Page 5959 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
contentious issues when a case goes to court is whether the police did or did not have the consent of the occupier to enter premises, especially when there is not a search warrant.
This Bill clarifies the situation and, provided it is not a huge administrative problem for the police - and I understand from Mr Connolly that it is not and that it can be covered quite simply - then it is a sensible addition which will save some time when the matter comes to court. It might mean the difference between having a voir dire and not having a voir dire, and that is certainly sensible. In relation to the issue of search and entry, though, I would think that in most of these cases, certainly from my experience from my time in prosecutions, you would need a search warrant because the types of criminals that we are talking about try to hide their ill-gotten gains and they are certainly not going to make life easy for the law enforcement authorities.
I have also circulated two proposed amendments to Mr Connolly's amendments. I have spoken to the Attorney about them. They relate to the prescribed time, which appears in clauses 39 and 68. The Commonwealth legislation, we think, had "one month", and that is what is in the legislation which is before us. Mr Connolly wants to amend it to 72 hours. One month is certainly more appropriate, and that is, in fact, what the Commonwealth legislation has. We have done some double-checking there and I understand that he will be supporting my amendment in that regard. Members should note, in fact, that my proposition of 28 days is based also on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report. We changed a similar one-month clause for a search warrant in the planning and environment legislation to 28 days. That was done only last week, if I am correct. That was drawn to the attention of the Attorney by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee.
As to search warrants in relation to this Bill, I feel that for consistency, if we provide for one month or 28 days in the planning legislation, the same should apply in this legislation. Accordingly, that is taken up in my two amendments. Mr Speaker, I certainly would commend this legislation - which is crucial legislation in terms of fighting major crime - to the house.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (5.56), in reply: I thank both Mr Collaery and Mr Stefaniak for their comments. Certainly, proceeds of crime legislation is an important part of the armoury which the state needs to deal with organised crime. It has been a pattern in Australia now since 1982, when the Commonwealth Act was first introduced, that States and Territories have such legislation. The reason we are debating this tonight and the Government has some degree of urgency on it is that the Commonwealth legislation, which currently applies to the Territory, will expire on 4 March. So, it is necessary that we have this legislation in place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .