Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) (No 4) Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (16:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) (No 4) Bill 2023. The bill progresses necessary amendments to acts committed to the Attorney-General: the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 2012 in light of the appointment of the Inspector of ICAC.

As a result of changes made by the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (CPIPC Recommendations) Amendment Act 2021, a new schedule 4 to the ICAC Act replaced the reviewer of ICAC with the inspector. The inspector has the role of overseeing the operation of ICAC and the Office of Public Integrity and conducting reviews into its operation to ascertain if there has been corruption, misconduct, unreasonable delays or invasions of privacy and the like in the conduct of the ICAC and the OPI.

Under both the Surveillance Devices Act and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act, the reviewer is the review agency for investigating agency or eligible authority exercising powers under both acts. The review agency is to inspect the records of the agencies at least once every six months to determine their compliance with legislative requirements and reports on the results of the inspection to the Attorney-General.

While the reviewer has been replaced by the inspector, the ICAC amendment act did not contain related amendments that would confer these review functions under the Surveillance Devices Act and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act on the inspector. This bill amends the Surveillance Devices Act and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act to define the review agency for each act as the inspector in order that the inspector may undertake the review functions.

I commend the bill to members. I seek leave to insert the explanation of clauses into Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Surveillance Devices Act 2016

3—Amendment of section 3—Interpretation

This clause amends the definition of review agency by deleting references to 'reviewer' and substituting them with references to 'Inspector'.

Part 3—Amendment of Telecommunications (Interception) Act 2012

4—Amendment of section 2—Interpretation

This clause amends the definition of review agency by deleting references to 'reviewer' and substituting them with references to 'Inspector'.

Schedule 1—Transitional provision

1—Reviews

This clause sets out various transitional arrangements in respect of certain reviews required to be conducted under section 32 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 and section 5 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 2012.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:38): I rise to indicate that the opposition supports the bill and that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. As the minister has just outlined, and as indeed the Attorney did in another place back in June, the bill essentially does two pieces of work: it alters the reporting arrangements by the commissioner in relation to the roadblocks reports and it moves them from being quarterly to being incorporated in the annual report.

I see the member for Elizabeth, my colleague on the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee. We have the occasion to consider those reports, presently quarterly, and I do not think I am giving away any discreet committee business to indicate how much the committee appreciates the succinct and straightforward manner in which those reports are produced and made available to the committee. It might be fair to say that in an ordinary quarter they are relatively uneventful reporting.

If, particularly as I understand it, the commissioner sees advantage in the capacity to have them incorporated in the annual report, then that is coherent, in my view. It will also have the effect of meaning that such data as is reported might be more readily available by reference to that annual report. That is a change of the reporting practice that is effected by those changes to the Summary Offences Act that are the subject of part 2 of the bill, and that applies to roadblocks and to dangerous areas respectively.

As the minister has adverted just now, the balance of the contents of the bill is changes that are made consequent on the establishment of the role of inspector and substituting those relevant references to the reviewer and the review agency to that of the inspector. So it is a short bill and it is given, in the circumstances, the title of Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) (No 4) Bill 2023, and I would not want to leave the house with too much of an impression that that is an indication of mountainous or voluminous work that is coming our way by virtue of these portfolio bills over the course of now heading towards two years of this new government and the passage of the Fifty-Fifth Parliament. I do commend the government for bringing it here, and I expect that it will be possible for it to be passed through the house and brought to bear speedily, and I will commend that outcome.

So changes of a substantive nature to the Summary Offences Act that I have outlined, and those changes that are necessary to the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act of 2012 that are consequent on the establishment of the new role, they are changes that are welcomed on the one part and, we understand, necessary on the other. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr BROWN (Florey) (16:43): It is with great pleasure that I speak on the Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) (No 4) Bill. The bill proposes to amend the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 2012 to update the definitions of review agency to reflect the relatively new appointment of the inspector under schedule 4 to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 2012, also known as the ICAC Act. The amendments contained in this bill are minor consequential amendments to legislation committed to South Australia's Attorney-General.

What is important for us to understand is that the amendments this bill proposes to the Surveillance Devices Act and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act are necessary amendments that will enable review functions to continue to be undertaken because, while the reviewer of the Independent Commission Against Corruption has been replaced by the inspector—a role currently occupied by Mr Philip Strickland SC, whose term was earlier this year extended a further 18 months—the 2021 ICAC Act amendments did not confer the review functions under the Surveillance Devices Act and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act on the inspector, a glaring oversight of the previous government.

Unless this occurs, the inspector is unable to carry out these review functions, hence the need for the amendments proposed herein. Inspection by the review agency under the Surveillance Devices Act and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act must be performed once in each period of six months. I understand that the most recent review period ended on 31 August 2022. Because there will be at least one missed review period before the amendments are made, transitional arrangements are included to require the inspector to undertake all reviews that have been missed since 31 August 2023 as part of the first review that occurs after the commencement of the amendments. This ensures continuity and should be a satisfactory provision to all.

The Telecommunications (Interception) Act was introduced to this parliament in 2012 by the then Attorney-General, the Hon. John Rau SC. In introducing the bill, Mr Rau highlighted that the purpose of the act was to be a companion to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, enabling the ICAC to be declared an agency under the relevant commonwealth act. Such a declaration would enable the Independent Commission Against Corruption to obtain telephone intercept warrants for the purposes of investigating corruption in public administration.

In order for the ICAC to be so declared, the commonwealth act requires that state-based legislation must be in place that provides for certain safeguards. One such safeguard is a compliance audit of the ICAC's use of these warrants. This review obligation is prescribed in section 5 of the South Australian act. The provisions of the bill that is now before us ensure that these safeguards can continue to operate in the way they were originally intended.

The ICAC bill as it was introduced in 2012 also made amendments to the Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972 to ensure that similar provisions would apply to warrants for listening and surveillance devices. These provisions are now encompassed within the Surveillance Devices Act, which brought this area of the law up to date in 2016. It is critical that anti-corruption bodies have the tools they need in order to undertake their important functions to ensure that our public administration is undertaken in a manner that is effective and free of corruption and maladministration. These tools must also be appropriately overseen and must be subject to regular review.

The Inspector of ICAC undertakes an important oversight role, and Mr Philip Strickland SC is an eminently qualified person to hold the position. It is important that we earn and maintain the confidence of the South Australian public in our anti-corruption bodies. Having an inspector who is widely held in such high regard with oversight of these bodies assists in cultivating and maintaining this confidence. The amendments this bill proposes will enable the inspector to properly undertake all the functions of the role. I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (16:48): I thank members for their contributions.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (16:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I have a brief contribution. I understand that the member for Heysen does as well. I commend the bill to the house and thank members for the prompt manner in which this has been considered.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:49): I am grateful not only for the minister's contribution to the second reading but for bringing to my attention the developments that have occurred following the introduction of the bill into another place. Inadvertent as they were, my remarks in relation to those parts of the bill that went away in the course of the debate in the other place might serve to indicate my support and our support for those aspects as originally moved.

It is my understanding that we will remain, and my colleague on the relevant committee member for Elizabeth and I will remain, for the time being at least, in receipt of those documents on the more frequent basis. The house has the benefit of at least some remarks in this place about the general content of those reports, which I think the Law Society has described as an administrative expediency in terms of what was originally proposed to be changed.

I suppose there are always going to be a range of views from the practical through to the principled in terms of the obligation of public authorities to report in these circumstances. So my view about the merits of those changes is on the record in the course of the second reading. I just indicate my gratitude to the minister for bringing it to my attention in the timely way that he has. I again indicate the opposition's support for the balance of the provisions that remain the subject of the bill and I commend it to the house.

Bill read a third time and passed.