Bills Digest No. 45 2003-04
Spam Bill
2003
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
Spam
Bill 2003
Date Introduced:
18 September 2003
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Communications, Information Technology
and the Arts
Commencement:
Royal Assent or, where
specified, 120 days after Royal Assent. (The 120 day deferred
commencement period applies to penalty provisions to enable
businesses time to align business practices with the legislative
requirements.)
The purpose of the Bill is to regulate
unsolicited and unwanted commercial electronic junk mail
(spam).
Background
On 23 July 2003, the Minister for
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator the
Hon Richard Alston announced that the Australian Government was to
ban commercial electronic junk mail (spam). The media release
stated:
The Australian Government is committed to taking a
strong stand against spam and has moved quickly to respond to the
report by the National Office for the Information Economy The
spam problem and how it can be countered released in April
this year. This report provided a blueprint to take action against
the problem to provide the maximum possible protection against
spam.(1)
The proposed anti-spam measures will see
national legislation, to be enforced by the Australian
Communications Authority (ACA), banning the sending of commercial
spam without the prior consent of the recipient. Commercial
electronic messages will be required to include accurate
identification details of the sender, and the distribution and use
of list generating software (and address lists) will be banned. The
Government has stated that it will work closely with industry and
liaise with international organisations to combat the problem of
spam while still allowing industry in Australia to maintain a
workable regime for legitimate business practices.
The Bill provides a definition of an
'Australian link' in Clause 7 to define when
commercial spam falls within the regulation and penalty provisions
of the legislation. Basically, the Bill is directed at Australian
originated spam or where the overseas sender is represented in
Australia or maintains a server in Australia. Spam is delivered
electronically over the Internet and the legislation will not
directly affect (in a practical sense) the bulk of e mail from
overseas sources but the initiative taken in Australia may help
create a move towards an international enforcement regime. Clause 7
includes a provision that will cover any spam accessed by a
computer in Australia but if the sender is overseas they need to
come within Australian jurisdiction to satisfy the 'Australian
link' provision. Spam filters and blockers will still have to be
used to counter most overseas generated junk mail.
The main drivers of the Internet today are
commercial computer firms and a host of Internet Service Providers
(ISPs) but the Internet grew out of an advanced research project
for an electronic communications network undertaken for the United
States Department of Defense. As early as 1969, a network called
ARPANET was designed and developed to provide a 'network of
networks' to link universities, military and defence contractors
for the purpose of sharing research information and to study the
potential of computer-based command and control
systems.(2)
In 1983, ARPANET was split into MILNET (for
military communications) and ARPANET (which continued to be used
for research into networking) which eventually became absorbed into
the broader Internet.(3)
Initially, it was proposed that ARPANET access
be confined to researchers but the concept began to be adapted for
the development of other networks and it became readily apparent
that it was a valuable and new method for more widespread
communications usage. The Internet still reveals its military
origins in one sense in that it is designed to avoid a major
catastrophe if a destructive strike was directed at 'headquarters'
the Internet has no 'headquarters'.(4) It is an
interlinked web of networks that move electronic traffic through
connecting gateways. Each network system joining the Internet is
responsible for its own administration. There is no single service
provider.
Electronic mail (e mail) is the most
elementary service on the Internet. E mail in its simplest form is
a carrier of digital messages between two people, or through a
mailing list to a group. Initially, it was considered to be an
insignificant aspect of network capabilities.(5) Today
it is a worldwide form of electronic communication and it has
become a core Internet application offering fast, convenient and,
in some cases, an addictive form of mail transmission. The problem
of distance is irrelevant on the Internet.
Adam C. Engst in his 1994 text, Internet
Starter Kit for Macintosh, foreshadowed that problems would
occur with the commercialisation of the Internet. He noted:
However, we must remember the old attitudes about
commercial use of the Internet. In the past, commercial use was
often acceptable if it wasn't blatant, was appropriately directed,
and was of significant value to the readers. In other words, I'll
be as angry as the next person if I start receiving automatically
generated junk mail every day, just as I receive junk mail via
snail mail.(6)
Mr Engst suggested in 1994 that one response
was to 'flame away' (i.e. send back an outrageously nasty message).
The problem nowadays is the volume of spam that seems to arrive and
the waste of time that would be involved in replying. Also, some
spam is deliberately constructed to confirm a valid e mail address
when the recipient responds and the address is then on-sold to
other spammers.
Block deletion by the person receiving the
message is always available but most users are concerned that in
haste and frustration they may inadvertently delete an important
message.
Education programs, voluntary codes of conduct
for using the Internet, blacklisting and filters have not
successfully addressed the problem of determined spammers who
switch e mail addresses or servers to avoid detection. Spammers
will also abuse the relay facility that is at the core of the
Internet which allows a message to be relayed by one server to
another. Internet relay servers are proliferating in a number of
countries.
One of the more serious threats with spam is
its use to perpetrate scams and fraud and to offer access to
illicit pornography. A useful discussion on spam and computer crime
can be found in the Parliamentary Library's Research Note,
'Computer Crime and Compromised Commerce' by Matthew James
and Brian Murray(7) and in the transcripts of the
hearing of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian
Crime Commission on its reference Cybercrime held on 21
July 2003.(8)
Another development is the spamming of
chatroom users. Apart from financial scams, there is a growing
concern about young users who may be vulnerable to predators. Major
providers of these services are looking to close down their
chatrooms because of the abuse of the facility.(9)
It is possible to purchase a disposable e mail
address service where the addresses are time limited or just used
as an alias and deleted (and replaced with a random address) once
the first address is plagued by spam.(10)
The Computer Research and Technology
(CR&T) website provides a list of the 'Spam top 10 hit
list'.(11) The list, which is more directly applicable
to users in the United States but the items are still received by
other users of the Internet, for 2002 is:
1)
Free adult site passwords
2)
Low price drugs (Viagra)
3)
Refinance your mortgage
4)
Nigerian confidential money transfer
5)
Tiny remote control car
6)
Best online casino
7)
#1 Pasta pot
8)
Get out of credit card debt
9)
Meet singles in your area
10)
Copy DVDs in one click
Because of the difficulty of penalising anyone
outside Australian jurisdiction, the legislation is unlikely to
counter the transmission of the spam items listed above.
CR&T estimates that spam now cost
businesses worldwide about $9 billion per year to deal with and
that one in twelve e mails was identified as spam by companies
using spam Internet filters.
Businesses (and private users) are also
concerned about the more sinister side to spam which now includes
'brand spoofing' where personal and financial data is extracted by
the spammer who disguises the e mail to make it appear as if it is
from a reputable business address. Brand spoofing can also be used
for hoaxes. Recently, British schoolchildren were reportedly
encouraged to consume packets of chips and to retain the empty
packets to stack into a bundle weighing the equivalent of a
disabled infant. This cruel hoax misled the children into believing
that once the goal was achieved a reputable snack manufacturer
would pay for the infant's treatment.(12)
The tidal wave of spam has the potential to
overwhelm the Internet.
On 26 June 2003, the Internet Industry
Association convened a Spam Legislative Forum at
Parliament House in Canberra. The consensus of the forum was
support for tough national legislation to counter spam. An article
outlining the key issues to consider in any regulatory response
appeared in the August 2003 edition of the Internet Law
Bulletin. The article was written by Peter Coroneos, Chief
Executive of the Internet Industry Association. The article is
available on ParlInfo.(13)
The CR&T web site contains an article that
is supportive of the Bill and describes it as a 'step in the right
direction' but makes the observation that it will not have much of
an impact on spam that originates from overseas.(14)
A lobby group, Coalition Against Unsolicited
Bulk E mail, Australia (CAUBE.AU) has been formed to represent the
views of those in Australia who are opposed to spam advertising
practices. There are related lobby groups in other countries. The
following news item has been extracted from the CAUBE.AU
website:
1st June 2002
Global Internet Community Applauds European
Anti-Spam Vote
The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial
E-Mail (CAUCE), EuroCAUCE, CAUCE India, CAUCE Canada and the
Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk E-Mail, Australia (CAUBE.au)
today applauded the decision by the European Parliament to protect
European Internet users from the practice of unsolicited e-mail
advertisements. Yesterday's vote will turn Europe into a virtual
"spam-free zone" after the formal adoption of the directive, making
it illegal to send unsolicited e-mail, text message or other
similar advertisements to individuals with whom companies do not
have a preexisting business relationship.(15)
The Canberra Times reported on 26
September 2003 that in the United States the Governor of the State
of California had signed into law a legislative ban on spam e mails
with fines of up to $US1 million ($A1.48
million).(16)
Media coverage in Australia on the Bill is
generally favourable but there is some debate over the proposed
exemptions for government agencies, political parties, charities,
religious organisations and educational institutions. One approach
suggested is to allow the exemptions but to monitor any abuse of
this concession by non commercial mailers using the
Internet.(17)
The lobby group CAUBE.AU has stated that its
support for regulation of spam through a legislative response is a
reversal of its previous view that the government should not
regulate the Internet.(18) CAUBE.AU has recognised that
spam presents a unique problem that is getting worse.
Spam is parasitic. It is cheap to send but it
relies on Internet service providers (ISPs) bearing the increasing
cost of carrying the flood of messages on their servers and taking
up disk space. ISPs are adding additional servers just to cope with
the load including setting up additional mail servers to filter
spam so that it is not moved within the network to individual mail
boxes. Individual users are also faced with the task of clearing
spam that gets past the anti-spam devices. Unless checked, spam
will slow down the Internet to a point that it may loose its
utility for global and domestic communication. The spam load is
wasteful and inhibits, to an appreciable degree, expansion in the
number of new users of the Internet.
Domestic legislation in Australia will not
prevent spam arriving from overseas but if enough countries are
active in countering the menace and coordinating their efforts then
there is hope for the creation of international enforcement action
against this abuse of a valuable communications system.
There is no specific legislation in Australia,
at present, that requires a sender of an electronic message to
first obtain the permission of the recipient. The National Privacy
Principles in the Privacy Act 1998 address the collection
of personal information and the use of that information for
purposes other than that for which it was collected. The
Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill explains that the
Privacy Act 1998 may not adequately address the problem
where the spammer has collected the personal information directly
(as opposed to indirectly) from the recipient. Even where the
Privacy Act 1998 could apply there is the difficulty of
enforcement.(19)
The Explanatory Memorandum also
provides a brief summary of other legislation which has some
relevance to the problem of spam.(20) These laws
include:
-
Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (which prohibits certain
forms of online gambling);
-
Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (but only dealing with
Australian-based offers of therapeutic goods i.e. as to any
misleading statement as to content of the product);
-
Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (limited application in
the content of sites on the Internet but the law does not apply to
ordinary e mails);
-
Trade Practices Act 1974 (misleading and deceptive
conduct); and
-
Crimes Act 1914 (menacing, offensive or harassing
material).
In a media statement issued on 18 September
2003, Senator Kate Lundy, the Shadow Minister for Information
Technology supported the introduction of anti spam legislation but
noted that the Coalition Government could have responded earlier to
combat the problem of spam. Senator Lundy said that the Labor Party
has always endorsed strong measures to counter spam and that it
will analyse the Government's legislation in
detail.(21)
Senator Brian Grieg, the Australian Democrats
spokesperson on Information Technology, has recognised the need for
anti-spam legislation but urges the Government to ensure that
Internet users know their rights and are also made aware of the use
of blocking devices and other practical anti-spam
options.(22)
Senator Grieg is reported as commenting that,
while the Democrats supported penalties for repeat offenders and
the provision in the Bill to allow people to accept spam, the
exemptions for political parties during election campaigns and
charities should be removed.(23) (if any)
The Bill is likely to receive bipartisan
support in the Parliament. Viewed overall, it is not controversial
legislation but there may be some consideration of the proposed
exemption of non-commercial organisations. If the Bill was
rejected, the existing availability of the Internet would continue
with current anti-spamming measures remaining the responsibility of
the industry, business, ordinary users and, where relevant, crime
authorities.
(Part 1 commences on Royal Assent.)
Clause 3 provides a
simplified outline for the legislation. The key features of the
Bill are:
-
the regulation of commercial e-mail, including a prohibition on
sending unsolicited commercial electronic messages;
-
a requirement to include information about who authorised the
sending of the message;
-
a facility for a recipient to unsubscribe to the commercial
messages;
-
a ban on address harvesting and list producing software; and
-
civil penalties and injunctions for breaches of the
legislation.
The main regulatory framework for the
administration of the legislation by the Australian Communications
Authority (ACA) is found in the accompanying Bill, the Spam
(Consequential Amendments) Bill 2003.
Clause 4 provides the
definitions of words and expressions used in the legislation while
Clauses 5 to 6 provide specific
extended definitions for standard and commercial 'electronic
messages', respectively. (Schedules 1 and
2 to the Bill provide detailed definitions for
'designated electronic message' and the meaning of 'consent' when
used in relation to the sending of an electronic message,
respectively.)
Clause 7 is a key provision
in the Bill. It provides a definition for when a commercial
electronic message has an Australian link. The regulation of
commercial e mails and the penalty provisions in the Bill are tied
to e mails that have an 'Australian link'. Broadly stated, the link
is established if the commercial e mail:
-
originates in Australia;
-
the sender (or person who authorised the e-mail) is located in
Australia;
-
the computer or server that accesses the message is located in
Australia, or
-
the electronic
account holder is in Australia.
Clause 9 makes it clear that
the carriage provider who simply provides a service for the
transmission of e mails does not breach the legislation unless the
carriage provider actively advertises to provide services to spam
senders.
(Part 2 commences 120 days after Royal
Assent.)
Part 2 of the Bill sets out the civil penalty
provisions for sending unsolicited commercial e mail where there is
an Australian link. Part 2 also specifies that commercial e mails
must contain identifiers and an unsubscribe facility.
Clause 16 is the primary
provision that proscribes the sending of unsolicited commercial
'Australian link' e mails unless there is prior consent. The
penalty for an offence applies to the person who hits the send
button, the author of the message and whoever may have authorised
the message. The penalty applies to those actively involved in
sending the message and not to the equipment i.e. to avoid a
situation of penalising a person whose computer (or telephone) was
hijacked or the computer is affected by a virus. Similarly, the
penalty does not apply to innocent transmission by a carrier.
Exemptions
-
government bodies;
-
a registered political party;
-
a religious organisation;
-
a charity or charitable institution;
-
educational institutions (but only for student or former student
related matters);
-
a message containing no more than factual information and; that
complies with the identification obligations under the legislation;
or
-
is identified in subsequent Regulations made under the
legislation.
Specified defences to an offence
The defences (with the evidential burden on the
sender) to an offence under the legislation are specified as:
-
the relevant account holder consented to the message;
-
the sender could not reasonably have known that there was an
Australian link (e.g. which may occur if the Australian recipient
has an address that ends with '.com' rather than '.com.au'; and
-
the message was sent by mistake (e.g. where the sender's
computer is affected by a virus or if there is an incorrect
misspelling of an e mail address where the intended addressee has
consented to receive the message).
Paragraph 16(1)(b) provides
an exemption for e mails that are 'designated commercial electronic
messages' (see the list above and the definition in Schedule 1 to
the Bill).
Subclause 16(6) covers the
situation where the spammer sends e mails in bulk by a 'dictionary
method' i.e. by a random method such as a common surname in the
address but prefixed by 'a', then 'b', then 'c' and so on (referred
to in the Bill as non existent electronic addresses).
Subclause 16(9) covers
aiding, abetting, conspiracy and inducing the sending of spam by
threats or promises.
Clause 17 requires commercial
electronic e mails to contain accurate identification details and
Clause 18 requires commercial e mail messages to
also contain an unsubscribe facility. An unsubscribe facility
allows the recipient to opt-out of future contact. Penalties,
specified defences, aiding and abetting provisions also apply (see
Part 4 Civil penalties, below).
(Part 3 commences 120 days after Royal
Assent.)
Clauses 20 to
22 prohibit the offering of, supply, acquisition
or use, respectively, of address harvesting software and harvested
address lists. Some spammers collect addresses from web pages or
newsgroups and also buy lists from other spammers or companies.
They also use electronic spambots (the suffix 'bot' just
means 'robot' software) to scour web pages and newsgroups. This
type of software is also called a web crawler, spider, robot or
worm. It has legitimate commercial applications, such as when used
for tracing copyright infringement or sale of counterfeit products.
Responsible commercial web crawlers will respect the industry based
Robots Exclusion Protocol and not examine sites that
contain an electronic signal in their text that requests that the
site not be crawled.
Spammers also join a mailing list then gather
the e-mail addresses of other members. Spammers also deceive random
addressees by falsely including a message to reply to 'remove' the
address. A reply simply confirms a legitimate address and that
there is no anti spam device operating at the address.
Again, under these provisions there must be an
Australian link and there is a defence that the supplier had no
reason to believe that the software or list would be used for
spamming. Aiding and abetting is also covered. Civil penalties
apply.
(Part 4 commences 120 days after Royal
Assent.)
Clauses 23 to
30 provide the details of the application of the
series of civil penalties that are payable for contraventions of
the legislation. The penalties escalate for repeat offences.
Proceedings for the recovery of penalties are instituted in the
Federal Court of Australia. Ancillary orders for compensation to a
victim and for payment to the Commonwealth of the amount of any
financial benefit obtained by the spammer are covered in this
Part.
The unit rate for a penalty is currently set
at $110 per penalty unit. The summary of current maximum penalty
amounts is provided in the Explanatory Memorandum at pages
93 to 96 and they range for an individual from $1,100 to $220,000
(repeat offender) and for a corporation from $5,500 to $1.1 million
(repeat offender).
(A summary of the maximum penalty amounts is
provided in the Explanatory Memorandum at pages 93 to
96.)
Clause 30 provides a link to
Schedule 3 to the Bill which sets up a system of
infringement notices as an alternative to proceedings in the
Federal Court.
The ACA is empowered by Clause
26 to initiate proceedings in the Federal Court and to
issue infringement notices (Schedule 3).
(Part 5 commences 120 days after Royal
Assent.)
Clauses 31 to
36 authorise the Federal Court to issue a range of
injunctions for contraventions of the legislation. These
injunctions include orders to restrain conduct and to compel a
person 'to do something'. The ACA is empowered to apply to the
court for injunctions.
(Part 6 commences 120 days after Royal
Assent.)
Clauses 37 to
40 authorise the ACA to receive formal
administrative undertakings that are court enforceable from a
person, in connection with a matter relating to commercial e mails
and address harvesting software. A breach of an undertaking can
give rise to court ordered compensation (Clause
40).
(Clause 41 commences 120 days
after Royal Assent. Clause 42 commences on Royal
Assent. Clauses 43 to 46 commence
120 days after Royal Assent. Clause 47 commences
on Royal Assent.)
Clause 41 empowers the ACA to
issue formal warnings if a person contravenes the legislation and
if the matter is assessed as a minor infringement.
Clause 42 provides additional
functions for the ACA in spam related matters, including:
Clause 43 allows the
concurrent operation of any State or Territory laws that are
capable of applying together with the provisions of this Bill.
Clause 44 prevents the Bill
applying to the extent that it would infringe the freedom of
political communication as implied from the
Constitution.(24)
Clause 45 authorises the
making of Regulations that would give effect to an international
convention that deals with combating spam and address harvesting
software. This Clause foreshadows that Australia is looking at the
possibility of concluding agreements with other countries to deal
with the global impact of spam. Regulations are subject to a
tabling and disallowance procedure in the Parliament.
Clause 46 specifies that the
operation of the legislation will be reviewed 2 years after the
commencement of the legislation (in this section commence is 120
days after Royal Assent). A report of the review must be tabled in
Parliament by the Minister.
It is noted that Clause
44 in the Bill addresses the
implied freedom of political communication as recognised
by the High Court (see endnote 23, below). The
Bill does, however, limit any general doctrine
of the freedom of speech but that erosion of freedom in the case of
spam appears to be supported by the majority of users, business,
industry, the media, government and other political groups. There
may be some debate on the exemptions for specified non commercial
senders of e mails.
-
Senator the Hon Richard Alston, Minister for Communications,
Information Technology and the Arts, Media Release No.
122/03, 'Australian Government to ban spam', 23 July 2003 at:
http://www.dcita.gov.au/Article/0,,0_4-2_4008-4_115938,00.html
and the report by the National Office for the Information Economy
(NOIE), The spam problem and how it can be countered
(April 2003) can be located at:
http://www.noie.gov.au/publications/NOIE/spam/final_report/index.htm.
-
Paul Gilster, The New Internet Navigator, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, 1995, 21.
-
ibid., p. 23.
-
See Heinz Tschabitscher, 'Spam', Email.About.com,
at:
http://email.about.com/library/weekly/aa100697.htm
.
-
Paul Gilster, The New Internet Navigator, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, 1995, p.31.
-
Adam C. Engst, Internet Starter Kit for
Macintosh, 2nd Edition, Hayden Books, Indianapolis,
1994, p. 53.
-
Matthew L. James and Brian E. Murray, 'Computer Crime and
Compromised Commerce', Research Note No. 6 2003 04,
Department of the Parliamentary Library, 11 August 2003 at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2003-04/04rn06.htm.
-
See the evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the
Australian Crime Commission, Reference: Cybercrime,
Hansard, 21 July 2003: pp. 4, 37 38, 47, 52, 60 and 81at:
http://parlinfoweb.parl.net/parlinfo/Repository/Commttee/Commjnt/Linked/2679-2.PDF
-
Diana Thorp and Stuart Kennedy, 'Net tightens on chat',
Australian, 25 September 2003; p. 9.
-
See the review by Heinz Tschabitscher, 'Emailias', in
Email.About.com, at:
http://email.about.com/cs/dispaddrrevs/gr/emailias.htm.
-
Computer Research and Technology, eTopics, at:
http://www.crt.net.au/etopics/irritatingspam.htm.
-
'Modern Life', Sydney Morning Herald,
25 September 2003, p. 20.
-
Peter Coroneos, 'Perceptions of spam', Internet Law
Bulletin, Vol 6 No 5, August 2003:
54 56 at:
http://parlinfoweb.parl.net/parlinfo/Repository1/Library/Jrnart/YE9A61.pdf.
-
Computer Research and Technology, eTopics, 'Spam
senders may face hefty fines', at:
http://www.crt.net.au/etopics/spamfines.htm.
-
Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk E mail, Australia,
(CAUBE.AU), Latest News, at:
http://www.caube.org.au/latest.htm.
-
International, 'No junk mail please', Canberra Times,
26 September 2003, p. 12.
-
See Rachel Lebihan, 'Bill lets some spam slip through the net',
Australian Financial Review, 19 September 2003: p. 13; E
mail, 'Anti spam law wins applause', Australian, 23
September 2003, p. 29, 'New anti spam laws to target junk e mails',
Canberra Times, 19 September 2003.
-
Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk E mail, Australia,
(CAUBE.AU), at: http://www.caube.org.au/.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, Spam Bill 2003, p. 23.
-
ibid., p 24.
-
Senator Kate Lundy, Shadow Minister for Information Technology,
'Procrastination on spam costs Australians', Media Statement, 18
September 2003 at: http://www.alp.org.au/media/0903/20005753.html.
-
Senator Brian Grieg, Australian Democrats spokesperson for
Information Technology, 'Democrats call for SPAM education',
Press Release, 4 June 2003 at:
http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=2716&display=1#.
-
See Rachel Lebihan, 'Bill lets some spam slip through the net',
Australian Financial Review, 19 September 2003, p. 13.
- Three High Court cases in the 1990s
Australian Capital Television (1992), Nationwide
News (1992) and Lange (1997) established an implied
constitutional right of political communication. The cases
established that:
Brendan Bailey
7 October 2003
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's
contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with
members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 2003
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
2003.
Back to top