the idea that six months could put someone out of business - - -
Mr Lamont: Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order. If we need to put up with this from Mr Stevenson, I think the rest of the members of the Assembly would like to know that Australia won by 28 runs.
MADAM SPEAKER: That is a quite unusual point of order. Proceed, Mr Stevenson.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .