Page 2402 - Week 06 - Thursday, 24 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
amendment would achieve this. My amendment is supported by the fact that elsewhere in the bill it provides that applications for retrieval warrants and for warrant extensions must be made on reasonable grounds of suspicion or belief. The judicial officer assessing those applications must apply a corresponding test so as to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspicion or belief founding the application.
My amendment addresses this apparent inconsistency, and I commend it to the Assembly.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11:43): The government will not be supporting Mrs Dunne’s amendment today. The reason is that this is not an admission or oversight. This is a deliberate decision in relation to how the language of the bill is drafted in this respect.
Mrs Dunne’s single amendment is to state an additional threshold upon which a law enforcement officer must satisfy a judicial officer before they can seek a surveillance device warrant. The bill, at clause 11, currently reflects the minimum threshold, which is “reasonably suspects”. If the law enforcement officer cannot satisfy the minimum threshold of “reasonably suspects” in clause 11 then an application cannot be made to a judicial officer.
If this minimum threshold is met, the officer can make an application to the relevant judicial officer. However, before a warrant can be issued, there are matters which a judicial officer must consider, which includes that they are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion or belief founding the application. This is discretionary and the judicial officer is not required to issue the warrant even if the matters set out in clauses 11(a) to (c) are met.
It is the case that elsewhere in the bill and in the model bill as drafted the term “reasonably suspects or believes” and “reasonable suspicion or belief” are used. The clause currently encompasses the minimum threshold. Any threshold met above this which includes the threshold of “reasonable belief” would satisfy the requirement.
Clause 11 was deliberately drafted in this fashion. I say again: clause 11 was deliberately drafted in this fashion—that is, referring only to the minimum threshold, as a direct result of consultation with ACT Policing, who were concerned that stating more than one threshold in the same provision could give rise to confusion amongst its officers. Regardless of what threshold the law enforcement officer uses, the bill prescribes the matters which a judicial officer must consider. These matters include that they are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion or belief founding the application.
The government does not support the amendment.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.46): The Greens are planning to support this amendment. We had understood that it clarifies what appears to be a drafting error. I have just listened to the attorney, and there is obviously a bit of discussion here. But we believe that the amendment ensures that the threshold test used throughout the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video