Scott AlastairCRIMES (INCREASED PENALTY FOR PROVIDING EXPLOSIVE TO COMMIT CRIME) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I move That the Crimes (Increased Penalty for Providing Explosive to Commit Crime) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.First of all I'd like to thank the Justice Committee who reviewed this bill. It was an interesting process. There was good debate. I think both sides of the argument could reflect and understand the others and I appreciate that understanding across the select committee. But unfortunately neither side could have a majority. It was a four on four situation and that is why we are here today debating it and having a second reading. So there was no outright opposition; nor was there a majority of support.I'd like to reflect on the select committee report to start with and discuss—so I'm going to preface this by talking about section 272 of the Crimes Act—I'm just going to refer to that as 272"; section 55 of the Arms Act as "section 55"; section 202 of the Crimes Act and I'm going to say "202" only; and section 51 of the Arms Act I'm just going to say "section 51".There are a number of reasons that half of the committee recommended this bill not proceed and I'd like to address a number of those points. The difference between a lot of these sections is quite subtle. For example section 272 which is the section that this bill amends does not necessarily require possession whereas section 55 and section 202 do require possession of explosives to kick in. Section 55 along with 272 also needs intent but in section 202 there is not necessarily intent needed for the crime to take place. Instead of intent the explosive must be found in a public place. So the public place factor outweighs if you like or complements or overrides the intent that other sections must have. So 272 requires intent but not possession and I'm going to give an example of where this section 272 as amended might have applied.In Australia just this week we had an example of explosives potentially being used to hurt people in Brisbane. So there's been a guy charged with four counts: manufacturing an explosive without authority or without a lawful purpose or with intent to commit a crime. I'd like to reflect on the change in technology that enables people to commit crime without the possession of the explosive without the possession even in their own home. We can operate so many more things remotely through technology through the internet so I'd like the House to consider the situation where 272 as amended applies.So as I say no possession is required. The operator is remote. He or she is sitting in his office and is enabling an explosive that is held in another place. Now there must be intent for that crime to occur under 272 so there must be evidence to prove intent. All I'm saying here is that where that situation occurs where one can prove that there is intent to commit a crime using explosives but remotely at the moment the maximum penalty is two years. It is only two years. Now that brings me on to a Law Commission report which was mentioned in the select committee published in 2013. I'll quote from that report. It's study paper 21 Maximum Penalties for Criminal Offences. So a review of a number of offences took place but was not completed but in any case the Law Commission chose to publish this report. It says "The offence under s 272"—which is what we're talking about here today—"of the Crimes Act of possessing or making an explosive device with intent to commit a crime carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment notwithstanding the fact that in the worst class of case the person committing the offence will possess an explosive again with the intent of committing mass murder or an offence causing catastrophic economic consequences although not having reached the stage of an attempt." So the button wasn't pulled the trigger wasn't pulled. All right?So this is all about the police or the investigators discovering through technology probably that this is probably or about to occur. We can talk about—we know that there are terrorist activities going on regularly and as close as in Brisbane and Sydney and in the Canadian Parliament. We don't want them to occur. We don't want to have to wait for them to occur before we arrest the guy or girl. We want to know and understand and get the intent and prosecute. So to go back to the report: "We placed this offence in Category G alongside offences that predominantly have current maximum penalties of seven to 10 years' imprisonment."—so seven to 10 years. "We note in passing that this puts it alongside the almost identical offence in s 55 of the Arms Act of possessing a firearm or explosive device with intent to commit an offence punishable by imprisonment for three years or more."—so a minimum of three and a maximum of five for that section 55.I'll try and explain—well I will explain—the difference between sections 55 and 272. Basically the difference is the possession. So section 55 "[The offender] commits an offence and is liable on conviction … [da da da for] 5 years who has with him any firearm". So there's a possession that must take place for section 55 to kick in and there also must be intent to commit an offence—so only an intent and this was part of the argument for rejecting my bill. The argument was that it was only intent.Well I say intent is as important and sits alongside the fact that one pulls the trigger. That's the only difference. Someone pulls the trigger or not. Someone gets an opportunity to pull the trigger or not. So section 55 also only required intent and as I say carries a prison term of three years or more up to five years. So the only difference is possession. I say possession is really not relevant. It doesn't matter if one is in physical possession of the explosive to come under section 55. I say possession is really a minor factor because we know that one can control the device without being in possession. The device can be sitting in a car halfway across the planet but can be controlled by a person that is not in a public place and is nowhere near the bomb near the explosive and creates as much of a problem as if that person was in possession. So that's the difference between sections 55 and 272 and I say that the punishment should be the same."