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

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 29 May 1996
Page: 1344

Senator BOLKUS(5.38 p.m.) —Having talked to Senator Cooney and Senator Spindler, I suggest that could be done very easily. I am working on page 2 of the revised amendments that were circulated as of 9 a.m. today. Clause 15J(2) could easily be amended to include something else at the beginning of subclause (a). I will read clause 15J(2) and insert the words I am suggesting:

In an application to an eligible Judge under subsection (1), a senior law enforcement officer must provide sufficient information, orally or otherwise as the Judge requires, to enable the Judge to be satisfied that:

(a)   [the officer is satisfied that] the person targeted by the controlled operation . . .

By the addition of the words `the officer is satisfied that' I think we can pick up the point that Senator Cooney is making and accommodate the concern that Senator Vanstone has. I suggest that we could proceed with Senator Spindler's amendment as amended in the way I suggest. I do not know what Senator Spindler thinks of that, but I think it picks up the concern that at least this side of the parliament has, still leaves the accountability mechanism in place but ensures Senator Vanstone's point about how the removal from decision making can be achieved.