Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Democrat amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 5327:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 14 (line 3), omit “principal law enforcement officer”, substitute “authorising officer”.

(2)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 14 (line 15), omit “controlled conduct”, substitute “unlawful conduct”.

(3)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 14 (line 18), omit “controlled conduct”, substitute “unlawful conduct”.

(4)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 14 (lines 20 to 24), omit subsection 15GL(3), substitute:

        (3)    As soon as reasonably practicable after giving an oral authorisation, the authorising officer for the controlled operation must give to the person authorised to engage in controlled conduct and the principal law enforcement officer for the controlled operation a written authorisation stating the matters in subsection (2).

(5)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 14 (line 34), omit “principal law enforcement officer”, substitute “authorising officer”.

(6)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 15 (lines 2 to 6), omit subsection 15GL(8), substitute:

(8)  As soon as reasonably practicable after cancelling an authorisation orally, the authorising officer for the controlled operation must give written notice of the cancellation to the person who was authorised to engage in controlled conduct under the authorisation and the principal law enforcement officer for the controlled operation.

These amendments deal with unlawful conduct and authorisation. We are seeking to amend schedule 1 of the legislation to ensure that the authorising officer and not the principal law enforcement officer be required to identify each person who may engage in unlawful activity for the purposes of the controlled operation. We also seek to identify (a), with respect to law enforcement participants, the nature of the unlawful conduct in which those participants may engage and (b), with respect to civilian participants, the particular unlawful conduct, if any, in which each participant may engage. There are also some related amendments there that relate to written authorisations and cancellations.

Question negatived.

I am wondering whether the Labor Party or the government want to put on record their concerns, or otherwise, with those amendments. In my speech in the second reading debate I outlined some of my concerns, but I thought that particularly the first set of amendments in relation to unlawful conduct was probably not as scary as the government anticipated that it might have been. Obviously the debate is moving forward, but, if anyone would like to place their reasons on record, that would be good.