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, 9 November 2016
Page: 2269


Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (10:37): I thank you for that further clarification, Attorney, but I will allow my previous comment around explanatory memoranda to stand. I want to draw your attention now to that part of schedule 3 which relates to tracking devices. This goes to the proposed new insertion after section 104.5(3) of the Criminal Code—that is, the proposed new section (3A). And I will go into (c) here—if a person becomes aware that the tracking device or any equipment necessary for the operation of the tracking device is not in good working order, there is a requirement that an AFP member be notified as soon as is practicable but no later than four hours.

I am very happy to state here that I am not an expert in the operation of tracking devices. But on what basis could a person become aware that a tracking device was not in good order? Presumably, people who have a tracking device attached to them as a result of a court order would also not be experts in the operation of tracking devices. Will people be given any assistance in determining whether a tracking device is in good order? That is the first question. Secondly, you have said 'as soon as is practicable but no later than four hours'. So what information will a person be given about how to contact the AFP in the event that they do become aware that a tracking device is not in good order? Finally, if the person reports to the AFP after the expiration of the four-hour period after they become aware that the tracking device is not in good order, would that be considered a breach of the order and therefore the possibility of five years imprisonment would apply?