Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Homeland Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take this opportunity to refer to items 2 and 5 of the bill, which were the key areas addressed by me and the member for Denison. I have listened to the response of the Attorney on those two things. I just want to make a couple of very quick points. I think it will come as a severe surprise to members of this parliament, members of the joint committee and, if my reading of the briefing the other day is correct, some members of the government that 90 per cent of summonses have had their reasons recorded after their issuing rather than prior to or at the time of issuing. That is not something that was known to people in this parliament. I think it is something that would cause considerable concern in the community and certainly amongst the legal fraternity, of which I am not one. It is not something that should be passed off lightly or shrouded and cloaked in Sir Humphreyisms. That is a significant thing that does require review. I am pleased that the Attorney-General has indicated that, should the government be returned, they are happy for the committee to look at it. I already made plain in my speech in the second reading debate that, if we form government, we will be revisiting the provisions within this bill. I think that is a significant piece of information that warrants recognition.

I am concerned about the matters contained in item 5 of the bill that the member for Denison referred to. The possibility that the provisions in item 5 could be used to enable no written record to be undertaken on a regular basis is somewhat alarming. I would like some indication if possible from the government that that is not their intention. It is one thing to provide a mechanism whereby the reasons can be recorded prior to, at the time of or as soon as practicable after—and we can argue the toss about what the ratio should be or on how many occasions it needs to be done and what provisions might apply; it is quite a different thing to facilitate a process which could see no reasons being recorded as a standard practice and that regarded as acceptable. I just want to get clear the government’s intention on that. The Labor Party opposition has been keen to facilitate the passage of this legislation for all the reasons that the Attorney has mentioned, but we should not, in facilitating that, open up an area of potentially greater concern. I would just ask the Attorney whether he is able to provide any comment on that application of item 5.

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

I will just say on this matter that I wanted to ensure that all of the information was available. I answered the question that was raised during the debate so that that information was clearly before the chamber. I must say that it was not a matter known to me before today. It may have been known to my colleague, but it was not known to me.

On the point that is being made, there is an expectation that reasons will be given, but the introduction into the legislation of the potential for a further claim to be made that the reasons did not adequately canvass issues on timing would leave us exposed to another round of technical arguments. Nevertheless, I would expect—and I believe my colleague will give some consideration as to how this is brought to the attention of the board—that these issues—requiring people to try to ensure that the reasons are recorded as early as possible and preferably before a final decision is taken, and the need for some explanation as to why it has not occurred—will be outlined for the examiners to consider. In considering the suggestion that there might be a legal requirement introduced, the government’s view was that it was likely to leave the whole system further exposed to arguments about whether or not it was adequately done and issues of that sort, which I think, in the public’s mind, would be seen as technical arguments that lead to failure in matters where there would otherwise be substantial evidence that would secure a prosecution.

Bill agreed to.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.