Surveillance Devices Legislation

Mr MICHAEL DALEY ( Maroubra—Attorney General) (12:23:56): I move:

That this House:

(1)Calls on the Liberal-Nationals Coalition to support the immediate passage of the Surveillance Devices Amendment (Public Interest Exceptions) Bill 2026 in the Legislative Council, which is crucial to the investigation of corruption in New South Wales.

(2)Calls on the Liberal-Nationals Coalition to stop holding up the investigation of corruption in New South Wales by adding amendments to unrelated laws that are impeding the passage of this bill.

(3)Notes that the amendments circulated in the Legislative Council by the Liberal-Nationals Coalition on 23 March 2026 would, if adopted, render the bill unworkable and of no assistance to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.​

I apologise to the House for interrupting business to move this motion.

The SPEAKER: Members will come to order. The Attorney General will be heard in silence.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: I earnestly tell members that, when I walked into question time today, I had no intention whatsoever of talking about this now. This motion was prompted when I put certain propositions to the House about what had happened to the surveillance devices bill in the other place over the past few years, and the Leader of the Opposition said I was misleading the House. That indicated to me that the Opposition still wants to fight about the bill, still wants to be disagreeable about the bill and still wants to obfuscate its passage through the other place. I am bewildered as to that course of conduct. The fact is that for many months the Government has been trying to pass legislation to give the Independent Commission Against Corruption and other investigative bodies the tools they say they need to investigate serious corruption in our State.

I keep my comments brief because this has been going on for years, and I know there is important business before the House—particularly private members' bills. Since 2023, the Government has been fighting to give ICAC what it needs to do its job, but the Liberal Party and The Nationals have stood in the way of those law changes at every turn. I remind members of the origin of this bill. In the course of an investigation, the ICAC commissioner came into possession of material that was, prima facie, illegally recorded material under the Surveillance Devices Act, and it is the archaic nature of that Act that we are trying to bring into the twenty-first century. The provisions of the Act prevented ICAC from even looking at what was in the material. The mere possession of it was a crime. Handing it to the police was a crime.

So the commissioner asked for a change in the law to simply enable ICAC to look at what was in the material and work out what to do with it in the interests of the public and in accordance with its charter. The ICAC said to the Government, "We have some material that an archaic law prevents us from looking at, even though it might disclose badness. Can you please help us out?" That is what we have been trying to do. It is as simple as that. We are trying to help the State's premier corruption-fighting body do its job. That is all. The Government introduced a regulation to give the commissioner time-limited powers to do that, and on 12 September 2023 the Hon. John Ruddick moved to disallow the Surveillance Devices Amendment (ICAC) Regulation 2023. The Liberal Party and The Nationals voted in support of striking down the regulation. That was their first foray into the subject.

I blame the Hon. Damien Tudehope, not necessarily the Leader of the Opposition, for all of this. I would like the Leader of the Opposition to be firmer with him, but he is obviously out of control and does whatever he wants in the other place. His party leader is quoted in the Herald as saying that she wants to help ICAC, and he is doing everything he can in the other place—in her name—to be unfaithful to that express, public wish. In speaking to the disallowance motion, the Hon. Damien Tudehope criticised the Government for proceeding with a regulation. He said:

The more prudent and respectful approach would have been for the Government to have sought to amend the bill.

Notwithstanding that—and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—the Chief Commissioner of the ICAC had already been in contact with the Coalition to explain what he wanted. In accordance with the express wishes of the Hon. Damien Tudehope, the Government engaged in full public consultation and introduced a bill. On 5 February 2026 the Liberals and The Nationals teamed up with The Greens and others to vote against the bill in the other place, and they defeated it at the third reading stage. That was their second parliamentary foray into responding to Chief Commissioner Hatzistergos's request for help. It was the second time they thumbed their nose at his request to help him fight corruption.

We then split the bill to separate the body-worn camera amendments from the public interest amendments relating to ICAC, and reintroduced it. We have been willing to compromise to ensure that the ICAC has the critical power that it needs. Last Thursday we put on record in the other place that we would accept the Opposition's amendments to limit the scope of the bill to law enforcement agencies. It was worried about the bill's wider application to bodies like the RSPCA, the Health Care Complaints Commission, the Children's Guardian and the like. For the love of God I do not know why, but the Opposition wanted the bill to be confined to the four investigative agencies. We agreed to that to get the bill passed.

On 24 February 2026 The Daily Telegraph reported that the Leader of the Opposition had, in fact, met with the Chief Commissioner of the ICAC. She was quoted in that article as saying that the Coalition was willing to negotiate to "develop an appropriate set of reforms that grant the ICAC and law enforcement agencies appropriate powers to tackle and eliminate corruption in New South Wales". We accepted the Opposition's amendment, but it has now thrown up another roadblock in the form of a warrant amendment, which the Chief Commissioner of the ICAC has made clear to me will not work.

The critical problem to which the bill relates is that a law enforcement body is not allowed to possess or publish the illegally recorded material. They are not even allowed to look at it to find out what is in it. The Opposition amendment—which, I should add, was withheld from us and not circulated until late in the debate—introduces a warrant model. It requires an agency first to apply for a possession warrant to allow them to possess and examine the record, and then to apply for an additional communication and publication warrant to communicate or publish the record. We are talking about information that might be on a USB stick, for example. The ICAC commissioner does not know what is on it. What he wants to do is have a look at it to determine what is on it. It is unknown material.

The Opposition's amendment requires ICAC to submit an application in the form of an affidavit to an eligible judge. The affidavit must include certain particulars, including the kind of record to be possessed or communicated, which is fine. It must include the grounds on which the warrant is sought, which would be the public interest in fighting corruption. It must also include any alternative means of obtaining the evidence that may have been sought. They do not know what the evidence is. How can they cite alternative means of obtaining the evidence? They do not know what is on the USB stick. They are not allowed to look at it. It is nonsensical in fact and at law. They must list the names of the people who may have been recorded in the recording. They do not know that. They cannot comply with that. The Opposition is putting a hurdle in their way that they cannot comply with, either legally or in reality.

Ms Kellie S loane: That is not true.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: "Not true," says the Leader of the Opposition. She can give us the benefit of her legal wisdom in a moment. This is a chicken and egg situation. How is an officer of a law enforcement agency expected to satisfy a judge that they should be granted a warrant to possess or examine an unlawfully made record without first possessing or examining the record to see what is actually in it? The Opposition's proposal requires officers of law enforcement agencies first to break the law, to possess and review the record, to see what it contains. Then they must prepare an application to satisfy a judge that they should be granted a warrant to possess and examine the very same record. In fact and at law, that is nonsensical.

If that amendment is passed, the bill will be unworkable. The ICAC will not be able to use it. The Hon. Damien Tudehope is a lawyer. He knows that. If, in the formulation of that bewildering amendment, he or anyone else with a law degree—such as the Hon. Susan Carter—had reasonably considered it and had any doubts, they could have come to the Government and asked us to submit it to the Crown Solicitor's Office, the Solicitor General, the Crown Advocate or the Department of Communities and Justice, and we would have given them advice. But they did not, because they want to scuttle this bill.

Ms Kellie Sloane: That is not true.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: I acknowledge the interjection by the Leader of the Opposition. If it is not true, by the end of this day she can walk 50 metres into the Legislative Council and use the authority of her position as leader—use the imprimatur that the vote of her party gave her when they elected her leader—to issue an edict to the Hon. Damien Tudehope to suspend standing orders in the Legislative Council and pass the bill without that amendment. That is within her power. She can do that today. If the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Damien Tudehope decide not to embark upon that course of action, it is open to all members in this House, everyone in New South Wales and all the media watching—The Daily Telegraph, the Herald and The Australian, which have always been at the forefront of fighting corruption—to wonder why.

It is open to the media to write about it and put public pressure on the Opposition—particularly on the circus master in the other place, the Hon. Damien Tudehope—to get this done today. If we need to stick around tonight, I will talk to the Leader of the House. We will do whatever it takes to assist the Opposition to get this bill through without delay. This Parliament is not sitting for a month, and the New South Wales public need to know today where we all stand on corruption. Our position is firm. It is now up to the Coalition.

The SPEAKER: I call the member for Willoughby to order for the first time. Members will come to order.

Mr James Griffin: Point of order: At the outset, and with respect to the processes of this House, the Opposition argues that this motion is out of order. It is a breach of comity in the sense of the Legislative Assembly seeking to tell the Legislative Council what to do and vice versa. Mr Speaker, I ask you to rule on that to begin with.

The SPEAKER: I shall seek advice, but my initial inclination is that that would not be the case.

Mr Michael Daley: To the point of order: We are not calling on the Legislative Council to do anything. The motion calls on the Coalition to support the immediate passage—

The SPEAKER: The Attorney General will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will wait for my considered adjudication. It is very clear to me that it is not an issue of comity between the Houses. The motion of the Attorney General is in order. The Manager of Opposition Business will speak to the motion.

Mr JAMES GRIFFIN ( Manly ) ( 12:39 :29 ): That being the case, there are a number of issues to address in the contribution by the Attorney General. It is worth addressing the process by which the motion has come before the House. This is nothing more than a stunt—the Attorney General just belled the cat and basically said that this is an opportunity to frame the Coalition for not supporting important legislation. It is important for him to recognise that it is on the Legislative Council agenda, and the Government has the opportunity to determine how that agenda unfolds. Government members should do their job and chat to their colleagues in the other place to determine when the bill will come on for debate.

This is an opportunity for the Government to avoid amendments to the Parliamentary Evidence Act, which we know has been seriously problematic for the Government. We sought to bring on that matter with great urgency earlier in the week. The Government appears to be allergic to scrutiny. The powers of Legislative Council committees are crucial to the role of the other place to supervise investigative bodies. That issue needs to be addressed as well. Regarding other matters raised by the Attorney General, as he explained in his remarks, we are very willing and have demonstrated that willingness to work with the Government on sensible amendments to that piece of legislation. Regarding any current investigations, we support a carve-out to allow those to continue.

Indeed, there is a clause in place that allows the ICAC to continue to do its work up until 30 December this year. The substance of the argument around us blocking the work of ICAC is completely incorrect and spurious. In addition, we are pleased that the Government has agreed to narrow the scope of the bill—as has been demonstrated by discussions in the Legislative Council. That demonstrates the value of the work being done. As the Attorney General said, this place moving a motion that calls on the Legislative Council to do—or not do—something would be nothing more than an opportunity to create a media headline suggesting that the Opposition does not support the work of law enforcement integrity agencies, which is entirely incorrect.

If the Government is having so much trouble managing its legislative agenda in the Legislative Council, it might want to take a look at what it is introducing. Clearly, it does not make sense because there is a lot of valid and real feedback from not only the Opposition but also the crossbench, including The Greens. They have fair and relevant concerns about what the Government is bringing to this House. It was a difficult question time for the Government today. Midway through, Government members decided to go and work out what they could bring up—"What can we do to create a new headline and send the media in the other direction?"

Mr Gurmesh Singh: The huddle!

Mr JAMES GRIFFIN: The huddle happened. It was a good attempt. But we are starting to see the cracks now. The Government has run this operation for three years now. Government members say, "You can't spring surprises on us. We've got to have a bit of time to contemplate what is being put in front of us." Yet at two minutes to midnight at the end of question time, this urgent motion appears—we need to urgently tell the Legislative Council what to do.

Mr Gurmesh Singh: In the huddle.

Mr JAMES GRIFFIN: After the huddle they decided we needed to urgently tell the Legislative Council what to do. This is bunkum. We have explained why it is a load of bunkum. For those reasons, we do not support the motion. Our amendments are about warrants. They are perfectly legitimate. The Legislative Council needs to do its important work. As much as we begrudge upper House members doing their work, they should be allowed to continue. The motion goes nowhere near improving a piece of legislation that we would be happy to support if it made sense.

Mr RON HOENIG ( Heffron—Minister for Local Government) (12:43:42): Integrity in the political process is fundamental. It is a matter of grave concern if a political party's motivation in relation to legislation that is before the House is anything but genuine and proper, if it is infected by anything other than public policy or political reasons. The Chief Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption came to the Government seeking legislation to enable the commission to further a current investigation arising from unlawfully obtained recorded material in its possession. The material may well further its investigation into serious and systemic corruption. The commission made that request of the Government. As I understand it, it also made that request of the Opposition.

Whilst the commission did not disclose the nature of that investigation, there are some public facts that we know. The member for Kellyville courageously stood in this place and made substantial allegations of corruption involving the conduct of Hills Shire Council and the Liberal Party with respect to Toplace and Liberal Party members who infected the selection of Liberal Party candidates on the Hills council. The allegations also mentioned a large number of people involved in the Liberal Party in relation to various funds that were transacted to remove Liberal Party councillors from the Hills council and replace them with other Liberal Party councillors who would be favourable to Toplace. Those funds were actually paid for by Toplace. Those are the allegations that were made.

Within two or three weeks—it may have been less—of me being sworn in as Minister for Local Government, a letter was received from the Chief Commissioner of the ICAC requesting that I did not call a public inquiry into the Hills Shire Council. That is because the commission's investigation into the Hills council—it may or may not have referred to the Liberal Party—had become overt with the issue of search warrants and other overt investigation materials. Shortly thereafter—and I do not know the exact chronology—the request for the Government to access recorded material was made. It is pretty reasonable to infer from the chronology that the material in the possession of the commission involves the activity of the Liberal Party, people associated with it and money taken by the Liberal Party.

Bearing in mind the chronology, if that is not their motivation, members of the Liberal Party should say so. Bearing in mind the commission's request, a range of arguments can be made about what should be carved out of the bill. In its negotiations, the Government has been removing them. But the chief commissioner has been pressing the commission's access in respect of that recorded material. It is open to the Government to question, in this House, what is motivating the Liberal Party. Is it the fact that the Liberal Party does not want the commission to see this material of an investigation that it must know is into the conduct of the Liberal Party?

Is there any other rational explanation as to its motive or the assertion that it has absolutely no idea that the conduct of the Liberal Party is being investigated by the commission? We know it must be from the member for Kellyville. We know it must be from the commission saying that it does not want me, as Minister, to call a public inquiry because its investigation is overt. What else would it be? What other rational inference can one draw? There is no point in the Liberal Party saying no or "That's too long a bow to draw." Look at the ridiculous assertions it made about the Minister for Lands and Property in question time with no evidence whatsoever. Liberal Party members were prepared to smear private corporations for their own political purposes, but they have been obstructing a piece of legislation. They could at least give the commission power to access those documents, not anybody else. They could have done that for a legitimate forensic purpose—unless they are motivated for their own self-protection.

How many of members opposite ran overseas or interstate so they did not have to give evidence to a parliamentary inquiry? How many members opposite ducked for cover when the allegations—firstly made by the member for Kellyville—were being investigated? They went interstate to avoid summonses. It is interesting. Those opposite somehow want to give the Presiding Officer the power to issue a warrant of arrest. We might give them what they want and ask the Speaker to start arresting members of the Liberal Party who previously refused to attend an inquiry. I warn members of the Liberal Party about their motive because, ultimately, there will be public hearings when they will be exposed. If they have a motive to obstruct the Independent Commission Against Corruption from investigating their own party, then they will stand indicted. They are not fit and proper to be members of this House.

Ms JENNY LEONG ( Newtown ) ( 12:55 :10 ): On behalf of The Greens, I contribute to debate on the motion. It is worth noting that acknowledging the 15-year anniversary of the Minister of Health being elected to this place also marks 15 years since a very corrupt Labor Government with a very disturbing level of arrogance was returned to opposition. That Labor Government acted with a level of arrogance. It failed to listen or serve the people of New South Wales during its time in office because it was more interested in propping up its own connections. In that process, serious levels of corruption were found.

Today is an interesting day in this Chamber, as we talk about the Legislative Council referring matters to ICAC. In this same parliamentary sitting week, members of the other place moved to expel the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council—a senior member of the New South Wales Labor Government—for her role in protecting the Premier. She is refusing to share documents and is flouting the standing orders and processes of the Legislative Council, which form part of our democratic process in this State. I appreciate and share the frustration of other members in this Chamber. What unites us is our frustration at how long they talk in the other place. I absolutely get that we are on a unity ticket in that respect.

However, we must remember that Joh Bjelke‑Petersen abolished the upper House in Queensland. We should not seek to emulate the Queensland style of democracy. As frustrating as it might be from time to time, we must recognise that we need to wait for messages to come back from the other House because the Legislative Council is part of our democracy in New South Wales. When the far right and the likes of Trumpian America start to undermine our democracy, the last thing we want to do is to further discredit the rules and processes of how we make laws for the people of this State just because the Government cannot get its way.

Members will recall that three years ago the Premier stood in this place and made it very clear that his approach to work would reflect the fact that his party came to office as a minority government. When working with Independent members on the crossbench, who provide the Premier with supply and confidence, Government members have shown that they are able and willing to work with other parties. The Government's lack of control in the other place has led to it arrogantly using private members' business day in this place to take up the time for debates. They are only interested in political pointscoring and pretend that somehow it is the Legislative Council that is the cause for the way things are functioning in this State.

On Tuesday non‑Government members collectively attempted to force the Government to suspend standing orders to bring on debate about the fuel crisis. I acknowledge that the Opposition did that work. Apparently, this Government thinks it is more important to have a debate on a motion that will have no real effect on the legislation that we pass than it is to have a debate about the fuel crisis. That is its priority. Why is this happening? It is because Premier Minns is so keen to protect his power and control over this State that he does not want to produce documents that show his connection to a very scandalous issue in those dark days 15 years ago, when Labor was kicked out of government and shoved over here to sit on the Opposition benches.

The Greens have attempted to work with the Government to pass the surveillance bill for weeks. We were willing to do that. In fact, we had amendments prepared. The Government does not seem to realise that it does not need the Opposition to pass legislation in the other place. The Government can work collaboratively with The Greens. We are pleased to see that they may have realised that over the past few days, and they have come back to us. The pretence that we are blocking the ICAC from doing its work completely flies in the face of fact. The reality is that the ICAC is not currently inhibited in any way from investigating corruption, because the regulation has been changed to make an exception. That regulation has been extended once and can be extended again, and there is nothing prohibiting or inhibiting the ICAC from conducting its inquiries and investigations.

Meanwhile, the ability of the other place to hold the government of the day to account is being inhibited. They have been inhibited from being able to see the documents that they, as democratically elected members of our community, have called to be disclosed. The person who is inhibiting democracy is the Premier, because it is not in his interest for those documents to be disclosed. They may be uncomfortable for him. They may show the connections between the current Premier and what occurred in the dark days of the New South Wales Labor Party. It may be that members of this Government do not want to be reminded of the fifteenth anniversary of the corrupt Labor Government of the past or that connections to it remain.

I urge the Premier to ensure that the documents are disclosed, because it is unacceptable that a female senior member of the Government in the other place has to take the fall because he is unwilling to disclose his connections to those documents. It is an unacceptable reality that we need to call out. The Greens do not support the motion. We urge Government members to think seriously about how quickly they have moved to a level of such arrogance and disrespect for the democratic processes in this State. We have not even reached the end of this Government's first term. It took multiple terms for the likes of Eddie Obeid and others in the dark days of NSW Labor to get to that level of dodginess, corruption and arrogance.