Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (5.52 p.m.) —The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and Other Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2004 is an omnibus bill which updates a number of offences originally enacted in 1989 relating to the misuse of telecommunications services and moves them from the Crimes Act to the Criminal Code. The bill also creates a number of offences on a range of topics, including offences of using a carriage service, including the Internet, to access, transmit or publish child pornography or child abuse material, or to procure or groom a person under 16 years of age for sexual activity. These complement existing offences in place at the state and territory level.
Secondly, the bill includes offences of using a carriage service, including the Internet, to make threats to kill or cause serious harm, to perpetrate a hoax relating to explosive or dangerous substances, or to engage in menacing, harassing or offensive behaviour. Thirdly, there are offences to prevent the rebirthing of stolen mobile phones and the copying of mobile phone SIM cards. Fourthly, there are offences of making hoax or vexatious calls to emergency service numbers. There are also offences of contaminating goods, threatening to contaminate goods or perpetrating a contamination hoax. Finally, the bill includes offences of dishonestly obtaining or dealing in personal financial information, targeted at credit card skimming and Internet banking fraud. These implement model legislation developed jointly by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments. The bill also makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to criminal law statutes, dealing with matters including alternative verdicts, knowledge of criminal law, proof of narcotics offences and international assistance in criminal matters. [start page 32266]
We note that the bill appears to have had a long period of gestation within the government, if the public statements of numerous ministers, past and present, are anything to go by. As long ago as 4 April 2003—almost a year and a half ago—the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Ellison, issued a media release titled `New offences to clamp down on Internet child pornography'. That release made mention of the offences covering child pornography and material that incites suicide. Then, on 20 August 2003, just a year ago, Senator Ellison and the then Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, issued a joint media release titled `Using Internet for offensive and menacing purposes to be outlawed'. This release mentioned offences dealing with offensive, menacing or harassing Internet content, re-announced the child pornography offences and also mentioned the offences dealing with rebirthing of stolen mobile phones.
On 14 March 2004, Senator Ellison and the then Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, the Hon. Daryl Williams, issued a joint media release titled `Tough laws to target Internet child sex crime', re-announcing the legislation and releasing an exposure draft. Then, on 19 March 2004, Senator Ellison again issued a media release, titled `Agreement reached on new national laws to outlaw credit card skimming', which announced the offences of fraudulent dealing with personal financial information. Finally, on 25 June this year, Senator Ellison and the Hon. Daryl Williams, then the communications minister, issued another media release titled `Internet child sex abuse offences bill tabled'. That coincided with the introduction of an earlier bill in the Senate which bears the same name as the current bill—that is, of course, without the words `No. 2'—and which we understand the government will no longer be proceeding with.
All of these announcements have culminated in the current bill, which was introduced into the House last Wednesday, 4 August. It is worth summarising this series of announcements for the public record so that the community has an accurate picture of how the bill has developed and in anticipation of the Attorney-General, who is so fond of accusing all and sundry but the government of procrastination when it comes to the implementation or development of legislation.
In conclusion, the opposition supports the second reading of this bill. The overwhelming majority of the bill is not controversial and makes improvements to the criminal law. In some areas of the law, members on both sides of the House would regard the conduct to be penalised and criminalised as entirely reprehensible and properly the subject of the strongest possible criminal sanction. We note that, following discussion between the government and the Democrats in the Senate, the government itself has referred the bill to a Senate committee, with a reporting date this week, to examine any controversial issues surrounding particular provisions of the bill. We look forward to the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, and we can further address those potentially controversial issues with the benefit of the committee report during the debate in the Senate. But certainly, from the opposition's point of view, despite the long lead time in the development of this legislation, we can indicate to the House that we will cooperate with its expeditious passage.