ACT recognises that the threat of terrorism is more complex than it was in 2002, when the Terrorism Suppression Bill was first introduced, and much of this bill provides some sensible updates to this legislation; hence, we are supporting it. However, we do have several reservations, as mentioned before. Our primary reservations relate to the seriousness of some of the provisions that are contained in the bill and ensuring that the powers we are enacting are used well. For example, as mentioned before, there are suggested suppression orders which allow for wide-ranging restrictions on the liberty of certain persons. There are also provisions allowing warrantless searches for preparatory offences. We would, by default, also allow for wider and less accountable searches. And, by making changes to surveillance laws, we would be allowing surveillance for lesser offences than what is already the status quo. If we change the definition of "terrorist act", we could potentially lower the standard that must be passed that authorises those search and surveillance powers. There are good justifications made by officials in relation to these powers, but they are of concern simply by the nature of what they do. All lawmakers should take an interest in law that seeks to widen the power of the State and ensure that it is being used well.