Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I ask the Minister to reconsider the amendments. Every time we put a phrase into legislation such as "allowing discretion to be used", it has reached the stage that it must be proved in court that discretion can be exercised and shown as exercised. Every time there is a list with the words "including" or "inter alia", an element not on the list can be challenged in court. The legislation refers to two kilograms or 20 kilograms and the Minister proposes to insert "in weight" after this. This is unnecessary. If there is legislation where "kilograms" is written without "in weight" following, someone may be able to challenge it in court by indicating that there is no specification of kilograms in weight. What else could it be except in weight? Some of my learned friends are smiling but I have been dealing with lawyers too long and I believe this to be an error. It is unnecessary unless "kilograms" can mean something else and we should not add the words "in weight" after it. Do we put "in length" after miles or kilometres and do we put "in volume" after cubic measurements? We may be starting something I have not seen before and it is unnecessary. There are three lawyers in the Chamber and I hope they will support me or at least acknowledge the veracity of what I say.