Bills Digest No. 100, 2016–17
PDF version [586KB]
Monica Biddington
Law and Bills Digest Section
25
May 2017
Contents
Purpose of the Bill
Structure of the Bill
Background
Committee consideration
Senate Standing Committee on Legal
and Constitutional Affairs
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny
of Bills
Policy position of non-government
parties
Position of major interest groups
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
Key issues and provisions
Meaning of ‘cause harm’ (proposed
subparagraph 474.25C(a)(i))
Meaning of ‘engaging in sexual
activity’ (proposed subparagraph 474.25C(a)(ii))
Meaning of ‘procuring’ (proposed
subparagraph 474.25C(a)(iii))
Jurisdiction
Other provisions
Telecommunications Interception
and Access Act (TIA) amendment
Concluding comments
Date introduced: 30
March 2017
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Attorney-General
Commencement: The
day after Royal Assent.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest
are correct as at May 2017.
Purpose of
the Bill
The purpose of the Bill is to introduce an offence to
criminalise acts done using a carriage service[1]
to prepare or plan to cause harm to, procure, or engage in sexual activity
with, a person under the age of 16. This expressly includes a person
misrepresenting their age online as part of a plan to cause harm to another
person under 16 years of age.
Structure
of the Bill
The Bill is presented in two Schedules.
Schedule 1 amends the Criminal Code Act
1995 (Cth) (Criminal Code) to insert a new offence for the
preparation or planning to cause harm to, engage in sexual activity with, or
procure for sexual activity, a person under the age of 16, using a carriage
service.
Schedule 2 contains consequential amendments. It
amends the Crimes
Act 1914 (Cth) and the Telecommunications
(Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) (TIA Act) to ensure
existing law enforcement powers available for Commonwealth child sex-related offences
are available for the new offence.
Background
It is recognised that sex offenders use the internet to
identify and contact minors for sexual exploitation, mostly through monitoring
online profiles and web messaging services.[2]
This is consistent with the views of academics over the last decade, who have
noted an increase in online harassment, particularly cyberstalking, and
impersonation to lure young people into relationships.[3]
This might occur via online community groups, social media pages, or direct
email contact.
Over recent years, an increasing number of adolescents and
children have access to smartphone and tablets, allowing:
... their susceptibility to become a cyber victim to increase,
as parental control may not be present ... [Further], a lack of internet safety
knowledge by authority figures leaves many children susceptible to predators’
manipulation skills ... [and so] implementing parental control, mandatory
policies and guidelines in school systems and taking a lead role in the child’s
life is imperative [in determining] whether a child is preyed upon by
predators.[4]
In Australia, the focus has been to promote internet
safety and responsibility and this Bill is the first time in twelve years that
a government has pursued a legislative enforcement option to address predators
who are exploiting the ‘anonymity of the internet to forge relationships with
children as a first step in luring them for sexual abuse and other forms of
harm’.[5]
This Bill follows three attempts by Senator Nick Xenophon
to criminalise an adult misrepresenting their age to a minor for specified
purposes.[6]
Senator Xenophon has long advocated for a law to better protect young Australians
from grooming by online predators, known as Carly’s Law.
Carly’s Law is in response to a case of a 15-year-old
Australian girl, Carly Ryan, who was murdered in 2007 by Garry Francis Newman,
an online predator posing as a teenage boy. Newman, a 47-year-old man,
pretended to be an 18-year-old man named Brandon. Newman convinced Carly to
meet him but was angry at Carly’s subsequent rejection of his advances,
assaulting and drowning her at Port Elliott, South Australia. In 2010, Newman
was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 29-year non-parole period.
In his second reading speech for his Private Senator’s
Bill in 2013[7],
Senator Xenophon stated that following the death of Carly Ryan:
It took police eleven days to track Newman down. When they
found him, he was logged on to his computer as Brandon Kane, chatting to a
fourteen year old girl in Western Australia. Police also found a stash of child
pornography on his computer, and discovered he had already pursued many other
young girls overseas.[8]
Senator Xenophon acknowledged the difficulties (which are
further discussed by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee in its comments on
the current Bill) in creating the law to ensure there are no unintended
consequences from its enforcement:
This [2013] Bill creates offences
specifically aimed at the circumstances—an adult lying to a minor about their
age to facilitate a meeting or to make themselves seem 'more approachable'—that
need to be addressed.
The internet is impossible to pin down,
constantly evolving and growing. The pace of technological growth means
children are almost always much more comfortable with online communication than
their parents: what we still see as new and different is as essential to them
as breathing.
New forms of communication mean we need new
laws to protect our children. In cyberspace, we can't stand by their side as
they explore the world. We can't always set rules and curfews, because our kids
can be sitting safe in their rooms even while they're in danger.
This Bill is an attempt to address some of
the techniques used by online predators, so that we can put an additional
safeguard in place for our children.[9]
Senator Xenophon’s Bill did not proceed to a vote on any
of the three occasions it was presented. The Bills were considered by the
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee which concluded either that
the Bill not be passed or that further consultation be conducted.[10]
Ultimately all three Bills lapsed.
Committee
consideration
Senate Standing
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
The Bill has been referred to the Senate Standing Committee
on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report by 13 June 2017.
Details of the inquiry are at the inquiry
homepage. The Committee has received five submissions
on the Bill and key issues raised in these submissions are indicated below.
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
raised some issues relating to the reversal of the legal burden of proof in the
proposed offence:
The offence provision is proposed to be inserted into
Subdivision F of Division 474 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. As such,
the presumption in existing section 475.1B of the Criminal Code will
apply. This provision provides that if a physical element of a relevant offence
consists of a person using a carriage service to engage in particular conduct
and the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the person engaged in
that conduct, it is presumed, unless the person proves to the contrary, that
the person used a carriage service to engage in that conduct. A defendant bears
a legal burden of proof in relation to this matter.
...
As the reversal of the burden of proof undermines the right
to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the committee expects there to be
a full justification each time the burden is reversed, with the rights of
people affected being the paramount consideration ...
The statement of compatibility gives a justification for
imposing a presumption which reverses the legal burden of proof:
The purpose of this presumption is
to address problems encountered by law enforcement agencies in proving beyond
reasonable doubt that a carriage service was used to engage in the relevant
criminal conduct. Often evidence that a carriage service was used to engage in
the criminal conduct is entirely circumstantial, consisting of evidence, for
example, that the defendant's computer had chat logs or social media profile information
saved on the hard drive, that the computer was connected to the internet, and
that records show the computer accessed particular websites that suggest an
association with the material saved on the hard drive ...
The committee notes that the presumption is intended to
address problems regarding evidence that a carriage service was used, and notes
that this appears to provide a justification as to why the evidential burden of
proof needs to be reversed, but not necessarily why the legal burden of proof
needs to be reversed. However, the committee also notes that the relevant
requirement (that the conduct engaged in uses a carriage service) is a
jurisdictional requirement that does not relate to the substance of the
offence.[11]
Notwithstanding these concerns, the Committee concluded
that no response from the Minister was required.
Policy
position of non-government parties
Senator Xenophon of the NXT party strongly supports the
Bill.[12]
The position of other opposition and Senate cross-benchers is not yet known.
Position of
major interest groups
The Law Council of Australia supports appropriate measures
to ensure that the internet is not used to perpetuate crimes against children.
However, the Law Council’s four concerns with the Bill are:
- the
necessity of the Bill in light of existing offences
- the
preparatory nature of the offence
- the
breadth of the ‘causing harm’ element in proposed paragraph 474.25C(a)(i)
and
- given
the wide scope of the offence, the ability of law enforcement agencies to
obtain a telecommunications warrant to investigate a person in relation to the
proposed offence.[13]
The Law Council has also indicated that there may be:
... great difficulty in establishing intent to commit a future
act (such as ‘harm’ to a person under 16) where the actions relied upon to
prove such an intent are themselves benign, innocuous or equivocal. Given this
difficulty, there is a risk that investigations or prosecutions may focus upon
the character of the accused rather than the character of the actions the
accused has undertaken.[14]
Similarly to the comments made by the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Committee when examining Senator Xenophon’s Bills, legal
academic Dr Gregor Urbas makes the argument that existing offences may already
adequately cover the conduct that the proposed offence is seeking to
criminalise:
Existing 474.25A, 474.26, 474.27 and 474.27A already cover
procuring and some preparatory conduct such as grooming, as well as sexual
activity (including purely online acts), directed at person under 16. There is
thus considerable overlap with sexual predation crimes in the Code, though
again it may be that a broader range of preparatory conduct is captured by new
474.25C.[15]
In its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional
Affairs Committee’s inquiry into the Bill, the Australian Lawyers Alliance
submitted that the Bill is ‘not sufficiently targeted to prevent harm to
children. It could criminalise activities which have no potential to cause harm
and, in doing so, destroy the lives of people who pose no risk by labelling
them as child abusers’.[16]
The submission also expressed concern about the preparatory nature of the
offence, arguing that the proposed offence imposes liability too early in the
criminal process, at a point where an individual contemplating a crime might
still change his or her mind. The submission concluded that the Bill should not
be passed.[17]
Queensland Family and Child Commission and the Tasmanian
Sexual Assault Support Service (SASS), have submitted that they are supportive
of the Bill.[18]
Financial
implications
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Bill will have
no financial impact on Government revenue.[19]
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[20]
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considers
that the Bill does not raise human rights concerns.[21]
Key issues
and provisions
The previous Bills introduced by Senator Xenophon sought
to create a criminal offence relating to online communications with children.
Section 3 of the Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor)
Bill 2013 stated:
the object of this Act is to make it a criminal offence for a
person over 18 years of age (the sender) to intentionally misrepresent their
age in online communications with a person they reasonably believe to be under
18 years of age (the recipient):
(a) for the purpose of encouraging the recipient to physically meet with the
sender (or any other person); or
(b) with the
intention of committing an offence.[22]
The proposed maximum penalty for the offence was eight
years’ imprisonment under proposed section 474.40.[23]
The current Bill, while similar in policy intention,
differs from Senator Xenophon’s Bills in that there is only one offence and it
does not have the intention of misrepresenting age as a fault element of the
offence. The offence in this Bill uses the word ‘misrepresents’ only by way of
a noted example in the provision where it is intended that the offence require
an actual misrepresentation of age rather than having an intention to do so
which would present evidentiary issues.[24]
As part of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs’
inquiry into Senator Xenophon’s 2013 Bill, the Attorney-General’s Department
noted that ‘the proposed offence would be very broad in application.’[25]
The present Bill also seems to have a broad application which would rely on
police and prosecutorial discretion as to whether criminal sanctions were
pursued. For example, the proposed offence could apply to online conduct known
as ‘trolling’ where a person might harass a person who is under 16 years of age
and cause harm to that person (new section 474.25C(a)(i)) where such
conduct could presently be captured under section 474.17 of the Criminal
Code. The significant difference is that the offence in section 474.17
carries a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment and the proposed offence
carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
Item 2 in Schedule 1 is the key amendment in the
Bill. It would insert new section 474.25C into the Criminal Code
to create an offence of using a carriage service to prepare or plan to do any
of the following:
- cause
harm to a person under the age of 16 years
- engage
in sexual activity with a person under the age of 16 years
- procure
a person under the age of 16 years to engage in sexual activity.
The offence applies to adult offenders (that is, persons
who are at least 18 years of age) and would be punishable by a maximum penalty
of 10 years’ imprisonment.
An example of the type of conduct targeted by the offence is
provided following the proposed new section, being a person who ‘misrepresents
their age online as part of a plan to cause harm to another person under 16
years of age’. The Explanatory Memorandum states that this example in no way
limits the type of conduct that can be a preparatory act, whether or not that
preparatory act involves any kind of misrepresentation.[26]
Existing provisions in the Criminal Code prohibit
using a carriage service to ‘procure’ (section 474.26)[27]
or ‘groom’ (section 474.27)[28]
a child under 16 years of age. These offences are themselves preparatory in
nature. A child does not have to be harmed before the penalties (up to 15 years
in prison for procurement and 12 years in prison for grooming) apply. As it is
the use of the carriage service that constitutes the criminal conduct in
procurement and grooming offences, the child does not have to receive the
communication, or indeed be a child, as the sender only needs to have the
belief that the recipient is under 16 years.
The Explanatory Memorandum for this Bill states that proposed
new section 474.25C criminalises a broader range of conduct preparatory to
causing harm to a child than the existing procurement and grooming offences set
out in sections 474.26 and 474.27 of the Criminal Code.[29]
That is, the offence targets preparatory conduct where the offender has not
proceeded far enough for the conduct to be captured by existing offences:
The offence will capture preparatory conduct, irrespective of
whether a recipient child is communicated with or identified. An example of conduct
that does not involve communication with an identified child is the creation of
a social media profile by a predatory adult with the intention of using that
profile to establish an online relationship with a child as a preparatory step
to harming or engaging in sexual activity with a child. Because the offence
does not require a specific recipient to be identified or communicated with,
technical provisions that set out liability and evidentiary requirements in
section 474.28 of the Criminal Code are not applicable to this
offence. Neither are defences of mistake of age set out in section 474.29
of the Criminal Code ...
For example, a preparatory act may include a person using
social media to lie about their age, profession or an event in an attempt to
lure a child to a meeting for the purposes of causing a child harm or procuring
or engaging in sexual activity with a child.
The focus on the conduct of the adult will ensure the offence
applies where a law enforcement officer assumes the identity of a fictitious
child to interact with predatory adults over the internet and social media. The
predatory adult will be engaging in criminal conduct where he or she has an
intention to cause harm to, procure or engage in sexual activity with the
fictitious child.
Section 474.25C will cover a broad range of preparatory
activities that make use of telecommunications or carriage services (such as
social media and the internet), undertaken to plan or prepare to cause harm to,
procure, or engage in sexual activity with a person under 16 years of age.[30]
Meaning of
‘cause harm’ (proposed subparagraph 474.25C(a)(i))
Proposed new subparagraph 474.25C(a)(i) would make
it an offence to do any act in preparation for, or planning to cause harm
to a person under 16 years of age. 'Harm' is defined in the Criminal Code
as:
Physical harm or harm to a person's mental health, whether
temporary or permanent. However, it does not include being subjected to any
force or impact that is within the limits of what is acceptable as incidental
to social interaction or to life in the community.[31]
'Physical harm' is defined as including:
Unconsciousness, pain, disfigurement, infection with a
disease and any physical contact with a person that the person might reasonably
object to in the circumstances (whether or not the person was aware of it at
the time).
'Harm to a person's mental health' is defined as
including:
Significant psychological harm, but does not include mere
ordinary emotional reactions such as those of only distress, grief, fear or
anger.
The Explanatory Memorandum explains that acts done in
preparation of causing or planning to cause harm to a child includes
circumstances where there is an intent to harm the child, but no evidence of an
intent to engage in sexual activity:
The offence captures conduct preparatory to a broader range
of harm than currently exists and recognises that not all preparatory conduct
is linked with an intention to engage in sexual activity with the child. The
offence is not meant to capture trivial physical contact or ordinary emotional
reactions and allows for judgements to be made about what conduct is acceptable
or incidental to social interaction or life in the community.[32]
This is problematic however because the Bill in its
current form could lead to a high number of persons charged with the offence
due to police discretion being exercised, and deciding that the conduct was
considered outside the realm of trivial physical contact or ordinary emotional
reactions. It is then left to the prosecution to consider the reasonable
prospects of a successful prosecution.
Meaning of
‘engaging in sexual activity’ (proposed subparagraph 474.25C(a)(ii))
The Explanatory Memorandum explains that the reference to
‘engaging in sexual activity’ in subparagraph 474.25C(a)(ii) is not limited to
sexual activity engaged in in ‘real life’ but also includes online
sexual activity with a child. That is, ‘engaging in sexual activity’ may
include a person engaging in sexual activity in the online presence of another
person, including by means of communication that allows the first person to see
or hear the other person. As such, ‘engaging in sexual activity’ does not
necessarily require physical contact between the parties.[33]
An example of preparing or planning online sexual activity
with a child would be an offender who creates an online gaming profile as part
of a plan to masturbate in front of a web cam while a child watches through the
online game.
Meaning of ‘procuring’
(proposed subparagraph 474.25C(a)(iii))
The reference to ‘procuring’ in subparagraph 474.25C(a)(iii)
includes encouraging, enticing, recruiting and inducing a child to engage in
sexual activity. ‘Procure’ is defined in the Criminal Code[34]
to cover a range of activity reflecting the fact that a sender may encourage a
recipient to engage in ‘consensual’ sexual activity, but may also coerce a
person into engaging in ‘non-consensual’ activity.
Jurisdiction
As a telecommunications offence, Category A geographical
jurisdiction, as set out in section 15.1 of the Criminal Code, will
apply to the proposed offence.[35]
The application of Category A jurisdiction means that regardless of where
conduct constituting an offence occurs, if the results of that conduct affect
Australia the person responsible is generally able to be prosecuted in
Australia.
Other provisions
Telecommunications
Interception and Access Act (TIA) amendment
Item 3 of Schedule 2 of the Bill would amend the TIA
Act to provide that the proposed offence in new section 474.25C
of the Criminal Code is a ‘serious offence’ for the purposes of the TIA
Act. The effect would be that law enforcement agencies could apply for a telecommunications service warrant where the information obtained under the warrant would be likely to
assist in connection with the investigation
by the agency of the proposed offence.
In the Law Council's view, the
wide scope of the proposed offence and the relatively low threshold for
issuing a warrant (‘likely to assist the investigation’) may result in
unwarranted intrusions on privacy, particularly as the Law Council considers the proposed offence to be unnecessary
in light of existing provisions in the Criminal Code.[36]
Concluding comments
There is a strong argument that the Bill is unnecessary in
the existing legislative framework, however, the Bill may be viewed as a
valuable deterrent against the predatory behaviour that includes
misrepresenting a person’s age online to cause harm to, procure or engage in
sexual activity with a child. The Bill represents the Government’s commitment
to online safety for Australian children and giving ‘police and prosecutors a
new weapon which they can use to intervene sooner before a child become a
victim’.[37]
There are however some significant concerns with the Bill in its current form.
[1]. A
‘carriage service’ is a service for carrying communications by mean of guided
and/or unguided electromagnetic energy, as defined in the Telecommunications
Act 1997, section 7. In everyday terms, this definition includes
the internet, text messages, email, telephone, faxes, radio and TV.
[2]. LA
Maleskty Jr, ‘Predatory online behavior: modus operandi of convicted sex
offender in identifying potential victims and contacting minors over the
internet’, Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 16(2), 2007, pp. 23–32.
[3]. L
McFarlane and P Bocij, ‘An
exploration of predatory behaviour in cyberspace: towards a typology of
cyberstalkers’, First Monday, 8(9), 1 September 2003. See also,
for example, ‘Online “Predators” and Their Victims’, American Psychologist, February-March
2008, p.116. More broadly, cyberbullying statistics which could include this
type of conduct, showed in March 2017 that 40% of Australian youths under the
age of 18 worry about receiving hostile or demeaning online content: NoBullying.com,
‘How
to stop cyberbullying in Australia’, NoBullying.com website, 29 March 2017.
[4]. D
Deep, ‘Role
of the internet in the sexual exploitation of children’, MS thesis, Utica
College, August 2016, ProQuest database.
[5]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017,
p. 2.
[6]. Criminal
Code amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2010; Criminal
Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 and Criminal
Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 (an amended
version of the earlier 2013 Bill).
[7]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Criminal
Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 homepage’,
Australian Parliament website.
[8]. N
Xenophon, ‘Second
reading speech: Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor)
Bill 2013’, Senate, Debates, 26 February
2013.
[9]. Ibid.
[10]. Senate
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Criminal
Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2010, The Senate,
Canberra, 30 June 2010; Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation
Committee, Criminal
Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013, The
Senate, Canberra, 27 June 2013; Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Legislation Committee, Criminal
Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to A Minor) Bill 2013, The
Senate, Canberra, August 2015.
[11]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 5, 2017, The Senate, Canberra, 10 May 2017, p. 19.
[12]. S
Holderhead, ‘Victory
for Carly’s Law’, The Advertiser, 3 March 2017, p. 7.
[13]. Law
Council of Australia, Submission
to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry
into the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017, 3
May 2017, p. 5.
[14]. Ibid.,
p. 12.
[15]. G
Urbas, Submission
to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry
into the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017, 4
May 2017.
[16]. Australian
Lawyers Alliance, Submission
to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry
into the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017, 4
May 2017, p. 4.
[17]. Ibid.,
p. 7.
[18]. See
the submissions
on the Committee’s Inquiry page. Also note that SASS did raise a question about
how the Bill aligns with certain provisions in the Tasmanian Criminal Code
Act 1924 which allow for the consent of the person against whom a
crime is alleged to have been committed to be a defence, if at the time when
the crime was alleged to have been committed, the person was of or above the
age of 15 years and the accused person was not more than five years older.
[19]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 3.
[20]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 4 of the
Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.
[21]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report,
4, 2017, The Senate, Canberra, 9 May 2017, p. 74.
[22]. Criminal Code
Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013.
[23]. Ibid.
[24]. See
further comments on Senator Xenophon’s Bill in the Attorney-General’s
Department, Submission
to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry
into the Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill
2013, April 2013.
[25]. Ibid.,
p. 4.
[26]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 11.
[27]. Subsection
474.26(1) of the Criminal Code makes it an offence for a person to
transmit a communication to another person with the intention of procuring the
recipient to engage in sexual activity with the sender. For the offence to
apply the recipient must be under 16 years (or the sender must believe this to
be the case).
[28]. Subsection
474.27(1) of the Criminal Code makes it an offence for a person to
transmit a communication to another person with the intention of making it
easier to procure the recipient to engage in sexual activity with the sender. For
the offence to apply the recipient must be under 16 years (or the sender must
believe this to be the case).
[29]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 10.
[30]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., pp. 10–11.
[31]. These
definitions are found in the Dictionary in the
Schedule of the Criminal Code.
[32]. Explanatory
Memorandum, p. 11.
[33]. Explanatory
Memorandum, p. 12.
[34]. The
definition is found in the Dictionary
in the Schedule of the Criminal Code.
[35]. See
section 475.2 of the Criminal
Code.
[36]. Law
Council of Australia, Submission
to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry
into the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017, op.
cit., p. 11.
[37]. M
Keenan (Minister for Justice), Carly’s
Law introduced to protect young Australians online, media release, 30
March 2017.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.