Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 12 December 2002
Page: 7857


Senator GREIG (11:45 AM) —I move Democrat amendment (5) on sheet 2788 as an amendment to the opposition amendment:

(5) Amendment (39), omit paragraph 34U(8), substitute:

Communications

(8) The prescribed authority must not refuse to authorise the person being questioned or the legal adviser of that person to communicate with a court or another legal adviser for the purposes of seeking a remedy in relation to the warrant, the treatment of the person in connection with the warrant, or the questioning or custody of the person in connection with the warrant.

I think this amendment might go some way to improving this scenario a little. I have spoken to this before. To recap, Democrat amendment (5) would replace the very similar provision in Labor's amendment (39) but, unlike Labor's amendment, it would quite deliberately extend the right to the person being questioned to communicate with a court. Labor's amendment would limit the right simply to a person's legal adviser. Our amendment would seek to recognise that in some circumstances the person being questioned under the act might choose not to take legal advice—that is unlikely but possible— and might nevertheless want to pursue their right to seek a remedy, relating to the detention, from a court. This amendment provides that the person being questioned or the person's legal adviser may contact another legal adviser for the purposes of seeking a remedy from a court. This simply recognises that the person's legal adviser is likely to be a solicitor who in all likelihood would want to brief a barrister for the purposes of any court proceedings.