Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 3673 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Extensive media coverage of the Arnott's contamination and the more recent threats to contaminate Sanitarium products have caused a public outcry. The growing awareness of consumer vulnerability to the threat of product contamination led the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to task the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee with developing model product contamination offences. The Model Criminal Code Officers Committee produced model provisions in its report to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General last year. The report acknowledged that the existing common law and statutory offences, such as blackmail, extortion, public nuisance and endangerment, are inadequate to deal with all cases of product contamination. In Arnott's case, the demand was not of a financial nature and, as such, may not amount to blackmail or extortion in all jurisdictions.

Product contamination is a specific type of offence which requires specific legislative provisions. The act or threat to contaminate a product is a serious one which can result in widespread public alarm and anxiety, economic loss and, most importantly, loss of life. The development of mass markets and mass distribution of goods means that one act of product contamination can affect a number of jurisdictions and, therefore, the general population simultaneously.

The Model Criminal Code Officers Committee report concluded that specific contamination offences are necessary to ensure that acts or threats to contaminate goods are per se capable of being prosecuted. The Model Criminal Code Officers Committee recommended that three offences be enacted in all Australian jurisdictions. The three offences are embodied in this Bill. They are: Firstly, contaminating goods with intent to cause public alarm or economic loss; secondly, threatening contamination of goods for such purposes; and, thirdly, making a false claim to have contaminated goods with the intent to cause public alarm or economic loss. Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales have already established specific offences to deal with the act or threat to contaminate goods, and Western Australia is currently in the process of developing draft legislation.

The Model Criminal Code Officers Committee recommended that the offences be punishable by a maximum term of 10 years' imprisonment, a term which reflects the seriousness of the crime. Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland have also set the maximum term for such offences at 10 years' imprisonment while South Australia has set a maximum term of 15 years for a similar offence. In New South Wales where an act of product contamination is accompanied by a demand, the maximum penalty is increased to 14 years.

The ACT already has offences for making a demand accompanied by a threat which carries a penalty of up to 20 years where the threat is to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm or 10 years where the threat is a danger to the health, safety or wellbeing of a person. The recommended maximum penalty of 10 years for the new offences of product contamination is appropriate having regard to the gravity of these offences, their potential consequences and the penalties for existing offences. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mr Stanhope ) adjourned.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .