Page 2403 - Week 06 - Thursday, 24 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
legislation is consistent, and that test is that there is a suspicion or belief. I have already given my comments on our views on that and I do not plan to elaborate on those any further. We believe that this is a small amendment that is worth passing in order to provide the clarification that we think is warranted.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.50), by leave: I move amendments Nos 2 to 12 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 2484].
As I observed, I have spoken to these earlier, so I will not do so again, but I understand it is the wish of the Assembly to vote on these separately—to vote on amendments 6 and 9 together, separately from the rest.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Can I just ask you to repeat that for me?
MR RATTENBURY: Yes. I am moving amendments Nos 2 to 12. I ask that they be voted on as a group but that Nos 6 and 9 be voted on together.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: And the rest separately?
MR RATTENBURY: So there will be two groups of amendments.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Members, the question that I put is that Mr Rattenbury’s amendments 6 and 9 be agreed to. The rest of the amendments will be dealt with in a block.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.52): The Canberra Liberals will be supporting amendments 6 and 9 proposed by Mr Rattenbury. These provide, as notes to clauses 25(1)(d) and 26(1)(b)(iv), an example of the circumstances in which it might be considered impracticable to make an emergency application for a warrant—that is, in the event the applying officer has been unable to contact the relevant judicial officer by telephone.
These amendments have merit in that they provide clarification in the bill, by way of an example given in the notes, that a judicial officer should be the first port of call for an emergency warrant application. It is only in the case in which an application is impracticable—for example, if the rostered judicial officer cannot be contacted by phone—that it would be made by the Chief Police Officer or his delegate.
This clarification does what should have been done in the first place, either by way of a similar note in the drafting of the bill or by way of commentary in either or both the explanatory statement and Mr Corbell’s presentation speech. Perhaps, if such had been the case, Civil Liberties Australia, the human rights commissioner, the scrutiny committee and, indeed, Mr Rattenbury and I would not have raised such serious
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video