- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 10 March 2004
Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 4 of 41
| Next Item »
Page: 7004
Second Reading
Debated resumed from 27 February.
Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [11.54 a.m.]: The Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill amends a number of Acts with respect to criminal offences and proceedings for criminal offences. The Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 will be amended to clarify that the protections provided by section 11 applies to deceased child victims and extends the protection to the child siblings of child victims. As I understand it, that is in relation to publication. That seems to me to be a sensible and necessary amendment. The bill amends the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 to ensure that a certificate for the payment of a defendant's costs can be given in relation to the defendant in a special hearing, as is the case in regard to criminal proceedings generally. Special hearings are trials held for defendants who have been found unfit to be tried in the normal way, and the extension of the costs provisions to this category of special hearing seems to be reasonable.
The Crimes Act 1900 is amended in two ways. First, the range of circumstances that can give rise to an offence of either dangerous driving or dangerous navigation occasioning death or grievous bodily harm will be extended For example, the Act will now cover a situation where a person is thrown or ejected from a vehicle. Second, the bill creates separate offences of sexual assault in certain circumstances of aggravation as defined in relation to other sexual assaults. The penalty of 20 years that currently applies if a victim is under 10 years of age will in future apply if the victim is under 16 years of age.
These are important amendments, but it is also important that the Crimes Act be reviewed from to time. I am not sure how these amendments arose, but I suspect they probably resulted from instances in which the definition in the Act did not fit the particular circumstances of the case before the court, for example, a case relating to a person being thrown from a vehicle and the injury caused thereby not fitting the offence of dangerous driving. It seems to me that these provisions need to be under constant proactive review, obviously because of decided cases, but even more so to ensure that the law reasonably covers what people expect to be part of the criminal consequences of the main offence.
I do not imagine that an ordinary member of the public believes that someone who is injured or killed as a result of being thrown from a vehicle should be discounted, so to speak, for the purposes of a criminal act by the other party who occasioned it. It seems a matter of commonsense that that should properly be involved in dangerous driving or navigation causing death. When loopholes are used to secure an acquittal, the ordinary person in the street would say that person should not have been acquitted. As members of Parliament, we know that when such cases are picked up by the media great tension and stress is caused to the whole system. There is a real need to be proactive and to regularly review these provisions to make sure that they cover what the public expects be covered and that they not be limited to decided cases.
The bill amends the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 to allow the Court of Criminal Appeal to make the same order in relation to a person's detention or release after a finding of not guilty by reason of mental illness as a court can now make under section 39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990. That is sensible as it extends rather than limits the power of the court in those circumstances. Similarly, the Mental Health Act 1990 is amended to clarify that the Mental Health Review Tribunal and authorised officers have the same powers in relation to persons who are released conditionally as they do for other forensic patients detained under section 39. That also seems to be a sensible extension of the powers.
I want to talk briefly about two other issues that have been in the public domain recently. One is the amendment of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act regarding guideline judgments to allow the Sentencing Council to advise and consult the Attorney General not only in relation to offences suitable for guideline judgments but also in relation to particular courts or classes of courts, particular offences or classes of offences, particular penalties or classes of penalties, or particular classes of offenders. No doubt this will remind honourable members of the recent debate and public concern about some of the sentences being handed down for those who are convicted of drink-driving but who do not lose their licences.
The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has done some important work in this area. I have said publicly that I am concerned by what the bureau has discovered and that I agree with its recommendation, which basically is to have a guideline judgment to better define what courts should do where people are convicted of drink-driving, especially in relation to the loss of their licences. I would like to say a number of things about this matter, which is relevant to the bill because the guideline judgments proposed by the amendment are central to the bill. Firstly, I place on record that, whilst this matter came up recently and the Attorney General said—and I support him in this—that there should be a guideline judgment clarifying the drink-driving penalties, this was first promised by the Attorney General on 2 August 2001. I have a press release on the Attorney General's letterhead entitled "Government pursuing Guideline Judgment on drink driving". It says:
The State Government is well advanced in its pursuit of a Guideline Judgment from the Court of Criminal Appeal on appropriate sentences for high-range drink driving …
The press release relates generally to guideline judgments on drink-driving, as its heading makes clear. It is therefore regrettable that we are still to approach the courts for guideline judgments on drink-driving. I would have thought that this issue generally should have been addressed at that time by the Government and the Attorney. Much has been made of the latest proposal for a guideline judgment as a new initiative. As is clear from the press release dated 2 August 2001, a guideline judgment for drink-driving was promised then. It is of concern to me that the matter is still not clarified. In fact, as late as 27 February this year the Attorney General issued another press release about guideline judgments on drink-driving penalties.
As I have said, I support this initiative. I just think the Government and the Attorney General have to do a little bit better than cover substantially the same ground for the second time some 2½ years later. It is clear that the community is gravely concerned about this issue, and rightly so. I trust that this time the matter will be sorted out and dealt with properly, and that a comprehensive application for a guideline judgment will be made. In relation to a matter highlighted by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, it may well be that a particular guideline judgment for Local Courts is the way to go and that the bill would make that sort of fine-tuning possible. However, I do not regard that as any excuse for a comprehensive guideline judgment not having been sought before now under the existing legislation.
The other matter I would highlight relates to media references, particularly talk on 2GB, about the approach of a magistrate at Manly Local Court to drink-driving matters, especially the question of whether or not a convicted person loses his or her licence. Pages 4, 5 and 6 of a report of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research have graphs regarding drink-driving charges that have been dismissed or where offenders have been discharged. This is excellent work by the bureau. Interestingly, Manly is right up there in figure 5, which relates to low-range prescribed concentration of alcohol [PCA] matters; in figure 6, which relates to middle-range PCA matters, Manly is well above average; and in figure 7, high-range PCA matters, again it is well above average.
I compared those statistics to figures referred to in an article by Sean Berry in the Sun-Herald of 8 February 2004, in regard to the number of drink-driving cases in particular areas. It struck me that, under the heading "Worst in Sydney", on the northern beaches there were 779 cases of people driving with more than the prescribed limit of alcohol; second on the list was Miranda, with 483 cases; third was Liverpool, with 460 cases; fourth was St George, with 454 cases; and fifth was Hurstville, with 423 cases. There would appear to be a correlation between the leniency of the Manly magistrate and the large number of drink-driving offences on the northern beaches. I am concerned that there appears to be a very real likelihood of a linkage between repeated leniency by that court and people in that area continuing to drink-drive because there appears to be little deterrent. In other words, the strong likelihood is that people who appear before Manly Local Court will not lose their licence for drink-driving, thereby significantly reducing the deterrence to people committing this offence.
The figures for the northern beaches are in stark contrast to the figures for other areas. It could be said, for example, that Miranda, Liverpool, St George and Hurstville are relatively closely bunched in the number of cases of drink-driving offences, but the northern beaches stands out by a country mile ahead of those four categories; indeed, it has almost double the number of offences recorded in Miranda, Liverpool, St George and Hurstville. The northern beaches has a somewhat unique profile. I cannot help but think there is a link between that high number of cases and the leniency of Manly Local Court in not disqualifying offenders from holding a licence. The Manly magistrate should be much tougher on drink-driving offenders to bring the penalties into line with the other courts. Manly Local Court should not wait for a guideline judgment but do that immediately because of the extent of the drink-driving problem in that area. Indeed, the first paragraph of that newspaper article states:
The northern beaches are Sydney's drink-driving capital.
There is a very strong link between that statistic and the fact that in the Manly area a large number of people are discharged under section 10 and therefore do not lose their licences. The other thing I want to speak about are the so-called privacy provisions. These are the amendments to the Summary Offences Act to create two new offences: filming for indecent purposes—defined as filming for one's own or someone else's gratification—some other person who is undressed or is using private premises in circumstances in which there would be a reasonable expectation that that other person would be afforded privacy; and installing a device to facilitate filming for those indecent purposes. The maximum penalty is 100 penalty units and/or two years imprisonment. Obviously, I support that amendment.
However, I must place on the record again that this matter has been around for a long time. The Law Reform Commission's report entitled "Surveillance: an interim report" was tabled in Parliament on 6 December 2001. The offence of peeping or prying under section 457C of the Crimes Act was plainly totally inadequate to meet the situation. The Law Reform Commission made a very comprehensive report in December 2001. It is a shame that it has taken this long to get something done about the matter. Indeed, I suspect what is now before the Parliament has, in part, something to do with A Current Affair running the issue very strongly in September last year, pointing out the legal loophole that had been reported on back in 2001 and saying it was high time something was done about it. I think I am within my rights to put these matters on the record. That is not to say the Opposition has any problems with the legislation. On the contrary, we do not. The bill is not opposed.
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda) [12.09 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak to the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill, which makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the criminal law and procedures that are designed to improve the administration of the criminal justice system. The bill clarifies a number of procedural matters, and I am sure it will be welcomed by many of the criminal law practitioners. I wish to refer to two matters. The first is the amendments to section 52A of the Crimes Act relating to the offence of dangerous driving occasioning death or grievous bodily harm. The second is the new offence of filming for indecent purposes, the amendment to the Summary Offences Act.
The bill amends section 52A of the Crimes Act to extend the range of circumstances that can give rise to an offence of dangerous driving occasioning death or grievous bodily harm. Under current law a person is guilty of the offence of dangerous driving occasioning death if the vehicle driven by the person is involved in an impact occasioning the death of another person and the driver was, at the time of the impact, driving the vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug, at a speed dangerous to another person or persons, or in a manner dangerous to another person or persons. A person convicted of that offence is liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years. The amendment relates to the term "impact".
Currently, under section 52A (5) "impact" includes the vehicle overturning or leaving a road while the person is being conveyed in or on the vehicle; an impact between any object and the vehicle while the person is being conveyed in or on the vehicle; an impact between the person and the vehicle; the impact of the vehicle with another vehicle or an object in, on or near which the person is at the time of the impact; an impact with anything on, or attached to, the vehicle; or an impact with anything that is in motion through falling from the vehicle. Unfortunately, however, the offence is not made out if the vehicle spins out of control causing a passenger to be ejected and killed, but the vehicle does not leave the roadway or collide with any object; the driver negotiates a corner at high speed causing a passenger to be ejected or killed; or part of a person protruding from the vehicle strikes any object. The legislation seeks to remedy those anomalous outcomes.
Section 52A (5) includes in the definition of "impact" the person falling from the vehicle, or being thrown or ejected from the vehicle, while being conveyed in or on the vehicle whether as a passenger or otherwise; and an impact between any object, including the ground, and the person, as a consequence of the person or any part of the person being or protruding outside the vehicle if a person is being conveyed in or on the vehicle, whether as a passenger or otherwise. The bill amends section 52B in similar terms to extend the range of circumstances that can give rise to an offence of dangerous navigation occasioning death or grievous bodily harm. I note it is still a defence to a charge under section 52A or section 52B when the death or serious injury is in no way attributable to the manner of driving or navigating.
The bill inserts into the Summary Offences Act a new part 3B, which provides for two offences: filming for indecent purposes, and installing a device to facilitate filming for indecent purposes. The maximum penalty for both offences is 100 penalty units—currently $11,000—or two years imprisonment, or both. Filming for indecent purposes involves filming for one's own or someone else's sexual arousal or sexual gratification some other person who is undressed or is using the toilet or is engaged in a private sexual act, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy, and does not consent to being so filmed. The amendment to the Summary Offences Act is in response to the case of Police v Palmer. The facts of the case are worth elucidating for the benefit of the House.
Richard Palmer was successfully prosecuted in the Local Court on 21 August 2002 for the offence of act of indecency under section 61N of the Crimes Act. With a secret camera Mr Palmer secretly videoed his female flatmates in the shower in his home bathroom. One of his female flatmates discovered this when she inadvertently came across a videotape of herself in the shower. She reported this to the police. Mr Palmer admitted the facts alleged by the police prosecutor. However, the magistrate found that no law in New South Wales prohibits such behaviour. Mr Palmer initially was charged with being in a building without reasonable cause with the intent to peep and pry upon another person under section 547C of the Crimes Act 1900, a provision that had been in the Crimes Act for some considerable time. Mr Palmer entered a plea of guilty to the charge of peeping and prying.
However, all of Mr Palmer's actions were done in his own home so it could not be said that he had no reasonable excuse to be there. He was permitted to withdraw his plea. Police then charged him with an offence under section 61N, act of indecency. The magistrate found that Mr Palmer's actions in videoing his female flatmates did not constitute an act of indecency for two reasons. First, Mr Palmer's actions were not done "with or towards" his flatmates because he was not physically present with them at the time. Also, they did not become aware of the videotape until much later when the tapes were discovered by his female flatmate. Second, there was no evidence that Mr Palmer obtained any sexual gratification at the time of making the recording, although he may have later when he watched the tapes.
The new offence is welcome and is similar to an offence of voyeurism under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 of the United Kingdom. The elements of the offence are: for the purpose of sexual gratification the person observes another person doing a private act, and they know that the other person does not consent to being observed for that person's sexual gratification. There are numerous cases of similar offences in the United States. In one case of which I am aware a family who went away on holidays left the key with their next-door neighbour so that person could look after the house, feed the dog and so on. While they were away the neighbour went into the home and installed video cameras in the ceiling of the bedroom, the toilet and the shower and filmed the couple engaged in private sexual acts, going to the toilet and having a shower. Eventually the person was caught and brought to justice. Laws in the United States were changed as a result. I congratulate the Attorney on the bill as a whole, which will add to and improve the administration of justice in New South Wales. I commend it to the House.
Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [12.18 p.m.]: I support the Criminal Legislation Amendment Bill, the purpose of which is to amend various Acts concerning the criminal law, and to improve the operation and administration of the criminal law and procedure. In particular, I note that it amends the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. Section 11 currently allows a court to prohibit the publication of the names of children who are victims, witnesses or defendants in criminal proceedings. The amendment clarifies that the protection includes a deceased child victim, and extends to the siblings of child victims. It arose out of a case in which a media organisation applied to the court to publish the name of a deceased child victim, which could have led to the identification of the victim's living child siblings.
Section 11 was introduced to prevent the association of a child with a criminal offence. Accordingly, it has been drafted to ensure that the prohibition on media, et cetera, is not so unreasonable as to prevent publication of a child's name for any reason at all, but just if the child has been associated with the hearing of a criminal charge. It is a fundamental principle of the rule of law that the administration of justice takes place in open court. Nevertheless, there are statutory exceptions to the principles of open justice when public policy demands it. That includes the powers under section 11 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 to prohibit the publication of names, or orders for a closed court, when proceedings relate to children. There is a clear public interest in not stigmatising young people to ensure that they have the best possible opportunity for rehabilitation.
In preparation for participation in this debate, I spoke to the Wesley Dalmar (Reconnect) Service in Penrith, which is an outreach service with a client base of adolescents in the Penrith-Nepean-Hawkesbury catchment area. The service operates a program called Reaching Out—Reconnect, which is conducted in conjunction with the Department of Community Services. The program attempts to reconnect with adolescents in the Hawkesbury, Penrith and lower Blue Mountains area who are suffering from stress. This morning the manager referred to a client who had been involved in the juvenile justice system for a criminal offence and who was reluctant to undertake rehabilitation for fear that his association with his friends and the area in which he lives might be reported by the media.
The client's concern was that at such a young age he would be stigmatised in his community if his criminal activities received public media exposure. Anything that this bill is able to do to ensure that the identity of children involved in criminal proceedings is not publicly disclosed will benefit any child involved in criminal proceedings, particularly clients of the Wesley Dalmar (Reconnect) Service, by ensuring that they are given every opportunity to participate in rehabilitation. Section 11 (4B) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 allows a court to authorise the publication or broadcasting of the name of a juvenile, with or without their consent, when sentencing them upon conviction for a serious children's indictable offence, including murder.
Under section 11 (4C) the court may make such an order when satisfied that doing so is in the interests of justice and that the prejudice to the person arising from the publication or broadcasting of the person's name in accordance with such an order does not outweigh those interests. It is important to realise that in such situations the court makes an assessment based on the individual facts of the case. There are similar provisions in relation to sexual assault complainants. Section 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 provides for the prohibition of publication which identifies complainants in prescribed sexual assault proceedings. In those cases there is a clear public interest in complainants in sexual assault proceedings not being discouraged from coming forward to give evidence because the trauma associated with doing so may be compounded by publication of the complainant's name in the media. For the reasons I have outlined, I commend the Criminal Legislation Amendment Bill to the House.
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne) [12.23 p.m.]: I support the Criminal Legislation Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend various Acts in the criminal law to improve the operation and administration of criminal law and procedure. One of the amendments that interests me deals with new offences of secretly filming a person in private. It is a basic assumption in modern society that the privacy of our own homes is sacrosanct. It is offensive that some people seek to impinge on that fundamental principle of privacy. These offences have been enshrined in legislation in response to a case in which the owner of a house hid a camera to secretly film his flatmate while she was in the shower. The existing laws did not cover the offence because the circumstances did not fall within the definition of indecent assault.
The first new offence in the bill outlaws the secret filming of a person by means of an electronic device, such as a camera or WebCam, for the purposes of sexual gratification, where that person does not consent and has a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is an important amendment when we consider the speed at which new technology is entering the market and the ability of persons who misuse technology to impinge on an individual's privacy without his or her knowledge. A second related offence of installing a device to facilitate filming for indecent purposes will also cover the situation in which a person installs a surveillance device with the intention of committing the offence I have just mentioned. In relation to prosecutions for this offence, there have been some suggestions that the offence will be difficult to prove because of the requirement to prove the mental element of sexual arousal or sexual gratification.
Mental elements are proved every day in courts. The determination will depend entirely on the evidence that is presented to the court in each particular case. The term "sexual arousal" or "sexual gratification" is a concept known to the criminal law of New South Wales and is used in other parts of the Crimes Act 1900, including the definition of "sexual servitude" in section 80B and the definition of "act of child prostitution" in section 91C. Examples of the type of evidence that might prove the requisite mental element is the publishing of images in a particular context, for example, in a pornographic magazine or on a pornographic Internet site. The courts might also look to the way in which and the places at which the cameras have been set up. For example, the camera may be set up to capture certain places, such as over a shower or a bed. Honourable members should also remember that generally the court will have before it actual images and recordings on which to base its determination.
The case of Police v Palmer triggered the drafting of this amending bill. It has been previously mentioned in this Chamber that in 2002 Mr Palmer was unsuccessfully prosecuted for the offence of an act of indecency under section 61N of the Crimes Act. He secretly filmed his female flatmates in the shower with a camera hidden in the bathroom of his home. Fortunately one of his female flatmates discovered that she had been videotaped in the shower and she took appropriate action by reporting it to the police. As a woman, I sympathise with her. Women expect that when they are enjoying the privacy of their own homes, no-one will be prying on them. They like to feel safe within the boundaries of their homes.
Mr Palmer admitted the facts alleged by the police prosecutor. The magistrate found that the law in New South Wales restricting such behaviour was insufficient. Initially, Mr Palmer was charged with being in a building without reasonable cause with the intention of peeping and prying upon another person—an offence enshrined in section 547C of the Crimes Act. He had entered a plea of guilty to that charge, but because his actions had taken place in his own home it could not be said that he had no reasonable excuse to be there. Consequently, he was permitted to withdraw his plea. The police then charged Mr Palmer with an offence under section 61N relating to an act of indecency.
The magistrate found that Mr Palmer's actions in videoing his flatmates did not constitute an act of indecency because his actions were not done "with or towards" his flatmates as he was not physically present with them at the time, and they did not become aware of the videotapes until much later, when the tapes were discovered. Furthermore, there seemed to be no evidence that Mr Palmer obtained any sexual gratification at the time of making the recording as opposed to when he watched them later. This amending bill will go a long way not only to facilitate establishment of the bases needed by the judiciary for these offences, but also to ensure that the law keeps pace with perverse forms of human behaviour and their manifestation through the use of hidden surveillance devices.
The Government has demonstrated a strong commitment to reforming the law relating to the use of surveillance in this State. For example, in 1998 the Government introduced the Workplace Video Surveillance Act, which sets strict parameters on the use of video surveillance equipment in workplaces, including a ban on the use of cameras in toilets, showers and bathrooms. As an industrial relations practitioner I welcome a bill that protects both workers and employers. Under the bill employers need to notify their employees if video surveillance is used and to notify clients or customers entering their primary place of business. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong) [12.30 p.m.]: I support the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill, which seeks to bring in line with other sexual offences the offence of forced self-manipulation. That provision will help to create uniform considerations for a court in determining aggravating factors and penalties. The Government seeks to send a clear message to the community that any interference with the rights of another person and the sanctity of their body will not be tolerated. To some that amendment may seem to correct a minor anomaly in law. However, to those who are parents or guardians of victims it is a very serious situation. As a mother and a grandmother, I find it abhorrent to imagine a young person under threat by a perpetrator having to commit an act of self-manipulation and it is ludicrous to imagine a young person being expected to resist such threats.
Section 80A of the Crimes Act currently sets out the offence of sexual assault by forced self-manipulation, and this amending bill reforms that section so that the categories of aggravation and related penalties that apply to other sexual offences apply also to the offence of forced self-manipulation: for example, under 16, under authority, disabled victim, et cetera. Currently, only one circumstance of aggravation of sexual assault by forced self-manipulation exists in section 80A of the Crimes Act—that is, if the victim is under 10 years of age. The basic offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years and the aggravated form of the offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years. The offence of sexual assault carries a maximum penalty of 14 years. The aggravated form of this offence, which includes when the offence is accompanied by actual bodily harm, committed in company or committed on a vulnerable victim, attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years.
It is unacceptable that a perpetrator escape maximum criminal liability by forcing another person to interfere with himself or herself for the perpetrator's own sexual gratification when the law already recognises criminal responsibility for an act in which the perpetrator either interferes with the victim directly or causes the victim to manipulate the genitalia of the perpetrator. This amendment quite rightly brings the sexual assault by forced manipulation provision into line with other sexual assault offences, ensuring maximum criminal liability. I commend the Carr Labor Government and the Attorney General for their ongoing commitment to tightening up the law, particularly in relation to child and youth protection.
Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [12.33 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who have contributed to this debate and for their support for the bill. The honourable member for Epping spoke of the preparation that has been made for a guideline judgment with respect to driving under the influence of alcohol. He suggested that there had been some delay in submissions to the court for that proposal. It has to be acknowledged that once we had begun to make submissions for this admittedly very important guideline judgment, we realised that we needed even more research than has been accumulated in order to make an appropriate analysis of the circumstances that surround the whole problem of drink-driving. That was why I commissioned the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research to conduct the report referred to by the honourable member for Epping.
By the way, the honourable member for Epping acknowledged that report to be of an exceptionally high standard. Although it has taken the Government longer than it wished to achieve a guideline judgment, formal submissions will be made in a few weeks time and they will be made on the basis of some really first-rate, world-class research that will, in turn, allow the court to make the kind of guideline judgment that will give a serious new basis for the administration of that important law. Recommendations contained in the report of the Law Reform Commission on surveillance, released at the end of 2001, relate to very broad issues of privacy. The recommendations raise very important issues and in a number of respects are difficult and tendentious. It is appropriate, indeed inevitable, that my department, in collaboration with the NSW Police, the Department of Industrial Relations and other key stakeholders should take some time to sort out the implications of the report on the possible implementation of its recommendations.
Today we are dealing with the offence involving unwanted videotaping of people in their private homes. That is a precise and particular innovation of privacy, serious enough to be criminalised. Once it was drawn to the attention of the Government that that loophole existed in the law, it was appropriate that the Government should move quickly to close it. But that is not the same thing as giving appropriate levels of consideration to the massive and difficult report of the Law Reform Commission into surveillance generally. I thank honourable members for their support for the bill, and I commend it to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:33:19 : Update this page