HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-10-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Statutes Amendment (Extremist Material) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 September 2017.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:01): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Extremist Material) Bill 2017 and indicate that I will be the lead speaker. The bill is to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and the Summary Offences Act 1953 and in particular to create new offences regarding extremist material, including its possession, production and distribution. Additionally, it is to provide more powers to the police with regard to search warrants. The government announced on 26 September this year that they would give the police greater power to combat terrorism 'through new laws targeting people who produce and distribute extremist material'.

Undoubtedly, members are concerned, as the wider public are, about the contemporary conditions in which we live and in particular the acts of terrorism and threats that we now witness on our televisions and other media on a daily basis. It is clearly important to identify these and act where possible, in the early stages of radicalisation, as a counterterrorism measure. The introduction of the bill recognises that it is an important part of disrupting extremist activity to prevent the harm to the community that logically will follow.

I want to say something about a presentation that was made by a former adviser to the United Nations, Mr Mike Smith, in respect of his position as executive director on the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate. Recently, in an address he gave, he pointed out that there is generally amongst the public quite a high expectation that the police do everything they can to monitor and deter those who pose a serious threat. Perhaps more any other offence, because the consequences are so cruel and so final, there is this expectation on the police to do that.

Members would be aware that if someone has been captured after the event of a threat or attack, one of the first questions asked is whether the person was known to the police and intelligence agencies; if so, what was the nature of the background of the person in question and, furthermore, if there was a history and it had been identified, why was this person at large? I think it is fair to say that there is quite a high expectation, perhaps unreasonably so, on our local police as to their capacity to ensure that every person who is a risk is in some way under supervision, or in some envelope of custodial safety, if I can put it as generously as that.

In that regard, we see the need for ensuring that there is an upgrading of both the powers of the police and the obligation, in this case by offences that are being introduced, of members of the public to ensure that they are given clear notice that certain behaviour will be illegal and that it will be part of our statute. The first thing under this bill is to create two new offences. Firstly, it will be an offence for a person to collect or make a record of information that 'could be of practical use to a person committing or preparing' a terrorist attack or have possession of such information.

In this regard, this is will be an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for up to seven years. Largely, this has been drafted based on United Kingdom law which, as we know, has a long history of both legislative and administrative attention to how they deal with terrorist attacks. The second is that it will be an offence to possess, produce or distribute extremist material without reasonable excuse. Such material is deemed to be extremist material if a reasonable person would see the material as 'encouraging, glorifying, promoting or condoning terrorist acts'. This will be a summary offence with a maximum penalty of $10,000 or imprisonment for up to two years.

Concern has been raised by stakeholders—unsurprisingly, our advisers in the legal world, particularly the Law Society—that the offences cover conduct which is very broadly defined. Although that is the case, I think the public generally expects action to be taken, where possible, to disrupt the production and dissemination of extremist material. The definition of 'extremist material' includes reference to:

(a) material that a reasonable person would understand to be—

(i) directly or indirectly encouraging, glorifying, promoting or condoning terrorist acts; or

(ii) seeking support for, or justifying, the carrying out of terrorist acts…

Quite clearly, the real danger with this law is that it may apply to people who are not about to commit terror acts, for different reasons. Obviously, there is every likelihood that a lot of different people will be captured by this who, on the face of it, have no intention whatsoever of progressing to commit a terrorist attack. The contribution of the reasonable excuse as a defence is presented by the government as covering the risk here and ensuring there is protection for legitimate possession or production of this information.

Quite clearly, as the bill is drafted, there are two main areas that ought to have some protection. The first is where there is a legitimate public purpose, that is, an academic delivering a public lecture or media reporting. For obvious reasons, the persons responsible as the authors of this material, its preparation and the like, will have in their possession material that in every likelihood would otherwise be captured by this legislation.

I am not a great supporter of the idea of having a blanket cover for everybody and then the people who are acting lawfully having to go along and prove that they should be exempt from this huge umbrella of cover. Nevertheless, I accept that that is an area that clearly needs to be excluded and needs to be in the statute itself or, at the very least, in the regulations.

The second area of the defence of reasonable excuse having prima facie acceptance is, firstly, when the material has come into the possession of the person via an unsolicited process and, secondly, that reasonable steps were taken to get rid of it. Obviously, the facts of the case would need to be considered. It is not sufficient to say, 'Look, all this material arrived in a box and I didn't order it, I didn't ask for it, I didn't pay for it, I didn't solicit it in any way; therefore, I should be able to rely on this,' and then to find that they have had it in their possession for a year and have not in any way acted to dispose of it, hand it in to somebody or the like.

There is a second aspect of this, and that is that reasonable steps must be taken by the person who is in possession of this material to get rid of it. That is the approach of this bill. It is not ideal, but it is an approach that we are prepared to accept on the basis that we will need to do some further investigation on this matter. However, on the face of it, we will accept that process. What is concerning to us—and this is a matter that we will consider further and possibly present amendments in the Legislative Council—is the extra powers to the police.

Quite obviously, the South Australian police are the first responders to incidents. They are the people who are out there protecting us in an incident where people's lives are at risk or indeed lost. They are the ones who have to go in and protect the rest of us as best they can. They also have to care for and evacuate those who may be injured, and they have the gruesome task of dealing with those who might be murdered in such an incident.

I have a great deal of regard for the fact that South Australian police, amongst their other duties, are and will be called upon in the future to deal with these situations, including any siege. In recent decades, it is not something that we have experienced in South Australia, but some of us are old enough to remember bombings here in Adelaide. For different reasons, we have been exposed to acts of terror, which might have had a different motivation, but we have relied heavily on our South Australian police to provide us with the support and protection in those circumstances. They have my full commendation and support in that regard.

My concern is that South Australia Police have requested greater powers to deal with and disrupt this terrorist activity, acknowledging that the commonwealth had already developed offences and that COAG is reviewing a national approach to these reforms. In fact, the police sought these reforms last year. Ten months later, we are here in the parliament dealing with this bill that was tabled on the 27th, only a couple of weeks ago, and we are expected to deal with it in a very short space of time even though the government have had this request for some 10 months.

What is curious about the urgency of the government on this now, and the claims that the Attorney-General is acting to present this as a counterterrorism initiative, is that they did nothing until after the Prime Minister had acted and made announcements that there would need to be a coalition of support across the country via COAG to address a number of these matters. It seems that then, only then, was the Attorney woken from his slumber on this issue to actually act.

What is being asked for in the bill is that the new offences not require evidence to suggest a particular connection between the material and the terrorist; thus, this very much broadens the search and seizure powers of the police. I think that there are problems with that. Members of the opposition need to consider the contribution from other stakeholders, and so we will agree to the bill being progressed. I thank the members of the government for the briefing they provided on 9 October but, again, even in that briefing the confirmation that only SAPOL and the DPP have been consulted about this bill is quite concerning in itself.

If the government see this as an important initiative, if they see these offences as a legislative measure to try to target people who produce and distribute extremist material, then why on earth was this bill not drafted months ago, in fact, last year, and distributed for people to have a look at? It is concerning that that is the approach that has been taken. We will support the bill but reserve our right to pursue amendments in another place.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:18): The government announced on 26 September 2017 that they would give police greater power to combat terrorism through new laws targeting people who produce and distribute extremist material. In light of contemporary concerns for public safety, it is clearly important to identify and act on early stages of radicalisation. As has been evidenced by interstate arrests, it is an important part of disrupting extremist activity to prevent harm to the community.

The public expect our police to do everything they can to monitor and detain those who pose a serious threat. Under the bill, the government create two new offences under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and the Summary Offences Act 1953. The first is that it will become an offence for a person to collect or make a record of information which could be of practical use to a person committing or preparing a terrorist act or to have possession of such information. This will be an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for seven years. This is based on a similar UK offence.

It will redefine the offence under section 14(1)(b) around failing to provide food to a vulnerable person if the defendant is liable to provide food, accommodation or clothing to them. This will have a maximum penalty of imprisonment of three years. Similarly, the ill-treatment of a vulnerable person has come to public attention, where children have been left in squalor or an elderly person has been left without adequate food or care. Consultation and a government briefing have been provided. With those remarks, I conclude my contribution.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (16:20): I rise also to make a contribution on the Statutes Amendment (Extremist Material) Bill, introduced by the Attorney-General on 20 September. Essentially, this bill is quite simple in the concept that it is trying to achieve. It wants to create an offence for a person to collect or record information which a reasonable person would call extremist material. It then creates a second offence around the dissemination and distribution of such material.

I have had a look at the United Kingdom and the very difficult problem they are dealing with. They have obviously reacted by trying to stop or slow down the radicalisation of people within the community. It is a huge problem. They have experienced a large number of attacks in and around Westminster and Manchester. A number of high-profile incidents have captured our attention. They are awful in their impact because they really strike fear at the heart of not only the communities that are affected but also, much more broadly, entire countries. Here we are, on the other side of the world in Australia, having suffered a number of attacks thankfully nowhere near as severe as the loss of life that we have seen over there, and we are attempting to deal with this issue as well.

We agree with the government that there is a need to be proactive in this space. Luckily, in South Australia we have not had a terrorist incident. We are also lucky in South Australia that, even though a number of people are being monitored, that number at this stage is quite small. Only one person in South Australia, to my knowledge, has been charged with a terrorism offence. This means that to a certain degree we have the luxury of importing the best of what the rest of the world is doing to deal with this problem in the hope that we can prevent issues before they occur, that we can put in place a system that stops these issues from occurring rather than trying to mop up after the worst excesses of radicalisation that our community may bear in the loss of life or serious injury.

We on this side have proposed a whole series of measures in relation to curbing terrorism and also in trying to deradicalise or stop the radicalisation of members of our community. We had a discussion today about the proposed shoot-to-kill laws, which should send a message to any and all who would seek to undertake a terrorist incident that we are serious about stopping them in their tracks in the event that they make that disgusting decision.

We have also made policies quite public around other measures to reduce radicalisation through a greater use of community constables within extremist communities. We know that this extremist population, one would have to say, manifests itself around the Islamic faith. It is not exclusive to that. I am not making a political point here; it is just the facts as they have been presented to us; however, it is more broad than that.

We need to engage with these at-risk communities so that they understand the Australian way of life, and the beautiful standard of living that we have here, and the fact that we have a society with lower levels of crime compared with the more developing countries, where corruption and bribery are not rife and you can make comments about the government separate to that. By comparative standards to the rest of the world, we observe the rule of law, and that needs to be preserved. It needs to be protected and it needs to be understood by everybody who lives here.

So having a community constable, which is a police officer with limited jurisdictional powers, to engage with at-risk communities to show them that our police force can be trusted in the vast majority of cases to do the right thing means that we do not need to fear the police. In some countries the police force are the ones who are brutalising their citizens; the police force are being used as an army to oppress average citizens. That is not the case in South Australia, and it is not the case in Australia.

In fact, South Australia Police are ranked the highest when it comes to people's appreciation and trust for the work that they do. Even this morning, we heard figures of about 75 per cent of people who believe that South Australia Police go about their work fairly and that they are treated fairly in their conduct with the police.

The community constable is designed to be someone who is a few steps from being a full-blown police officer and provides that link between SAPOL and at-risk communities and can show them that they can trust the police and that we can and should respect the rule of law in Australia. I think that goes quite a long way in actually helping to stop radicalisation in the first place and to stop the resentment, the disenfranchisement and the isolation that are many of the precursors to radicalisation.

We have also discussed measures around improved training for security guards and improved firearms training for police officers. This is, essentially, a broad suite of measures to make sure that we are ready and able to deal with the issues as they occur. We have also announced plans around a communications strategy. Again, the whole idea of that is to stop radicalisation in its tracks.

The whole desire to have a communication strategy is not only in that initial response period where we need to get quick and accurate information disseminated out to the community so that people can respond and keep themselves safe but also, in those moments, it is incumbent upon us to speak in a language that denigrates terrorists for what they are, who they are and what they are doing as the murderous, suicidal scum that they are. In doing so, we seek to denigrate rather than to immortalise those who choose to undertake these horrific acts.

What the government has put on the table in this bill—and again, I will defer to a lot of the comments from the deputy leader around the manufactured haste that seems to have come into play here—is a movable feast. We have seen eight tranches of legislation from the federal government around increasing protections, increasing penalties and improving methods for dealing with terrorist incidents and also around antiradicalisation strategies. I have been lucky enough to have briefings from a variety of departments on the work that they are doing. This is a movable space. Whilst we support the intent of the bill, and we are going to support the bill through this house, there are a huge number of questions to be raised in relation to how this is going to work in practice.

The real question that I have and that we have as an opposition is, first off, about wanting to understand what the legislative experience is. I understand that in the UK it is quite new. Having said that, do we have here any understanding of what other states are doing in this regard? What we have is quite a broad bill that states that something is extremist if:

(a) [it is] material that a reasonable person would understand to be—

(i) directly or indirectly encouraging, glorifying, promoting or condoning terrorist acts; or

(ii) seeking support for, or justifying, the carrying out of terrorist acts;

Terrorist acts and terrorism offences are clearly defined federally, and I understand that there is a common set of wording across the country around what that looks like. That part is defined well enough, but the definition of 'extremist material' is quite broad.

Obviously, for legislative purposes, that is the way it has been presented to parliament, but for me that raises huge questions about what is extremist material and how it is going to be defined in practice. What does this mean for those who are going to have to attempt to make a judgement on whether something is extremist material? The second and probably the most important question I have and I would like to tease out in committee is: who gets to determine what is extremist material? Is it going to be a court, or are we going to be providing police with training so that they can make a determination on what is extremist material?

When we have dealt with possession offences in other ways—possessing illegal firearms, possessing illicit substances and possessing other illegal weapons—we were able to clearly define, or over time through common law have clearly defined, what those weapons are. I will give an example. We have now defined when a kitchen knife becomes a weapon; otherwise, making a blanket statement that the possession of a knife is illegal means that every single household in South Australia has just broken the law. Are we facing the same situation here with what is extremist material and who is going to make that determination?

I can understand that through a court process a judge will make a determination and can sit down and use the reasonable person test as an objective test to be able to make that determination, but when we are putting our police out there on the front line how are they going to be able to make that determination and how is that going to work in practice? I think that there are serious questions as to how that is going to be put in place.

The Liberal Party wants to work constructively with the government on getting this right. We want to make sure that that balance between freedom of speech and freedom of expression on the one hand is balanced versus the security of our state and the need to intervene as early as possible to prevent issues, but where is that line drawn? For instance, if this bill becomes law and in researching this act I try to access extremist material, how is that captured? Do I have to go to a court of law to prove my innocence? I understand that there are some legitimate public purposes and that there is a defence here.

Essentially, are we going to get a situation where we are asking our front-line officers to make decisions and determinations and, out of an abundance of caution, make a more broad decision, which means that this will lead to a lot of superfluous prosecutions down the track to try to test this legislation out? Are we going to impinge upon people's right to freedom of speech and impinge upon people's right to explore the big wide world and inadvertently make those who have absolutely no intent of actually undertaking terrorist acts criminals by virtue of this legislation? I think there are a lot of questions to be asked as to how this is going to work in practice.

We are here offering support. We are here offering the cooperation of the opposition to get towards a workable solution, but we are also mindful that we are here to get a workable solution that works through the unintended consequences that so often happen with government bills and make sure that we can actually get to an outcome where South Australians are safe and the liberties they are choosing to give up are not given up in vain, but are given up in the appropriate cause of keeping our community safer.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (16:34): I thank everyone for their contributions. I am hopeful that all of us basically share the same appropriate objectives, that is, to make sure that we keep our community safe and that, in taking steps like this, which you would hope you would not have to do but I think that it is more than arguable—it is unfortunately necessary in the present circumstances that we do do something—that parliaments around the country take that responsibility and act accordingly.

It gives me no pleasure to bring a bill such as this before the parliament because I would much prefer us to be living in a community where even the thought of this type of behaviour was so far from anyone's mind that it would not be necessary. Sadly, that is not where we are.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Ms CHAPMAN: Clause 4 is to insert the provision under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act that creates the indictable offence. My question to the Attorney is: does this follow exactly the format in respect of the UK legislation and does it apply anywhere else in Australia?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank you for that question. I am advised that if you look at the bill, in new section 83CA(1)(a), in the second line, there are the words 'to be of practical use'. With the exception of those words—and I suppose subclause (4), which clearly refers to the commonwealth, which has obviously nothing to do with the British model—new subsection (1) does basically follow the British model with the exception that those words 'to be of practical use' have been added in because that is the way in which it has been interpreted there, so we want to make it clear that that is what we are on about, not some more generic proposition

Members would be aware that COAG has been discussing matters relating to this. I do not believe that any of the other states have yet managed to put into their statutes provisions of a similar kind, but I think it is fair to say that all of them are intending to do things along these lines. The commonwealth certainly has been making noises about this type of thing.

The analogy is basically this. We have provisions dealing with, for example, the provision of information in the nature of a how-to-do kit for bombs or a how-to-do kit for other things that are illegal, and we have provisions about people using the internet to recruit for terrorist organisations, for example. Bear in mind, too, that we are getting to the point now where increasingly terrorist activities appear to be being carried out by people who are not necessarily connected with a group. These are not necessarily activities that are organised by a group of people who act in a coordinated fashion who are semiprofessional or qualified in some way. These tend to be lone actors who hatch an idea in their own minds and decide they will go off and do it.

In those circumstances, handing a person who is of that frame of mind practical information about how they might go about executing such an act is not dissimilar conceptually to providing a person with information about how to build a bomb. It is certainly facilitating people being able to translate what might be just a thought or a whim, giving them the practical information that enables them to translate that from simply a thought to an action. But the answer is: with the exception of those words I have just referred to, this is the British position.

Ms CHAPMAN: The forfeiture provision basically says that, if you are convicted, you forfeit and there is a right for the court to let you retrieve certain material. Presumably, if they are satisfied that they are personal effects or something of that nature, they can be retrieved. Is that all the same as the British arrangements?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that that is actually a more local element. That element is essentially to align the offences here with things like child exploitation material. Where a person is charged and successfully prosecuted in respect of this type of matter, the equipment they were using would be treated in South Australia in the same way as equipment used for the purposes of child exploitation material might be treated. It is aligning the consequences of this prosecution with the consequences of analogous but different prosecutions under existing South Australian law.

Ms CHAPMAN: I think it is fair to say that these forfeiture laws are not necessary for the purposes of retaining material in the custody of the police or the DPP for prosecution because they are entitled to do that in any event and keep it secure for the purposes of any trial or whatever. In any event, I understand. You want it to have the status as though it were in the category of material that should not be allowed to survive, like child pornography.

Then we go to the provisions under new clause 37—which will be new section 37 if the bill is passed—which give the possession arrangements, with the exception of there being 'a legitimate public purpose'. Is this a replica of what is in the UK or is this of local origin?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the defences here are of local drafting. However, the primary offence, as I explained earlier, with the exception of those words about practical use—I beg your pardon. Let me just take some advice. The definition of 'extremist material' here is, I am advised, an adaptation based on the British definition, but the actual wording otherwise is not based on that. The defences are locally drafted.

Ms CHAPMAN: Having gone down the track in respect of a summary offence here and the broader definition essentially of 'extremist material'—I note that you have put in these clauses to try to draw back conduct for artistic purposes, academic speeches, etc.—what is the justification for going further? Given that the United Kingdom has established this legislation, as you have rightly pointed out in your second reading, had it tested in the courts and it appears to work, it is the basis upon which you are bringing it to this jurisdiction. Where something has been tried and tested, that is always something helpful to any legislature to consider. Why has this novel addition been incorporated?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised in this way: the summary offence, which obviously is a less serious matter from a criminal point of view, is different in a material way because it does not have any obvious necessary connection with any particular terrorist event or offence which may be or is being urged to be perpetrated. That is the reason why it is a lesser offence than the other.

I guess we are drawing the distinction between somebody who is in possession of material as opposed to somebody who is attempting to proselytise or train others. We are saying neither of it is any good, but clearly the person who is actively seeking to promote, to train, to inform or instruct others is doing something much more potentially dangerous than somebody who might simply be, for whatever reason, in possession of the material. As the deputy leader pointed out, we are actually saying that there are significant carve-outs for legitimate public purposes which, hopefully, would exclude anybody with a reasonable excuse for being in possession of the material.

Ms CHAPMAN: If it does not operate in Britain and it does obviously apply with these qualifications, why is it actually necessary to have this extra step other than because of the fact that the police have asked for it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I guess the answer is along these lines. We have been advised that there are circumstances in which the police have not been able, from an evidentiary point of view, to establish a connection between material and any particular terrorist act or planning of any particular terrorist act.

At the moment, one might regard that as leaving us with a bit of a gap in the legislation so that a person can be in possession of this material unless the police can demonstrate—and of course the onus is on them to demonstrate—that there is a connection between that person having this material and some particular terrorist event, and the police do not then enliven any other powers that they might have in terms of not just prosecuting for that but even being able to arrest, take the computer or do anything else that they might think is appropriate.

I think it is fair to say, on the basis of the information I have, that it may well be that this offence is in some respects potentially an enabler for the police to identify early on whether there are other offences that have either been or are in the process of being prepared to be committed. The possession of this material enables them to then make inquiries of a person who has this material.

I would be very surprised if many ordinary citizens are in possession, by any definition of the word 'possession', of any of this material. I imagine the average person going about their daily business would not be even remotely likely to encounter this material. We are dealing with a fairly small cohort of people who would even be interested in this material, and to be in possession of it, and it is possible that this self-selecting group are probably of more interest to the police than people who do not have this material.

I come back to the original point I made: this is only a summary offence and this does not carry the same consequences, potentially, as the other offence. We deliberately made it that way, rather than having the two of them being alternatives in the same scale of offending. There are a number of obvious public interest offences.

Ms CHAPMAN: So I take it the answer is that nobody else asked for it, other than the police?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, they certainly asked for it.

Ms CHAPMAN: No-one else?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. I do not recall having had a request from anybody else about this. That said, it may well be—and I do not have access to all these details—that COAG has actually traversed this topic in terms of the ongoing conversations they appear to be having about terrorist material. But, insofar as I am concerned, yes, it is from the police.

Ms CHAPMAN: Other than in the UK, because they did not apply it—they are a mature country with regard to dealing with terrorist activity and they do not have it—where else does this operate, if anywhere?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We have not gone through a process of seeking out an answer to that question. We have not done this on the basis that somebody else has done it and we are copying it. We have done it on the basis that the argument put to us by the police about the potential utility of an offence such as this in enabling them perhaps to identify and interrupt people who are potentially about to do more serious things was warranted.

I accept the member for Bragg may have the view that these are all questions of fact and degree. I accept that. I made the point earlier that it does not give me any pleasure to bring this to the parliament, but it is a judgment call as to whether or not we wish to make a very firm statement, as a parliament, about people who are possessing, disseminating, using or potentially proselytising with this sort of material.

It is not unknown, for example, with child exploitation material. There are offences in relation to possession of child exploitation material, and then there are different and more serious consequences attached to hosting a website, for example, or transmitting it to third parties. It is not as if that two-tiered response is an unknown thing.

Ms CHAPMAN: So when the police were putting this presentation to you, to have the benefits of this proposed legislation, did they explain to you how many cases that they considered had not advanced because they could not get over the threshold of the obligations currently under the summary offences laws in particular in order to justify getting a warrant, which would be their usual obligation?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that there were two examples that were put forward about this. I cannot presently remember the details of those; nonetheless, there were a couple of examples put forward. Another thing that is probably worth noting is that the threat assessments around Australia vary. They vary geographically and they vary from time to time. It is probably the case that at present, if you are in New South Wales or Victoria—and I do not think I would be letting any cats out of the bag there; they have bigger populations and they are where previous incidents have occurred—more activity has been detected and has resulted actually in people being killed.

That does not mean it cannot happen here and it does not mean that this might not be a place where a self-motivated individual in particular, albeit a crazy person, might wish to make something of themselves and make some sort of statement here. Just because we are not a place that, up until now, has been a focal point of these discussions does not mean that we are not at risk.

Coming back to the point that was raised, I am advised that there were a couple of examples. To the extent that it is possible—I cannot make a commitment on behalf of SAPOL—I would certainly be happy to encourage them to discuss those matters between the houses, if that is of any value to the deputy leader, to give their account of it. I think they are probably best able to speak for themselves in relation to those matters.

Ms CHAPMAN: I note the Attorney's offer in that regard. I am happy to receive the details in writing from—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I make it clear that this is SAPOL's information, not mine. What they are happy to share is a matter for them. What I can say is that I am very happy to ask them to share whatever they are comfortable with sharing on whatever terms they are comfortable sharing it with the deputy leader in order to enable her to better understand what their concern is.

Ms CHAPMAN: Let me be clear: we are being asked to support an aspect of this bill that is completely novel, that to the best of our knowledge has not been asked for in a COAG agreement and does not apply in any other jurisdiction in Australia, but is a process which otherwise, effectively, will subvert the obligation of any other police officer in the proper processes that they go through under the Summary Offences Act—namely, get warrants, show cause and so on.

It is a matter for the commissioner or his representative to come to the Attorney or the government and say, 'We think this would be a handy extra tool in the toolkit. We would like to have it. I know it's not anywhere else, even in Britain, which has been fighting these wars for hundreds of years.' In the last part of the century, of course, the British fought the Irish, but there are plenty of other countries they have been at war with and blowing each other up, and even they have not sought this.

If the police commissioner says, 'We have identified in the course of our investigations in these types of matters this impediment, which means we can't just go in and grab this stuff,' then we will listen to it, but please do not come in here with this idea of, 'I don't know; I can't remember what they told me, but there were a couple of cases,' and then say, 'It's up to the police whether they tell you.' It is up to the government, and the Attorney-General in particular, to convince the parliament that there is merit in this approach and what they are asking us to do, which completely goes against the current laws in respect of access to people's property and the confiscation or forfeiture of assets in the meantime. Please do not get cute with the parliament in this regard.

In any event, if there is COAG instruction on this I am happy to receive it and take it into account. If the police wish to put something to us to satisfy us that there are cases that are failing as a result of their not being able to get sufficient authority to act in cases where they think they are prejudiced in the opportunity to find material that would help to undermine or at least subvert a plot for a terrorist attack, they are welcome to get in touch with us. That is all I have to say.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was doing so well up until then. She had been courteous and receptive to courtesy. Anyway, as I said, I made an offer. I will ask SAPOL to please provide the deputy leader with whatever information they are able to provide her with from their point of view in order to assist her in understanding what their concerns are. I cannot direct the police commissioner to do that, but I will ask him to do that. I am happy to ask him to do that. I think that is the best I can do.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (5) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (17:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT