Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (22 November) . . Page.. 2280 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

A person shall not, without reasonable excuse -

(a) obstruct or hinder an inspector in the exercise of his or her powers under this Act or the regulations; or

(b) contravene a requirement made by an inspector under section 62.

The penalty for a natural person is 100 penalty units and for a body corporate 500 penalty units. They are significant penalties. It raises the question why you would instruct your staff to put themselves in this position when you could have taken another decision. Why did you not - - -

Mrs Carnell: I do not think he instructed his staff to hinder.

MR BERRY: What did you say, Mrs Carnell?

MR SPEAKER: Order!

MR BERRY: No; I would withdraw that too. I would be quiet about that.

MR SPEAKER: Mrs Carnell did not say anything. Ask your question, Mr Berry.

MR BERRY: Why did you not advise the complainant of their rights under sections 82 and 83 of the Act?

MR DE DOMENICO: I thank Mr Berry for his question. Mr Berry, in a very florid way - - -

Mr Berry: In case you have not read it, I will give it to you.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr De Domenico is answering the question.

MR DE DOMENICO: Mr Berry, there was no direction to interfere with any investigation whatsoever.

Mr Berry: Involve themselves.

MR DE DOMENICO: Well, you said "interfere".

Mr Berry: "Involve themselves", I said.

MR DE DOMENICO: I am saying there was no direction whatsoever, Mr Berry, to interfere. When three different organisations come - - -

Mr Berry: "I sent my staff member up there", you said, publicly.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .