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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (23 August) . . Page.. 3257 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

does not oppose the application for warrant in this way, but opposes provisions in the bill where, if it is impractical to send the warrant by fax, the investigator can write down the details of the warrant as dictated to the inspector by the person issuing the warrant, obviously by phone.

Since as early as 1990, when the Commonwealth made a review of the Commonwealth criminal law, the introduction of telephone warrants has been justified. The report of the Australian Law Reform Commission on criminal investigation recommended statutory provision for grant by telephone of search warrants, pointing out the difficulties that may be experienced by law enforcement officers in remote areas in gaining access to magistrates.

Two grounds were thought to justify the introduction of telephone warrants. Firstly, it is said that law enforcement officers may urgently require a search warrant in a remote area distant from a magistrate. Secondly, a law enforcement officer may, while engaged in a law enforcement operation, not necessarily in a remote area, urgently require a warrant, and the success of the operation might be prejudiced if he or she had to leave the scene of the operation to obtain a warrant by the normal procedure.

Several laws both at federal and territory levels have adopted a provision similar to new subsection 12C (5) in the Fair Trading Legislation Amendment Bill. Several laws have been passed and are currently in operation. These include the Commonwealth Customs Act of 1901, section 203M, which deals with warrants by telephone or other electronic means; the ACT Utilities Act of 2000, section 158 (5), warrants-application made other than in person; the ACT Gas Safety Act of 2000, section 46 (5), warrants-application made other than in person; and the ACT Electricity (Amendment) Act of 2000, section 89K, dealing with warrants-application made other than in person.

Notwithstanding this, the government notes the objections to this provision and it concedes that in the ACT the extraordinary provision for an investigator to jot down the details of a warrant would be seldom used. Accordingly, the government will be accepting Mr Stanhope's amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (12.15): I move amendment No 5 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 3307].

Mr Speaker, the Attorney has just given a very good explanation of the government's position and what it was that it sought to achieve. I am pleased that the government has taken the initiative it has. I do not think I need to say any more.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Stanhope, the Attorney has indicated agreement. With the agreement of the Assembly, might I suggest that we deal with amendments Nos 5, 6, 7 and 8 together? Would you like to do so?

MR STANHOPE: I am happy to move them all, but I think Nos 6 and 7 are consequential. I would not be moving Nos 6 and 7 if No 5 passes. I seek leave to move them together.

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