Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

Hansard ID: HANSARD-1323879322-120038

Hansard session: Fifty-Seventh Parliament, First Session (57-1)

Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

Second Reading Debate

Debate resumed from 21 October 2021.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) (18:20:40):

I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. Opposition members will not oppose the bill but we will have some questions for the Attorney General along the way. The bill is a miscellaneous amendment bill that amends a number of bills and contains what might be referred to as machinery provisions. It amends the following Acts: the Crimes Act 1900, the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, the Surveillance Devices Act 2007, the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 and the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002.

I will talk about the provision in the bill that will amend the Crimes Act 1900. Essentially, the provision extends the limitation period for the prosecution of what might be referred to as hacking offences. It amends section 308H of the Act to increase the time limits for commencing proceedings for offences related to unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data held in a computer from 12 months to three years from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. Unfortunately, in the modern and highly connected world in which we live we are seeing increased instances of cybercrime and the like. Some of these crimes are committed by lone actors sitting at home in their bedrooms and others are committed by nation-states.

Because of many factors, not least of which is the increased skill of perpetrators of these crimes, investigations are long and protracted and very difficult to detect in the first place. There are also difficulties that attend prosecutions such as technical requirements of law enforcement agencies to detect and deal with them and then analyse the acts that underpin them. Sometimes they require interaction with international law enforcement agencies because of the geographical location of the offences. Obviously the Opposition supports the extension of the time limits from 12 months to three years. I do not think this will be the last time the extension of time in relation to that provision will be revisited.

The bill amends the definition of a searchable offence under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, commonly referred to as LEPRA, to include computer offences that are embodied in part 6 of the Crimes Act. Currently, a "searchable offence" is an offence for which a warrant may be obtained under LEPRA. But as most computer-related offences are in another part of the Crimes Act and are indictable offences, search warrants can be obtained for them. However, as offences under section 308H of LEPRA relating to the unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data held in a computer, or under section 308I relating to the unauthorised impairment of data held in a computer disk, credit card or other device, are summary offences, search warrants cannot be obtained for them. The bill addresses those anomalous provisions, which need fixing. We support those.

Secondly, there is an amendment to update the New South Wales law because of changes to the Criminal Code (Cth). The Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 defines a "high-risk offender" under the Commonwealth code. The bill provides a new list of what is now a "serious sex offence" and also an "offence of a sexual nature". The current definitions of "serious sex offence" and "offence of a sexual nature" do not include the new Commonwealth sex offences that I just referred to. The bill will update the Act to enable laws to be made against offenders who receive custodial sentences for those new Commonwealth offences and who are deemed to be posing an unacceptable risk of serious further offending. Importantly, the bill also augments two new Commonwealth offences relating to the definition of "offence of a sexual nature". First, the possession of child- like sex dolls and the making of such dolls under section 273A.1 of the Criminal Code (Cth). Second, possessing or controlling child sexual abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service under section 474 of the Criminal Code (Cth). Essentially, they are machinery provisions. We support those.

The bill also contains provisions that relate to non-urgent warrants. These have been largely brought about at the request of the courts—so I have been briefed—and are largely because of COVID. Schedule 1.3 [4] inserts proposed section 60A into the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to enable applications for warrants to be applied for by email for a trial period of two years. It was indicated in the second reading speech that the trial will only last for a period of 12 months. An area of concern would be the material to be provided before the requisite officer, but safeguards have been added which makes that uncontroversial. Section 17 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 will be amended to provide that an application for a surveillance device warrant must be in the form of an affidavit and it clarifies the information that must be included in the affidavit. The amendment also provides that an urgent application can be made in a form other than an affidavit, which basically means streamlining the two forms. We support those.

The next provisions are in relation to high-risk offenders. I have to say, on their face and as a matter of long-standing principles that I have held in relation to the open conduct of government and open justice, I had to turn my mind to this. Schedule 1.5 of the bill inserts proposed section 71B into the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 to provide:

the minutes or deliberations of the High Risk Offenders Assessment Committee and its sub-committees are not admissible in legal proceedings, and

a person cannot be compelled in any proceedings to produce that material.

The assessment committees are advisory bodies. They are meant to advise the panels or committees that make decisions about how high-risk offenders are to be treated. They do not make decisions themselves, but there is concern that the disclosure of committee minutes, deliberations, legal proceedings and other forms could impact on the candour and frankness of members of the committees, which is a mild concern, and impact on the quality of advice they can provide and their security. Having been a police Minister, I am sympathetic to the last principle in particular. As I have said, the principle that I always adhere to is that the default position should be for open government. It is very difficult to get any information out of this Government, even under the GIPAA regime. Having given careful consideration to that provision and having had a briefing from the Attorney General, which I am thankful for, we will not take exception to that provision today.

The next provisions relate to amendments to section 99 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act to clarify that any police officer may take a person who has been arrested under that section before an authorised officer to be dealt with according to the law. Section 99 of LEPRA relates to the power of police to arrest without warrant. Proposed section 99 (3) states:

A police officer who arrests a person under this section must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, take the person before an authorised officer—

such as a magistrate—

to be dealt with according to law.

From time to time there are good reasons where the arresting officer cannot practically or possibly take the person who has been arrested before an authorised officer—perhaps they have been injured or are meant to be in multiple places at the one time. Again, thanks to my education in police matters as a former police Minister, I am sympathetic to the police in that regard and support that provision.

The last provision is one I am most concerned about, but not concerned enough to try and scuttle the bill. I would like an explanation from the Attorney General in his speech in reply in relation to this. Schedule 1.6 of the bill amends section 26ZS of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 to extend the operation of particular preventative detention orders and prohibited contact orders until 16 December 2023, and allow applicants for preventative detention orders and prohibited contact orders until 16 December 2023. Currently, the Act has a sunset clause. I remember the debate both in the Labor caucus and in the Parliament that attended then Attorney General Hatzistergos in bringing the bill before the House. It is draconian legislation, but necessary legislation. It is draconian because it allows you to do certain things to individuals that according to the principles of law where people are arrested on reasonable suspicion, are detained only as long as they need to be and are imprisoned only following conviction, they are principles of the law that are immutable. However, there are people in our society who do wish very actively to do us harm and sometimes the law has to come up with unfortunate but necessary provisions to deal with those people. This Act is one of them. But a two-year extension of the Act, in effect from 16 December 2021 to 16 December 2023, to enable the statutory review to be completed seems like a very long extension. If we were to be conspiratorial, we would say that the Government just wants to push off the re-enactment of this legislation until after the election so it will not have a fight about it—or it might be something more simple than that. It might simply be that when the Act was amended in 2016 it provided for the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission [LECC] to do a report on it three years after that amendment.

The "three years after that amendment" fell due in 2019. I know that LECC is currently doing a report, which I hope it hands down sooner rather than later. I am sure it will because it is a very good body that does good, necessary work. But the Government cannot conduct its statutory review until LECC has done its work. Is it really going to take two years for that to happen? Should it take two years? I would hope not. The Government seems to take its time—too much time—on too many things in this portfolio, and I ask that the Attorney General explain to the House why such a long extension is necessary. Let no-one say that the Labor Opposition questions the necessity of the legislation to keep the people of New South Wales safe, because it does not. Having said that, as I indicated before, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Mr MARK COURE (Oatley) (18:36:14):

I thank the member for Maroubra for his contribution. It is good to hear that the Opposition will not oppose the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. I am pleased to speak in support of the bill. The Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 includes amendments to the Crimes Act 1900 and the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to improve the ability of the NSW Police Force to investigate computer offences. I will raise a couple of issues here in terms of these amendments. Section 308H of the Crimes Act 1900 outlines that a person who causes any unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data held in a computer, who knows that the access or modification is unauthorised and who intends to cause that access or modification is guilty of an offence punishable by a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years.

Restricted data, as members know, means data held in a computer being data to which access is restricted by an access control system associated with the function of a computer. Currently, subsection 308H (4) requires proceedings for an offence under the section to be commenced no later than 12 months from when the offence is alleged to have been committed. That provision was inserted in 2016 by the Justice Portfolio Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2016—I remember speaking on the amendment in this Chamber—in order to provide the NSW Police Force with more time to investigate the offence, rather than the standard six-month limitation period for commencing prosecutions for summary offences.

However, problems with investigating this offence within the 12-month time frame remain. The nature of this offence means that it may be some time before a victim becomes aware that an offence has been committed and, once detected, significant technical analysis may be required to support a prosecution for the offence, further adding to the time required to investigate the offence. Amending the provision to extend the limitation period from 12 months to three years will reduce problems for investigators into the future that can arise when victims are unaware of the commission of an offence against section 308H until later events reveal access or modification has in fact occurred.

As the House has heard, the bill also includes an amendment to section 46A of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, which will make all computer offences "searchable offences" under part 6 of the Crimes Act 1900 for which search warrants can be sought. Section 46A currently prescribes the following offence categories as offences for which a warrant, other than a covert search warrant or criminal organisation search warrant, can be obtained: for example, firearms or prohibited weapons offences, narcotics offences, indictable offences, child abuse material offences, and offences involving a thing being stolen or unlawfully obtained. As most computer offences are indictable offences under part 6 of the Crimes Act 1900, search warrants can already be obtained for their investigation.

In effect, this amendment will only extend the availability of search warrants to the summary offences under section 308H and 308I of unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data held in a computer and unauthorised impairment of data held in a computer disk, credit card or other device. These offences can have serious consequences for victims, and it is important that police are able to obtain search warrants in order to investigate them. I am pleased to support the amendments in the bill before the House, which will remove unnecessary obstacles to the investigation of computer offences and ensure that law enforcement agencies have the tools necessary to pursue those who commit these offences. These are appropriate, commonsense reforms that will protect the safety and data of our community. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms JENNY LEONG (Newtown) (18:41:18):

I speak on behalf of The Greens in debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, which I recognise is usually the kind of bill that makes minor and largely procedural amendments to criminal laws. I raise The Greens' concerns that while it might seem that independently and individually the amendments proposed in the bill appear minor, the cumulative effect of the amendments is significant. We believe they need much more consideration and oversight. For that reason, The Greens foreshadow that a series of amendments to the bill will be moved in the Legislative Council. When similar bills come to this Chamber, members may or may not be aware of the details because it is suggested that relatively minor amendments or largely procedural amendments are included. I will pick out one example.

Members might be interested to know that the bill intends to extend the sunset provisions relating to the making of preventative detention orders and prohibited contact orders under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002. Members may be aware that the concept of a sunset clause is that at some point the sun sets. Usually the idea is that the sun does not stay in the sky forever. At some point the sun sets, which is why it is called a "sunset clause". Yet here we are in 2021, almost 20 years after the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 came into force, and we are once again debating a bill that seeks to extend the sunset clause. At some point we need to recognise that the sun must set on these clauses.

I note the briefing the Attorney General provided on the bill reassured members that consultation occurred with agencies and stakeholders. I feel certain that the New South Wales police would have been consulted. I feel certain that the people enacting those terrorism powers would have been consulted. I am sure all the various agencies and individuals that wish to have these increased powers granted to police after a number of significant world events and the introduction of hugely problematic and overreaching terrorism laws not just in this State but across the country would be happy with the continuation of their powers. I am sure anything that gives police more powers would have been supported by the police agencies involved. However, I wonder, and I seek clarification on this, if the stakeholders who were consulted included those human rights organisations that expressed back in 2002, and have ever since, that what occurred was an absolute breach and an undermining of the basic fundamental human right to be treated with dignity and respect. Their legal rights were undermined as a result of the terrorism offences that were introduced and of the kinds of powers that police were able to exercise.

While I acknowledge that such bills usually deal with minor amendments, I make it clear that The Greens will not oppose the bill in this place but we will seek to move amendments in the Legislative Council to address our concerns. We hope that at some point this Government stops allowing provisions that were put in place for a specific period for a specific purpose to continue on and not set. It is important that people's human rights are not undermined in this State and that ongoing police powers are not increased under the guise of what is presented as largely procedural amendments.

Mr LEE EVANS (Heathcote) (18:45:52):

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to debate in support of the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. In particular, I will speak about the bill's amendments to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 and the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017, which protect the minutes of the High Risk Offenders Assessment Committee and extend the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act to cover offenders serving prison sentences for new Commonwealth offences. The High Risk Offenders Assessment Committee plays an important role in considering and making assessments and recommendations to the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW about the risk certain offenders pose to the community and whether the State should apply for high risk offender orders under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act or the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act.

The offenders that fall within the purview of the High Risk Offenders Assessment Committee can be some of the most dangerous offenders in the State. The recommendations made by the committee are not binding on the Attorney General. The Attorney General's function is to determine whether an application should be made for orders to be imposed under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act or Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act. The minutes of the committee record the committee's ultimate decisions and recommendations and the points of view of each member. The disclosure of those minutes to a court or other party could impact on the candour and frankness of committee members, thereby compromising the quality of advice the committee provides to the Commissioner of Corrective Services and the Attorney General. It could also compromise the personal safety of committee members and persons attending in an advisory capacity, as all attendees are identified in the committee's minutes. Therefore, it is appropriate for the minutes or deliberations not to be admissible in any legal proceedings and for a person to be unable to be compelled in any proceedings to produce the material.

That amendment will protect the personal safety of committee members and ensure that operational and confidential information recorded in the committee's minutes or deliberations is not disclosed to offenders. The amendment is consistent with existing practice regarding the disclosure of the committee's minutes to an offender's legal representatives and with feedback received that minutes and deliberations of the High Risk Offenders Assessment Committee are generally inadmissible in proceedings. It also aligns with documents prepared for the purposes of the committee already being subject to a conclusive presumption of overriding public interest against disclosure under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.

I turn to the amendments to the definitions of "serious sex offence" and "offence of a sexual nature" in section 5 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006. Under that Act, the Supreme Court may make an order for the continued detention or supervision in the community of an offender if they are serving a sentence of imprisonment for a serious sex or violence offence and the court is satisfied the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious sex offence or a serious violence offence if not kept under continued detention or supervision. The court may also make orders against an offender serving a sentence for an offence of a sexual nature if the offender has previously served a sentence of imprisonment for a serious sex offence or serious violence offence. The definitions of "serious sex offence" and "offence of a sexual nature" include sex offences under New South Wales and Commonwealth legislation, but do not include new sex offences which have recently been enacted by the Commonwealth Parliament.

The Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Act 2019 has created two new sex offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Under section 273A of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, a person commits an offence if they possess a doll or other object which resembles a person who is or appears to be under 18 years of age, or which resembles a part of such a person, and a reasonable person would consider it likely that the doll or other object is intended to be used to simulate sexual intercourse. The offence is punishable by up to 15 years' imprisonment. Under section 474.22A of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, a person commits an offence if they are in possession or control of child abuse material in the form of data held in a computer or contained in a data storage device which was obtained or accessed through a carriage service. That offence is also punishable by up to 15 years' imprisonment. The bill adds both of those offences to the definition of "offence of a sexual nature".

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Act 2019 inserted the following new offences into the Commonwealth Criminal Code: grooming a person to make it easier to procure a child to engage in sexual activity and providing an electronic service for the purposes of child abuse material. Under new section 272.15A of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, it is an offence to groom a person to make it easier to procure a child to engage in sexual activity outside Australia. Similarly, under new sections 471.25A and 474.27AA of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, it is an offence to use a portal service or a carriage service to groom another person to make it easier to procure a child to engage in sexual activity. Those offences target the prevalence of offenders grooming adults, such as parents or carers, with the aim of procuring a child for sexual abuse and are punishable by up to 15 years' imprisonment. The bill adds those offences to the definition of "serious sex offence".

New section 474.23A of the Commonwealth Criminal Code also criminalises a wide range of behaviours related to the provision of an electronic service, such as creating, developing, maintaining or controlling an electronic service where the person intends that the electronic service be used in committing or facilitating the commission of an offence of using a carriage service for child abuse material. The new offence targets online services that profit from providing or facilitating the exchange and production of child abuse material and is punishable by up to 20 years' imprisonment. The bill also adds that offence to the definition of "serious sex offence".

The amendments will also enhance community safety by bringing offender eligibility under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, in line with updated Commonwealth sex offences. This will reflect the original policy intent of the provision and ensure the provision can operate as intended by extending eligibility for orders under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 to the new Commonwealth sex offences. In conclusion, I am pleased to support the amendments in the bill. They will ensure the provision of candid, frank recommendations to the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW and the Attorney General, and allow the committee to exercise its functions without members being impacted by concerns for their personal safety. They will also enhance the protection of the community by ensuring that offenders who serve prison sentences for the new sex offences created by the Commonwealth can be subject to post‑sentence detention or supervision if they pose an unacceptable risk of committing a further serious offence. I commend the Attorney General for bringing this forward and I commend bill to the House.

Mr ADAM CROUCH (Terrigal) (18:55:26):

I make a brief contribution to debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. In particular I would like to focus on the amendments to section 99 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 and section 26ZS of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002. Section 99 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 confers power on a police officer to arrest a person without a warrant if the police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person is committing, or has committed, an offence, and the police officer is satisfied that the arrest is reasonably necessary for a prescribed reason. Section 99 (3) of the Act provides that a police officer who arrests a person under the section must, as soon as reasonably practicable, take the person before an authorised officer to be dealt with according to the law. The bill will amend subsection 99 (3) to allow any police officer, not just the arresting officer, to take the arrested person to an authorised officer. That is very important.

In addition to that, there are a number of operational reasons why the arresting police officer may not be the appropriate officer to take a person before an authorised officer to be dealt with according to the law. As an example, if a police officer is assaulted and arrests the person who allegedly committed the assault, the police officer is the victim of the alleged offence; it is therefore not appropriate for the police officer to be the charging officer for that offence. That is such a logical explanation of why it is appropriate. If an arresting officer is injured during the arrest and requires medical treatment, there may be a delay in taking the person before an authorised officer, or it may not be possible for the officer to take the person before an authorised officer. Where it is more appropriate for a specialist section within the NSW Police Force to take over the investigation, it may not be practicable for the arresting officer to be responsible for charging the offender. These are very logical situations which our police find themselves in every day.

I note that the member for Holsworthy was recently out visiting and greeting her new police officers from Goulburn. I saw it on her social media page. I had the same privilege at Brisbane Water, which received a number of new probationary constables. When you sit down and talk with those frontline officers, you get to hear firsthand the day-to-day duties they have to carry out, which the average person has no idea about. I have been privileged to spend the night out on patrol with the team at Brisbane Water and they do an absolutely outstanding job. I pay tribute to the men and women of the NSW Police Force. It is great to see these young recruits graduating from Goulburn and going off to fantastic police districts at Brisbane Water and Tuggerah Lakes, where there is a wealth of experience that they can learn from. It is always a privilege and a pleasure to visit and welcome those new probationary constables as they start, as I am sure the member for South Coast has done. I know the member for Holsworthy has done so.

As a member of Parliament it is a highlight to be able to greet those new police officers and thank them for the contribution they are going to make in keeping our community safe, but I digress. The amendment will not impact on the rights of arrested persons. The elements which enliven arrest powers under section 99 must still be met, meaning that the police officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed and be satisfied that the arrest is reasonably necessary for one or more prescribed reasons, including to stop the person committing the offence, repeating the offence or committing another offence; to stop the person fleeing from a police officer or from the location of the offence; to ensure that the person appears before a court in relation to the offence; and to protect the safety or welfare of any person, including the person arrested. In a lot of cases police officers are protecting victims from themselves. Their behaviour can put them in jeopardy and danger, as well as the community.

This is the thin blue line that does an amazing job every single day, and it is important that they have the powers at hand to be able to make the necessary arrests where appropriate. Again I thank the police on the Central Coast. During the COVID-19 lockdown, their ability to look after and care for our community and be compassionate under very difficult circumstances was a credit to them and to all of the senior officers at both Brisbane Water and Tuggerah Lakes. The person placed under arrest will still need to be taken before an authorised officer as soon as is reasonably practicable. Where there is a reason that the arresting officer cannot immediately take the arrested person before an authorised officer, such as where the arresting officer sustained injuries during the arrest and requires medical attention, the amendment may allow the person to be taken before an authorised officer sooner, which is totally and utterly logical.

I turn to the amendment to section 26ZA of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002. Currently section 26ZS provides that any preventative detention order or prohibited contact order for a terrorism suspect that is in force at the end of 16 December 2021 ceases to be in force at that time. Section 26ZS also provides that preventative detention orders and prohibited contact orders cannot be applied for or made after 16 December 2021. The amendment will extend both sunset clauses in section 26ZS to 16 December 2023, two years from the current date of expiry. This two‑year extension is necessary to enable the preventative detention order scheme to remain in force, pending the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission's report on the scheme under section 26ZO of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 and the statutory review of the Act to be undertaken under section 36 (2) of the Act once the commission has tabled its report. In conclusion, I am pleased—in fact, I am delighted—to support the amendments in the bill. The people of the Central Coast value the incredible contribution and dedication of the men and women in blue who keep our community safe every single day of the week.

Mrs Melinda Pavey:

Hear, hear!

Mr ADAM CROUCH:

I note the interjection from the Minister. Every single day they put on their uniforms and they do the right thing to keep everybody else safe. I heard comments in the Chamber earlier about talking to groups that may be affected by this. All members need to do is talk to the general public about what they expect police to be able to enforce to keep people safe. They should not have restraints on their ability to detain people where a case is put. It is absolutely vital to provide greater flexibility in complying with the requirements of the Act when exercising their powers of arrest without a warrant. I would suggest that those opposite who made comments earlier criticising the police should spend the night out on patrol with them, as I have done. A few hours out on patrol with our Police Force is a very eye‑opening experience.

The amendment to section 26ZO of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 will maintain the Supreme Court's ability to make orders detaining terrorism suspects and prohibit contact, where necessary, for the prevention of terrorist attacks or the preservation of evidence where terrorist acts have occurred. I acknowledge the great work and the amount of consultation being done by the Attorney General and his amazing staff with regard to this amendment. I acknowledge the great work that the Attorney General continues to do. I also thank the men and women of the NSW Police Force, especially at Brisbane Water and Tuggerah Lakes police commands. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms MELANIE GIBBONS (Holsworthy) (19:04:20):

On behalf of the Hon. Mark Speakman: In reply: I thank members for their contribution to the debate. I thank the member for Maroubra, the member for Oatley, the member for Newtown, the member for Prospect, the member for Heathcote and the member for Terrigal. I will address some particular matters that have been raised. The member for Maroubra and the member for Newtown have both asked about the rationale behind the timing of the amendment to extend the sunset clause under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002.

The extension to the sunset clause is necessary to ensure that the preventative detention order scheme remains in force, pending the tabling of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission report, and to allow enough time for the statutory review of the Act to carefully consider the commission's report. Part 2A of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 authorises the Supreme Court to make preventative detention orders, to detain persons in custody, to prevent terrorist acts occurring and to preserve evidence of terrorist acts that have occurred. Part 2A also provides the Supreme Court with discretion to make prohibited contact orders, to prevent contact with specified persons, where such an order is sought by police, either during an application for a preventative detention order or when a preventative detention order is already in force.

Preventative detention orders and prohibited contact orders act as valuable and critical disruption mechanisms in the context of an imminent terrorist attack. Currently, section 26ZS provides that preventative detention orders and prohibited contact orders cannot be applied for or made after 16 December 2021 and any order in force at the end of 16 December 2021 ceases to be in force at that time. The proposed amendment will extend the sunset clauses in this section by a further two years, to 16 December 2023. This two-year extension is necessary to ensure that part 2A does not expire before the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission completes its report on preventative detention under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 as required by section 26ZO and a statutory review of the Act is undertaken.

Section 36 of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 requires a statutory review of the Act to be undertaken every three years, as soon as possible after the reports of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission under sections 26ZO and 27ZC have been tabled in each House of Parliament. The proposed amendment will preserve the preventative detention order scheme until the statutory review process is complete. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Greg Piper):

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Third Reading

Ms MELANIE GIBBONS:

On behalf of the Hon. Mark Speakman: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.