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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (12 October) . . Page.. 3021 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

the range of powers the legislation vests in authorised officers. It is the view of the Labor Party that to some extent the powers vested by the Bill in authorised officers are perhaps unnecessarily broad.

I noted that in closing the debate at the in-principle stage the Minister commented that we are dealing with a particularly serious health issue. There is no doubt about that. The Minister made some comment about the seriousness of some of the offences under the Tobacco Act, particularly those in relation to ensuring that minors and people under age are not sold tobacco products, are not enticed to use them, and do not use them. I agree with the Minister in relation to that.

The issues we raise here in these amendments, issues going to the powers of authorised officers, always raise those questions of judgment. These are questions of fine judgment - the extent to which one does authorise a whole range of officials to undertake certain activities, to enter premises, to search, to ask questions. That range of issues in relation to the powers of public officials vis-a-vis our communities, our governments or an administration's attempts to control certain behaviour are always difficult issues. They are always issues of fine judgment. In relation to this particular legislation controlling the sale of tobacco products, the Labor Party has a view about where to draw the line with those powers.

I note the points the Minister makes in relation to the appropriateness of public health officials under tobacco legislation having the same power as, or more extensive powers than, police officers. There is no intended slight of public authorised officers under this legislation in suggesting that there are a range of functions that more appropriately might be vested in, or exercised by, police. We do not intend in any way to slight authorised officers, health officers who work under this legislation.

The amendments I propose go to the entry by authorised officers of retail premises. We are suggesting that those powers of entry should be exercised only at times at which tobacco products are available; that they not be exercised out of hours, in other words; that search warrants not be executed at midnight or something like that; that if it were decided to enter a premises it be done during normal business hours.

I am proposing in my amendment No. 4 that evidence obtained as a result of entry onto premises by an authorised officer be inadmissible unless an acknowledgment under subsection (2) is produced in evidence. That goes simply to the formal requirements which we believe should be imposed on an authorised officer seeking to take information or a statement from a person they suspect, on reasonable grounds, to be involved in an offence under the Act. It goes a little further than the provision the Minister had included in the Bill. It goes one step further.

The Minister did discuss at the conference today the extent to which the Government had moved to accept the recommendations of the scrutiny of Bills committee. The Minister did go some way to meeting those recommendations. This proposal of ours actually goes further and, we believe, more fully implements the recommendations of the scrutiny of Bills committee in relation to the appropriate range of powers that authorised officers should have.

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