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
Wednesday, 1 December 2004
Page: 24


Senator ELLISON (Minister for Justice and Customs) (11:17 AM) —The government too will not be supporting the Democrat amendments. Although we are debating them cognately they will be put separately. In relation to clause 33, we believe that allows for a delay. It states:

If the court makes a decision under section 32, a statement recipient (within the meaning of that section) ...

People who receive the statement are, as stated in 32(1):

(a) the person who is subject of the order;

(b) the prosecutor;

(c) the defendant;

(d) any legal representative of the defendant—

and the Attorney-General, if that applies. So those people must be given the opportunity to request a delay in the court giving a statement of reasons and that delay is to allow them to consider an appeal. Clause 33 is very important.

When you go back to clause 32 it is appropriate that the prosecutor or the Attorney-General, if he or she were represented at the closed hearing, have a statement of reasons so that they can make application in relation to that. I think that the regime set out is a reasonable one. It does deal with issues at the time and it allows notice to be given for any issues with a statement to be addressed at that stage. It is important that it be addressed at that stage rather than later through an appeal process. For those reasons the government does not support the Democrat amendments.

Question negatived.

Senator GREIG (Western Australia) (11.19 a.m.)—I now formally indicate that the Democrats oppose clause 33 in the following terms:

(8) Clause 33, page 28 (lines 1 to 9), TO BE OPPOSED.


The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Kirk)—The question is that clause 33 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.