Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I'd like to start by acknowledging the National member who is sponsoring this member's bill Mr Alastair Scott. I'd also like to acknowledge the intent behind the bill. The bill was very well-intentioned.Labour supported the bill and voted for the bill's first reading to be referred to the select committee. I believe it was the Law and Order Committee and Mr Bakshi was the chairman of that select committee. I'd like to acknowledge Mr Bakshi as well.We heard submissions and had discussions at length. What I can confirm at this stage is we were convinced by the officials and we were convinced by the Law Commission reports but we were not convinced by Mr Scott and his National colleagues. So Labour will not be supporting this bill and this bill should not proceed. The simple reason is that probably Mr Scott has got his intention right but got the vehicle wrong because section 272 is not the right vehicle. Section 272 is the preparatory offence and I'll come to that point later on.For those who are interested in knowing the detailed analysis before such a kind of conclusion could be drawn I would suggest that they have a good look at the brief report from the Justice Committee presented to the House in March 2018 the initial briefing dated 28 April 2017 and the departmental report presented to the Justice Committee in February 2018. Probably I should run a caveat because the following provisions that I'm more inclined to refer to are from the departmental report to show the seriousness and the gravity of the reasoning.First of all let's look at the purpose of this bill. The purpose of this bill is to increase the penalty under section 272 of the Crimes Act from a maximum of two years' imprisonment to a maximum of five years' imprisonment. The stated aim is to increase the penalty for those who provide explosives to another with the intent that an offence be committed. I've got no problem with that and I support the call that we should increase the penalty and should impose a harsher penalty in that regard.Section 272 is a preparatory offence. It is merely about possessing or making an explosive with the necessary intent. It does not require another offence to ever be carried out with the explosive. Indeed the intent that another offence be committed may never come to fruition hence the relatively low penalty. So that's the entire logic behind the relatively low penalty in terms of section 272. So the rationale behind the low penalty in section 272 is that it is a preparatory offence.Section 272 if we have a good look at the Crimes Act is drafted to deal with the situation where a person's conduct has not necessarily reached the threshold necessary to create criminal liability for an attempt to commit an offence. An attempt requires an act of more than mere preparation and one which is immediately or approximately connected with the intended offence.I heard what Mr Scott tried to do which was to add more layers of his analysis to appreciate the reasons behind his member's bill and he specifically mentioned clause 202A of the Crimes Act and section 51 of the Arms Act. At the select committee hearing sessions we did have some close looks at those sections and again I would like to read out one paragraph which is very important for us to note to appreciate the reasoning from the departmental report.Regarding section 202A of the Crimes Act The first limb of the offence in section 202A … requires both that the relevant offensive weapon (which includes explosives) be in a public place and that the person has no lawful authority or reasonable excuse for having it. Both those critical elements are missing from section 272. That means that a person could be liable for making or possessing an explosive under section 272 (with the necessary intent) in a secure private place where there is no risk to the public and where the person has a reasonable excuse or lawful authority for making or possessing the explosive (for example the person manufactures or possesses explosives for a lawful purpose such as quarrying or mining operation)."With regard to section 51 of the Arms Act "Section 51 requires that both the explosive be in a public place (thereby increasing the potential for harm) and that no lawful purpose exists for having it. Therefore the arguments for a higher penalty than in section 272 are the same in this context."So back to section 272 if I may oversimplify the scenarios—I could give two scenarios. One is from probably the National members' point of view which is that anyone who is not supporting this particular member's bill could be seen as being soft on crime. The second scenario again if I may oversimplify is that if Mr Scott's reasoning and conclusion apply then for instance a developer who has to use explosives for the purpose of development in a similar fashion as mining quarrying road works or construction may be liable for and be subject to a term of imprisonment of five years. So this is the irony behind section 272 should Mr Scott's reasoning and conclusion apply.Again the Hon Maggie Barry mentioned the Law Commission's report which was mentioned again in Mr Scott's speech earlier. I'd like to draw to the attention of the House that in its 2013 study paper Maximum Penalties for Criminal Offences the Law Commission concluded that there is no justification for the difference in penalty in section 272 of the Crimes Act and in section 55 of the Arms Act which has a current maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. But that should be taking into consideration the nature of section 272 which is again a preparatory offence.To conclude Mr Scott's got his intention right. His reasoning sounds good and his bill does sound good and I supported the call for imposing such kind of harsher imprisonment and penalties for whatever the crimes would be in that regard. But should the bill proceed that would create a kind of confusion and anomaly because the entire rationale contradicts some basic principles of criminal law in this country and in other comparable overseas jurisdictions."