Page 4627 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON: I should say thank you to Mr Lamont for letting us know.
Mr Lamont: I am Minister for Sport. I have an obligation. I would be accused of misleading the Assembly if I did not tell you straightaway.
Mr Cornwell: I am going to check the winning number of runs, just in case you have got it wrong.
Mr Lamont: It was 224 to 196.
MR STEVENSON: As I was saying, the suggestion is that six months can put you out of business. So could two months in this economic climate. Once again I ask the Minister: Why two months? Why not seven or 14 days, and why not require a court order to extend that time? That would give you sufficient time to lay a charge or give the property back to the person it belongs to.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (10.16): Madam Speaker, we are happy with the amendment proposed by the Opposition. The test here is not when the case is concluded, of course, Mrs Carnell; it is when you begin proceedings. Mr Stefaniak could explain to you from his experience in that area that it can sometimes take the DPP a period to decide whether the case that the agency has prepared is sufficient of a legal case to launch proceedings. So, there is an issue there for the DPP to make a decision on, which sometimes can legitimately take some little time. When you seize the object, you may need to do some forensic tests on it. If it is a computer, it can be quite complex getting into the detail. I think two months is about right.
Again, I say on this whole debate about search and seizure powers that it is the Government's intention next year to bring into this Assembly a whopping great piece of legislation that will involve having looked at literally hundreds of these sorts of provisions scattered throughout all legislation in the ACT, in an attempt to come up with some consistent principles about search, emergency search, who can authorise it, identity cards, powers, times of the day, when you seize property, how you receipt it, and all the rest of it. For the moment, we are happy to accept this amendment. I think that when we bring that major reform exercise through there will be a very appropriate role for a major Assembly committee to look at it, and then we will not have these debates again.
MR STEVENSON (10.17): That does not actually answer the question as to why not a lesser time. If in future we are going to look at all legislation in these areas based on this sort of principle, all that means is that there are far more areas where people are unreasonably deprived of their private property. It is all very well for politicians to stand up and say, "We will toss six months over here and make it two months", but think of the people on the receiving end trying to operate their business via their computer when the Minister is telling them, "It is very difficult to get into your computer and work out what is going on. You are not going to have it back for a couple of months". By that time the business could be going bankrupt and the banks could be moving in on them. What do they do - drive their Pajero through the front door?
Amendment agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .