Page 5174 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 28 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
its core, their issue with this legislation is that police can use this new power to enter a private home without a warrant.
The government has crafted the legislation to ensure that it is tailored to the need to preserve evidence. It does not give police a general power to ignore the need to get a warrant. It is solely in place for those situations where it is reasonable to suspect that evidence of a serious crime might be destroyed, and the power to take action in response is limited to immediately preserving the evidence.
Police still need to get a warrant to effect a search with the passage of this bill. Citizens will still have the right to argue their case if the exercise of the power is unreasonable, and to seek remedies as they would in relation to any action taken by police that is beyond their legal power. The Ombudsman will, as with other police activities, have an oversight role and provide avenues for complaints. Nonetheless this government will be fully transparent about how this power operates. We will undertake a review after the first 12 months, and table those findings in the Legislative Assembly so that the whole community and everyone interested can see how these powers are being used.
The amendments that I have circulated also contain some drafting clarifications in response to the scrutiny of bills committee’s comments. Again I thank the committee for its contribution to this legislation.
Taken as a whole, the bill provides very practical tools for ACT Policing to better investigate crimes and to enforce the law. These tools have been crafted in a way that recognises the importance of human rights, and that narrowly targets the situation where there is a compelling public interest in police having the tools to preserve the evidence of a crime.
Amendments agreed to.
Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Standing orders—suspension
Motion by Mr Wall agreed to, with the concurrence of an absolute majority:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Assembly business notice No 5—Proposed disallowance of DI2017-208, being the Planning and Development (Lease Variation Charges) Determination 2017 (No 2), being called on and debated forthwith.
Planning and Development (Lease Variation Charges) Determination 2017 (No 2)
Motion to disallow
MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (6:04): I move:
That the Planning and Development (Lease Variation Charges) Determination 2017 (No 2)—Disallowable Instrument DI2017-208, be disallowed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video