Page 1588 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 25, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 26.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (4.53): I move amendment No 14 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1665]. This is consequential to my amendment No 13, which we have already voted on.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (4.53): The government will not be supporting this amendment, consistent with our approach on previous amendments that have been attempted by Mr Stefaniak and which flow on to this amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 51, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 52.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (4.54): I move amendment No 5 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 1666]. This is the final government amendment and clarifies another concern raised by the scrutiny of bills committee. Clause 52 (12) provides:
Any communication between a person detained under a preventative detention order and the person’s lawyer is subject to legal professional privilege and it is not admissible in evidence against the person in any court proceeding.
The committee has raised concerns that this provision is ambiguous. The intention of the provision is to prevent communications between a detainee and his or her lawyer from being disclosed in court and to confer the protections that would otherwise attach to legal privilege within and beyond the setting of the court, without the need to satisfy the various tests for client legal privilege in division 1 of the Evidence Act 1995.
This is an area where the ACT bill is different from that of New South Wales. The presumption under our legislation is that communication between someone in preventative detention and their legal counsel is protected, whereas the presumption in other states is the reverse. In other states, communication is not protected and can be listened in to and potentially used in evidence. This amendment clarifies the government’s intent and removes any ambiguity in this regard.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .