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

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 4 December 1973
Page: 4262

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes - Order! The honourable gentleman has drawn attention to the matter.

Mr ENDERBY - No. 7 refers to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Mr Wentworth - I said No. 8, not No. 7.

Mr ENDERBY - No. 8 refers to assaulting a magistrate, a police officer or a public officer.

Mr Wentworth - I said 'Assaulting a police officer'.

Mr ENDERBY - Let us look at the Bill introduced by the Government of which the honourable gentleman was a supporter in 1966. The Schedule to that Bill is absolutely identical to this Bill. The criticism that the honourable gentleman levels at us is levelled also at what was in that Bill in 1966. Let me refer to some of these serious offences that the previous Government put in its Bill in 1966. The numbering is different; there is repagination. The offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm was No. 6 in the previous Bill, not No. 7. It included also assaulting a magistrate, a police officer or a public officer, exactly the same as appears in the present Bill. The 1966 Bill also contained the offence that the honourable member complained was contained in our Bill, namely, an offence against the law relating to companies. Where is the honourable member's criticism now? Is that typical of the weight that we are to attach to his remarks which indicate that he has not even read the Bill we are seeking to amend. When we reproduce what the former Government put in the 1966 Bill the honourable member has the nerve to get up and say that we have made a mistake or that we show bad judgment.

Mr Wentworth - I said no such thing. I will take you for misrepresentation as soon as you sit down. You cannot misrepresent me like that.

Mr ENDERBY - There is no way in the world that I can stop the honourable member; I appreciate that. One goes back to the only clause to which the honourable member really directed his attention. I put it to the House that the same weight should be attached to his remarks about clause 9 as is to be attached to what he said about the 2 schedules. They are identical, yet the honourable member criticises the Schedule contained in our Bill. The gist of it, of course, is that it provides a consent modification. The word consent' means consensus or agreement, a meeting of the minds, as the honourable member would appreciate. It is an important change to what is called the specialty rule in the law of extradition. The specialty rule in its old form was that a person was only to be surrendered for the offences for which the original request for extradition was made, and the Act that is to be amended presently contains the modificaiton to allow a person to be dealt with for another offence that is provable upon the same facts as were involved for the original offence.

The purpose of the amendment proposed in this clause is to allow the surrendered person to be dealt with in the requesting State or to be transferred to a third State for another extraditable offence. I might point out to the honourable member that in the Bill introduced by the Government of which he was a supporter back in 1966 the same provision for transference to a third State exists in section 13 (2) (b). The Attorney-General's consent to that person being so dealt with or transferred to a third State for that further offence is necessary. This proposes the incorporation of the modern rule of specialty into the Australian Extradition (Foreign States) legislation. In other words, we want to bring the country up to date by amending section 13 of the Act to incorporate the new internationally accepted form of the specialty rule.

I do not know whether the honourable member has had a chance to look at it, but I have here with me an outline of the scheme relating to the rendition of fugitive offenders within the Commonwealth nations. It is my understanding that it is the same for the nonCommonwealth nations. It states the same proposition. This was the scheme that was worked out in London. My understanding is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) attended that meeting in London. The same statement of the modern form of the specialty rule is to be found there. I commend it for the honourable member's leading. As far as other provisions are concerned, treaties exist to which effect has to be given. I have in my hand a treaty signed with the State of Sweden. It is in the form that is being discussed. Article 15 reads:

Subject to paragraph 3 of this article a person extradited under this treaty shall not be detained in the requesting State for the purpose of his being extradited to a third State unless the requested State consents to his being so detained.

We have a treaty with the Soviet Union signed, I believe, by the former Government to which the honourable member for Mackellar belonged. One could go on, although, as I understand it, the gist of the remarks put forward in the House and in another place, with the one exception constituted by the honourable member for Mackellar, well known for his views on these matters, is of complete support for the Government in picking up this piece of law that needs to be attended to and bringing it forward in a more modern form. It should be remembered that it was not until 1966 that the Government of Australia - not the Labor Government but the previous Government - had virtually no modern law on extradition. It was a first step to the credit of the previous Government that it took in 1966. We seek only to give effect to some of the treaties that have been signed in the meantime and to bring the state of the law up to date.

The gist of my remarks could be summed up in this way: One goes back to the honourable member's comparison when he criticised the schedule and used words of abuse. He used words like 'a weapon of terror' and sinister'. He read out a list of lightweight offences, as he called them, to suggest how this legislation could be abused. Those lightweight offences are in identical form to that contained in the 1966 Act introduced by the former Government of which the honourable member was a member.

Mr WENTWORTH(Mackellar)- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Suggest corrections