Page 2404 - Week 06 - Thursday, 24 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
concerns about the issue. It provides the clarification that was needed, and for this reason the Canberra Liberals will be supporting these two amendments.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.54): These amendments propose the insertion of an example to clauses 25 and 26 of the bill relating to the criteria for emergency authorisations. The example relates to what is not practicable under the clauses, and provides that the law enforcement officer has tried unsuccessfully to contact an on-call duty magistrate or judge by telephone. I think these amendments provide some additional guidance to police and, as such, they are a useful addition, and the government is pleased to support them.
Amendments Nos 6 and 9 agreed to.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The question now is that Mr Rattenbury’s amendments Nos 2 to 5 inclusive, 7 and 8 and 10 to 12 inclusive be agreed to.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.55): The government will not be supporting these amendments. I would like to again remind members that there are two thresholds which must be met in order to obtain a surveillance device warrant under the scheme contemplated by the bill.
Firstly, under clause 11, a new law enforcement officer must satisfy a minimum threshold of suspicion on reasonable grounds for the following matters: that a relevant offence has been, is being, is about to be or is likely to be committed; that an investigation into that offence is being, will be or is likely to be conducted in the ACT, in the ACT and in one or more participating jurisdictions or in one or more participating jurisdictions; and that the use of a surveillance device is or will be necessary in the course of that investigation for the purpose of enabling evidence or information to be obtained of the commission of the relevant offence or the identity or location of the offender.
If the law enforcement officer does not meet this minimum threshold 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 include that they be 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 interesting that, in making preliminary comments on the bill in report No 20, the scrutiny committee did not agree with the position that was put by the Human Rights and Discrimination Commissioner with respect to the threshold at which an officer may apply for, and a judge or magistrate may issue, a surveillance device warrant.
I disagree that the threshold of “suspects or believes on reasonable grounds” that is drawn from the model bill prima facie is an impermissible interference with the right
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video