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: 2270


Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (10:41): Thanks, Attorney; and I do accept your response in terms of your bringing to my attention the wording 'after becoming so aware'. That deals with part of the concern that I raised. But I want to ask you why the words 'but no later than four hours' have been included here. In other parts of this legislation there are requirements on the AFP to do certain things as soon as is practicable—and I can give you some examples if you like—but they do not insert a final limit on the time frame within which the AFP needs to do something. But when it comes to placing a burden on the person to whom a control order applies, they seem to have a higher burden than the AFP does in other situations. The risk there is that if they do not report within four hours after they become aware that a tracking device is not in good order—that is, if they report it 4½ hours later—you have set a discrete time frame beyond which, presumably, they will be considered to be in breach of the control order and therefore subject to imprisonment for up to five years. So why have you chosen in this legislation to more onerously burden those to whom a control order is applied compared to the obligations you have placed on the AFP to do certain things as soon as is practicable but with no finite time frame applied?