ANEESH CHAKRAVATHULA 6146 ATTORNEY GENERAL 6167 BANKSTOWN SPORTS CLUB 6142 BELINDA ROWELL 6143 BETTING TAX LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2015 6178 BLUE MOUNTAINS UNIONS COUNCIL POLITICS IN THE PUB FORUM 6147 BULLI HIGH SCHOOL 6203 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 6111, 6148, 6162, 6164 CANCER CARE WESTERN NSW 6142 COMMUNITY RECOGNITION STATEMENTS 6142 CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO BE ACCORDED PRIORITY 6178 COURTS AND OTHER JUSTICE PORTFOLIO LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2015 6111 CRIMES AMENDMENT (OFF-ROAD FATAL ACCIDENTS) BILL 2015 6113 DATA SHARING (GOVERNMENT SECTOR) BILL 2015 6132, 6185 EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE 6152 FIRST HOME OWNER GRANT 6198 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2015 6122 GAMING MACHINES AMENDMENT (CENTRALISED MONITORING SYSTEM) BILL 2015 6198 HABERFIELD CARNIVAL OF GARDENS 6144 HOT CANARY GOURMET MEATS 6146 INGLEBURN MOTOR REGISTRY 6143 INVERELL POLICE STATION AND LOCAL COURTHOUSE 6204 JACARANDA FESTIVAL 6142 KEVIN "DASHER" WHEATLEY, VC 6143 LAKE MACQUARIE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA RESIDENTS 6146 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMALGAMATIONS 6155 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 6180 MARRICKVILLE LEGAL CENTRE 6145 MIRANDA ELECTORATE RURAL FIRE SERVICE 6199 NEWCASTLE ACCIDENT HEROES 6146 NEWTOWN NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE 6145 ORANGE ELECTORATE PROJECTS 6200 PAYROLL TAX DEFERRAL (BLUESCOPE STEEL) BILL 2015 6198 PETITIONS 6162 PRISON OVERCROWDING 6148, 6151 PRISONER ALCOHOL AND DRUG TESTING 6153 PRIVACY AND PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AMENDMENT (EXEMPTIONS CONSOLIDATION) BILL 2015 6121 PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS 6198 PROSPECT ELECTORATE CRICKET CLUBS 6142 QUESTION TIME 6148 RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY SITES 6159 REMEMBRANCE DAY 6201 SISTER MARY TRAINOR 6146 STATE ECONOMY 6149 STATE HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE 6158 STATE INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES 6160 STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (NO. 2) 2015 6115, 6191 SUTHERLAND SHIRE LOCAL BUSINESS AWARDS 6144 SYDNEY ELECTORATE COMMUNITY SURVEY 6147 THE PONDS HIGH SCHOOL 6156 TRIBUTE TO HOWARD LEE 6145 TRIBUTE TO MARK NIELSEN 6143 VISITORS 6147 WARRAGAMBA PRESCHOOL 6144 WILTON JUNCTION 6202 WOLLONDILLY ILLUMINARTE FESTIVAL 6147 YOUTH FRONTIERS SHOWCASE 61 45 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Wednesday 18 November 2015 __________ The Speaker (The Hon. Shelley Elizabeth Hancock) took the chair at 10.00 a.m. The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices of Motions General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given. COURTS AND OTHER JUSTICE PORTFOLIO LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2015 Consideration in Detail Consideration of the Legislative Council amendments. Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 12 November 2015 No. 1 OPP No. 1 [c2015-162B] Page 6, Schedule 1.8. Insert after line 28: [2] Section 14A Insert after section 14: 14A Proceedings for offences commenced by officers of ICAC or PIC (1) An officer of ICAC does not have the power to commence proceedings for an offence unless the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised the Independent Commission Against Corruption in writing that the proceedings may be commenced by an officer of ICAC. (2) For that purpose, the Director of Public Prosecutions may liaise with the Independent Commission Against Corruption, but is to act independently in deciding to advise that proceedings for the offence may be commenced. (3) The Commissioner, an Assistant Commissioner and an officer of the Police Integrity Commission do not have the power to commence proceedings for an offence. (4) In this section: officer of ICAC means a person acting in the capacity of the Commissioner, an Assistant Commissioner or officer of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. No. 2 OPP No. 2 [c2015-162B] Pages 6 and 7, Schedule 1.8, line 29 on page 6 to line 12 on page 7. Omit all words on those lines. Ms GABRIELLE UPTON (Vaucluse—Attorney General) [10.14 a.m.]: I move: That the House agree to the Legislative Council amendments. The bill has been returned from the other place with an amendment moved by the Opposition and accepted by the Government. As I made clear in my second reading speech, prosecutions relating to the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] and the Police Integrity Commission [PIC] are commenced only on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP]. After the prosecution is underway the DPP will take over the matter. The Opposition amendment legislated for the existing memorandum of understanding between ICAC and the DPP and, as such, the Government did not have any issue with adopting its proposed amendment. A great deal of ill-informed debate has taken place on this issue, which was based on a clear misunderstanding of the law and current practice. The bill does not—and never did—alter or change the current law and practice between ICAC and the DPP. The bill, alternatively, merely seeks to clarify the law as represented by Mr Bruce McClintock, SC, in his 2005 review of the ICAC, where he noted at paragraph 3.2.20: These amendments will recognise the current practice adopted by ICAC and the DPP. The Hon. Murray Gleeson, AC, QC, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the High Court of Australia, in his 2015 review of ICAC also stated that the legislative amendments requested by the DPP had force. The suggestion that the Government is trying surreptitiously to drop a contentious amendment into an innocuous bill is plain nonsense and mischief. I invite members to reread my second reading speech, which clearly sets out the reasons for the amendment and references the two independent reports in which the proposal is discussed at length. Corruption prosecutions are too important to our community in New South Wales to be plagued by challenges based on arguments on how the common law should be interpreted. These prosecutions are also too important to be the subject of political point-scoring and deliberate misinformation campaigns. I commend the bill to the House as amended by the Legislative Council. Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [10.17 a.m.]: The Opposition supports the Legislative Council amendments to the Courts and Other Justice Portfolio Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. The amendments to schedule 1.8 of the bill were moved last Thursday by the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council, the Hon. Adam Searle. The wording of the amendments had been settled earlier that day in room 806 of this building at a meeting attended by me, the Hon. Adam Searle, Parliamentary Counsel Mr Colagiuri, a representative of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, and representatives of the office of the Premier and the office of the Leader of the Opposition. In broad terms, these amendments do two things. First, they drastically restrict the provision originally proposed in schedule 1.8 by limiting it only to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. As originally presented, the bill referred to "public officer" more generally, which was dramatically broader. Regulation 101 of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2010 means that "public officer" includes employees of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals New South Wales, the Animal Welfare League NSW, and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Practice Agency, among others. There was not the slightest effort by the Government to justify the proposed changes for those other organisations. The only justification provided was for the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The case has not been made out for those broader changes and they were not referred to in the Attorney's second reading speech. Apart from no case having been made out, in our view this also represented a significant change to the law. Starting criminal prosecutions with a court attendance notice can occur if the public officer is granted the power under a relevant statute. Not every officer of each of those bodies is so authorised. Proposed schedule 1.8 would seem to have extended the power to every employee. That is undesirable, and certainly the case for it has not been made. If that is indeed proposed, not only should it be explicitly argued for but also it should be the subject of separate legislation. The second thing that the amendments do, in broad terms, is to make clear that the ICAC can commence criminal prosecutions, with the DPP as the gatekeeper—that is, ICAC officers can commence proceedings for a criminal offence if the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised in writing that the proceedings may be commenced. There are two things to say about that. The first is that we are told that that is what actually happens now. So these amendments will not dramatically alter current practice. There is apparently a memorandum of understanding regulating that practice. Given the ICAC's role as an investigative body and the importance of there being a separation between the investigation and prosecutions in serious criminal prosecutions, it seems more desirable to have this in the statute rather than regulated by an agreement that may be subject to change without public notification. The second point is that the amendments follow in the spirit of the discussion in the Gleeson and McClintock review. The amendments are far closer to Gleeson and McClintock than the original schedule 1.8. It was at one stage inaccurately claimed by the Government that its original proposal was recommended by Gleeson and McClintock. That claim was entirely wrong; it was untrue. There was in fact no formal recommendation on this topic in Gleeson and McClintock. There was a discussion and a suggestion. It appeared on the last page of the substantive part of the report, page 79, under the heading "Miscellaneous". It related only to the ICAC and had no connection with the many other bodies affected by the original proposed schedule 1.8. It was explicitly said that the ICAC could be allowed to commence criminal proceedings after considering the advice of the DPP, which was not what schedule 1.8, as originally presented in this bill by the Government, actually said. The proposal to which Gleeson and McClintock referred additionally was an amendment to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, not the proposal pursued by the Attorney General in this bill.