Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

We are dealing with amendments (1) to (4) and I am just looking at them again. I heard the honourable member for Brisbane seek to amend the provision to add the word ‘full’ when referring to the statement of facts and other grounds. I have no problem with him adding that. I will oppose the measure in any event. The reason the government will oppose the measure is that it does not do what he seeks. He may want to address it in another place. The issuing authority is referred to in clause 7, and he is asking that the director-general give an issuing authority a request under subsection (6). The director-general must also give the issuing authority a copy of the statement of facts on which he considers it necessary that the warrant should be issued. The fact is that under section 34C(iv) that is already required.

The honourable member is asking that the prescribed authority be given that information, but his amendment deals with the issuing authority. The issuing authority has that. That is why we will vote against the opposition’s amendment. But we would vote against their amendment in any event because the role of the issuing authority and the role of the prescribed authority are quite different. The issuing authority has to consider the facts and has to have the facts before him, as I do, in order to know whether he should issue a warrant. We do not seek a warrant until I as the Attorney agree that it is appropriate that a warrant be sought. I should have all those facts before me. That is the decision I have to take and it is the decision the issuing authority has to take. The prescribed authority is in fact the keeper of the ring. He does not make any decisions. He deals with the questioning of a party and ensures that that process is carried out in accordance with law. He deals with the questioning, including determining whether continuation of questioning is appropriate, and that all of the legislative requirements and safeguards have been complied with. That is quite a distinct issue from having to second-guess whether presumably the facts and information included in the request have been sufficient to justify the questioning. That is not his role; it is the role of the issuing authority. We certainly are of the view that, even if the amendments were correctly drafted, it is appropriate to give to the prescribed authority all of that additional information.

See this speech in context