Mr NATHAN HAGARTY (Leppington) (16:12): I support the Surveillance Devices and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Surveillance Devices Act [SDA] 2007 to clarify the use of devices by agencies when investigating potential unlawful conduct and to create a public interest exception to permit investigators to receive content that may otherwise be in contravention of that Act. It also amends the regulation-making power in the Act and makes further miscellaneous amendments to improve the operation of the Act, including, importantly, creating a requirement for a statutory review after five years. The bill also amends the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act [LEPRA] 2002 to allow body‑worn video [BWV] to be used to record conversations with drivers and passengers of vehicles.

The bill grants what could be seen as pretty extraordinary powers to investigation bodies, effectively allowing them to use what could be deemed illegally obtained evidence. But, all in all, we need to weigh up issues such as the right to privacy and procedural fairness with the greater good. Some of the issues that those bodies—including the ICAC—investigate are extremely serious and go to the heart of our democracy. It is worth noting that, when we create new laws or amend existing laws to stamp out things like corruption, there are still people in our society and, in fact, our politics who will see that as just another hurdle that they need to figure out how to get around, find the loophole in and drive a wedge through. As such, we need to continually be on the front foot in relation to those issues. The bill is a relatively sensible although serious proposal. That is why I support it.

I am reminded of the recent speech given by Mike Burgess from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation at the Lowy Institute. I recommend all members either read or listen to that speech. He talked about threats to the country. The speech strikes a similar tone, I believe, to this bill. He talked about the three main types of threat Australia faces at the moment. In doing so, he noted that extremist organisations, whether religiously or ideologically motivated, are adaptive and patient. We need to also take the same view of people who seek to engage in corrupt or illegal activity at a State level, not just at a national or international level. He further states that certain groups want "to test and stretch the boundaries of legality without breaking them". That goes back to my original point that there are actors—people and organisations—that will find loopholes at every opportunity in order to conduct illegal and corrupt activities. The bill is a sensible reform that ensures that we are getting ahead of the game.

First, the bill clarifies that, in relation to the use of devices such as BWV cameras by agencies, a person does not commit offences relating to the unlawful use of listening and optical surveillance devices if they overtly use the device in the exercise of their functions as authorised by another Act. The reason for that amendment is to address what is essentially a lack of clarity in the existing legislative framework around the authorisation of the use of those kinds of devices. In some ways, they may help the person wearing them who works for a specific agency. In other ways, they might even help the person that they are filming. They are often used in evidence and can provide clarity when there is an incident.

Second, the bill amends the SDA to create public interest exceptions to provide that a person does not commit an offence of communicating records made through the unlawful use of a surveillance device if the person communicates or publishes a record to an investigative body in the public interest or in the exercise of the person's functions as an officer of an investigative body, or if the record was already published or communicated to the public. That specific section speaks to some of my previous comments about ensuring that we are one step ahead when it comes to stamping out crime and giving our agencies additional tools and means to ensure that they can investigate and stamp out illegal and, in particular, corrupt activity. I have a particular interest in ensuring that corrupt activity is stamped out, given certain things that I have been accused of or that have been thrown out there in my neck of the woods. I would be happy for the ICAC to be given additional powers, should it need them. That is one of the reasons that I support this important bill.

To deter other illegal conduct, the public interest exemption is limited to the provision of material to investigative bodies and will not cover provision to the media or the world at large. It is specific, limited in scope and ensures that only investigative bodies are covered under the changes. The bill also amends the regulation‑making power in the Act that allows persons to be exempt from provisions in the Act in order to include safeguards so that only overt use of devices may be exempted. It provides that restrictions may be imposed on the use and disclosure of information obtained under an exemption, and that these exemptions expire after three years. That reasonable time frame will ensure that those safeguards are in place.

The bill also provides for regulations made under section 59 (2) of the SDA to take effect on commencement, instead of after the period for disallowance under the Interpretation Act. Furthermore, the bill includes miscellaneous amendments to the Act that modernise references to disability aids in the definitions of listening and optical surveillance devices. Again, in this area of legislation members must ensure that changes to the way people operate and changes to technology are accounted for, and this amending bill does that. It also amends inconsistencies about which administrative proceedings under section 75 (1) of the Firearms Act are proceedings in which protected information can be used.

Lastly, the bill contains a miscellaneous amendment relating to transferring the function of approving the commencement of prosecutions under the Surveillance Devices Act from the Attorney General—who is seated to my left at the table—to the Director of Public Prosecutions. At the beginning of my contribution to debate, I mentioned the amendments to the LEPRA. Those amendments recognise that the microphone component of police in-car video systems has reached the end of its operational life. Under section 108B, police are required to record conversations with drivers and passengers of motor vehicles. The amendments will facilitate that by enabling body worn cameras to be used, ensuring that our legislation keeps up with modern practices used by investigative bodies. The good news is that these amendments came about after significant stakeholder consultation with various bodies including the Bar Association. As such, I commend the bill to the House.