Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (7) on sheet 5190:

(7)    Schedule 2, item 8, page 88 (lines 4 to 16), omit the definition of relevant offence, substitute:

relevant offence means:

             (a)    an offence under Division 72 of the Criminal Code Act 1995; or

             (b)    an offence under Part 5 of the Criminal Code Act 1995; or

             (c)    an offence involving or resulting in the death of a person; or

             (d)    an offence against the person, where the maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for life.

This is one area where we do fall out with the government. In its response, the government indicated that it did not accept recommendation 6. The Senate committee recommended that the federal government limit the offences in relation to which delayed notification search warrants may be issued to offences involving terrorism or organised crime, or death or serious injury with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. In that instance, the government has provided a response, and the opposition thank the government for that. It said that delayed notification search warrant schemes will only apply to offences which justify the use of such warrants. These include specific listed offences or offences which carry a penalty of 10 years imprisonment or more. The government claims that, if the recommendation were accepted, a range of serious offences may not be subject to the scheme, including child pornography, sexual servitude and child sex tourism offences. If there are a range of serious offences that it wishes to include, while excluding the less serious offences, it would be incumbent upon it to put that position, but it has not done so.

The rationale for the Senate committee’s position, and Labor’s position, was to be in accord with the states’ position as far as possible. Our understanding is that terrorism or organised crime, or death or serious injury, are matters which can fall within the state jurisdiction and that, if we are looking at cross-border harmonisation of investigative powers and the use of delayed notification warrants, the outcomes should be similar. If there is a complaint that some of those offences that should be dealt with by the states are not being dealt with, the minister has the ability to put those matters on the agenda of the police ministers’ council, to pursue them more broadly, if it has not already done so, and accept the outcome. The other thing it could do is provide a more detailed explanation. The complaint we make is that it seems to be too broadly drafted. That is the position that we have argued, both in the Senate committee and here. If the position were to be argued differently, it would have been helpful if the Attorney-General’s Department, in providing advice to the Senate committee, had pointed that out. If they did so, I will withdraw those remarks.