Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (1.14 p.m.)—I am pleased to inform the House that the Australian Labor Party supports the intention and purpose of the Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Bill 2005. The bill was originally derived from the earlier Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2004, which was subsequently split into two. That part of the bill relating to suicide was separated into a bill of its own, the Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Bill 2004. Obviously, anyone interested in the topic can refer to the earlier debate under the title of that bill for the contribution of members of both sides of the House.

The remainder of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2004, called the No. 2 bill, has already been passed by parliament with the support of both sides of the House and has received royal assent. Those measures which remain in the No. 2 bill which are now in the act include the regulation of the internet for the protection of children, and measures directed against racial vilification. Again, these are measures supported by both sides of the House.

The anti-suicide measures which are contained in the current bill also passed the House of Representatives with Labor support. In the Senate, the bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee with respect to some narrow issues. The committee had called for submissions and had commenced hearings into the bill by the time the 2004 federal election was called and, as a result of the parliament being prorogued for the election, the bill lapsed. Of course a fresh bill is now necessary for the purpose of consideration by the House.

The new bill is essentially the same as the 2004 bill with the exception of new and additional safeguards. The new bill specifically states that a person is not guilty of an offence against the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of the bill if they are merely using the internet or other electronic communications as a carriage service for the purpose of engaging in public discussion or debate about the topic of euthanasia as opposed to actually promoting suicide or the mechanisms through which to achieve suicide. They are fundamentally different issues. Further, the new subsections (3) and (4) explicitly state, for example, that a person is not guilty of the offence under subsections (1) and (2) if the person did not intend the material concerned to be used by another person to promote a method of committing suicide or provide instruction on a method of committing suicide.

The new protections available under subsections (3) and (4) are a welcome addition to the bill. They protect the freedom of political communication and probably assist in protecting the legislation itself from a potential challenge. We welcome the inclusion of those safeguards, which were foreshadowed during the course of the debate on the 2004 bill. A well-known constitutional lawyer, Professor George Williams, currently at the University of New South Wales, made a suggestion along the lines of that which now appears in the bill in his submission on the 2004 bill. It is pleasing to see the contributions of such experts being recognised in the House in terms of developing the legislation which will ultimately be passed.

Labor indicated that it would pick up amendments along those lines in the 2004 version of the bill. We were concerned to ensure that the offence did not apply to the extent that it would infringe that implied constitutional freedom of political communication. Again, no-one who is interested in promoting the cause of euthanasia—and there are advocates for that cause on both sides of the House; equally there are those who oppose voluntary euthanasia on both sides of the House—should be concerned. It is a legitimate debate to have. Those who seek to agitate or contribute to that debate should in no way feel that this bill sensibly restricts their ability to engage in that debate. The bill is aimed fairly and squarely at preventing electronic communications being used to promote or advance suicide.

Those who are interested in advancing the cause of euthanasia do their case and their argument no service at all, quite frankly, by suggesting that it is appropriate in any way, shape or form to permit electronic communication to be used to promote suicide. It ignores reality not to recognise that the internet, despite the best measures of parents, will be accessed by young people. It ignores reality not to recognise that young males, in particular—although there are obviously are a number of suicide tragedies among more mature Australians and also of course young women—might access it. It ignores reality that, without adult supervision, a young person may, if this legislation were not introduced, have access to material on the internet which could assist them—or, indeed, in a worst-case scenario, encourage them—to commit suicide in circumstances where quite clearly even those who would advocate the cause of euthanasia would say that sensibly any decisions of that magnitude, assuming you supported the argument, should only be taken with the provision of the most extensive and expert counselling available.

For those who advocate the cause of euthanasia to even suggest that it is appropriate for material advocating suicide or methods of committing suicide to be on the internet just ignores the reality of those who potentially would access it and ignores the fact that obviously even someone who was terminally ill would have access to that material without the benefit of counselling that obviously clearly does and should exist in those jurisdictions which permit euthanasia to occur. They are fundamentally two separate arguments and two separate issues. One is the ability for those who advocate the cause of euthanasia to advance their argument for the amendment of legislation. That is a legitimate debate to have—as I have said, both sides of the House have members that do and do not support euthanasia.

But this is fundamentally different: this is about excluding from electronic communication material that promotes suicide or advises in the method for taking one’s life. Those are measures we support. Again, in recognising that the bill appropriately strikes a balance in the additional safeguards that have been introduced, we recognise that the government has picked up the principles relating to protection of the right to political communication enunciated by the High Court in cases such as David Russell Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Those who have been critical or even alarmed by this bill should recognise that it adopts that freedom of communication and that additional protections to achieve those ends have been incorporated in the bill.

The rest of the bill is unchanged from that of 2004. The bill still contains offences that carry maximum penalties of a fine of $110,000 for an individual and $550,000 for a corporation. They are significant and important measures, but again we are talking about something which has significant and serious repercussions. There would be very few members in the House who would not know personally or have experienced the loss of someone through suicide. We believe that those penalties for the offences of promoting and instructing in suicide—which are the offences this bill, as I have emphasised, is targeted at—are appropriate and we support those measures.

Unfortunately, there are too many suicides. In 2003, the last year for which we have been able to find statistics, there were over 2,300 suicides in Australia. These statistics make very sad reading, and they have been covered in this place in previous debates. We all know that young males, for example—and young females—are extremely prone to making suicide attempts, and they are very much the target audience of the internet and electronic communications this bill is concerned with. Every community, from those in our cities through to those in rural and regional Australia—and we have just had a discussion about particular problems that exist in rural and regional Australia at the bar table—suffers quite profoundly, unfortunately, from the needless loss of life through suicide.

While I have referred to the young, it is not simply a problem of the young; it is a problem that occurs across all age groups. Because it is such a tragedy, Labor will always be prepared to examine and respond to reasonable measures that the government or anyone else is prepared to introduce but, as with any legislation, the provisions must be carefully examined to ensure that they do not extend beyond an appropriate boundary or indeed, in so extending themselves, expose their provisions to challenge.

For these reasons, Labor voted for the bill to be examined by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, as I have mentioned. That examination has taken place, with over 32 written submissions, together with a public hearing on the bill taking place in Canberra. Representations were made by organisations broadly defined as pro-life and by others broadly defined as pro-euthanasia. Some of the evidence that was tendered to the committee argued that the bill was unnecessary. For example, Electronic Frontiers Australia and Philip Nitschke argued that the bill was unnecessary because internet usage has increased and suicide has fallen. Quite frankly, we doubt whether the two are linked in any way whatsoever. By the logic of that argument, for instance, if everyone had access to the internet then suicide would stop. That is obviously false logic.

In summary, we know that this bill will not, as various submissions have pointed out, stop the phenomenon of suicide—no legislation can do that. However, as members of the Australian parliament we strongly believe in our duty as parliamentarians to defend those who cannot, for whatever reason, defend themselves or who in a particularly vulnerable moment are exposed to material that is inappropriate and, worse than inappropriate, is criminally offensive in terms of encouraging suicide and instructing how to undertake it. Clearly those advocating the cause of euthanasia are still entitled to continue in their advocacy. We believe this bill will not impede that ability in any way, shape or form. The bill will ensure that young people, those suffering from depression and other mental illnesses and those with disabilities have access to the best possible protection that we can provide in terms of reference to counselling facilities.

It is important to reiterate again that those who want to access or distribute information for research or advocacy are not caught in the criminal provisions of this bill. The freedom of political communication that Australians now enjoy will remain unchanged. The legislation—appropriately, we believe—makes it an offence to encourage suicide and to advocate measures to undertake suicide, but it in no way, shape or form impedes reasonable debate on the part of those who would seek to advocate law reform in the area of euthanasia.