Page 5321 - Week 17 - Thursday, 13 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This offence will cover any computer trespass from the trivial to one which has disastrous consequences. As a matter of practical law, the Government Bill covers the same ground as the New South Wales and Commonwealth legislation. The proposed subsection 153(2) in Mr Connolly's amendment is, in fact, already in the Crimes Act, out of order, at section 115. I would like to tell Mr Connolly that I understand why he may not have picked it up because, I must say, I did not do so when I originally had it presented to me. That section already prohibits conduct of this type.
Specifically, section 115 prohibits a dishonest use of a computer with intent to make a gain or to cause another person a loss. It is our intention when we eventually reform our Crimes Act to bring section 115 up to its correct place next to this, so that people do not miss it. This is the state, regrettably, of the Crimes Act 1900, as it applies in the Territory at the moment. I just inform Mr Connolly that we have already covered that offence in section 115. There are other detailed remarks I could make. I will not detain the house. Simply, if no distinction is made between simple unauthorised access and access to sensitive data, then the offence in the proposed amended section 153(4) is irrelevant and unnecessary.
Let me make just a quick review of offences in other jurisdictions. New South Wales and the Commonwealth distinguish between simple unauthorised access and access to sensitive data; Victoria has only a simple trespass offence, and it has no specific malicious damage offence, as we have in section 115; South Australia has a computer trespass offence, but it applies only to computers which have restricted access, not to all computers in general. That reminds me that, if it is a Commonwealth computer that is accessed this way in the Territory, of course, the Commonwealth Crimes Act applies. To the best of my advice, the other code States have no specific computer trespass offences.
Finally, I think Mr Connolly mentioned his preference to have an explicit penalty there rather than to leave the discretion to the judges. He may correct me if I am wrong. The simple and tactful fact of the matter is that it was a judge, a sentencing judge, who expressed some strong views about that on the Criminal Law Consultative Committee. In the absence of any prevailing strong view against that, I have not acted specifically on that issue. Mr Connolly raises another issue of interest that we should look at generally in the context of our criminal laws.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .