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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 4 March 2004) . . Page.. 786 ..

MS DUNDAS (5.19): I will be opposing this clause. As I said earlier, I am still quite concerned about removing the common law privilege against self-incrimination, no matter what caveats are put on it. There are common law principles at stake here. I accept that the minister has gone some way to put in those caveats. We will be taking up some of my concerns in my earlier amendments in relation to how these parts of the act will apply, but I do think there are some fundamental principles that need to be maintained in our law system.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.20): The government will be supporting clause 92 of the bill. Clause 92 modifies the operation of the common law privilege against self-incrimination. This is to ensure that, where the chief executive is investigating a potential breach of the act, people cannot refuse to answer questions. This partially displaces the common law privilege against self-incrimination.

A person should not be forced to disclose information that will then be used against him or her in a criminal proceeding. This is a fundamental right. Although the privilege against self-incrimination is displaced by clause 92, thereby preventing a person from remaining silent, the fundamental right is still preserved. People’s rights are still protected because subclause (4) provides:

… any information, document or thing obtained, directly or indirectly because of the giving of the answer or the production of the document—

to the chief executive—

is not admissible in evidence against the person in a civil or criminal proceeding ...

The person is able to reveal a contravention of the legislation knowing that they cannot be charged over that contravention. I move amendment No 8 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 816].

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 93 to 111, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 112.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.22): I move amendment No 9 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 816].

This amendment inserts the word “not” after the word “required” in clause 112. This clause deals with prohibition notices which, as their name suggests, prohibit people from doing certain things that pose risk to safety. This amendment clarifies that, where a prohibition notice has been issued, people at the premises to which the notice relates

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