Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL (NO 3) 1998

Bill presented and read a first time.

Mr STONE (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code to create specific offences in relation to the contamination of goods. The creation of these offences gives effect to the recommendations of the Model Criminal Code Officers’ Committee in its report, ‘Public Order Offences - Contamination of Goods’, which it published in March this year. The committee was originally established by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General some years ago as part of the process of developing a national model criminal code. It undertook its review in this area following the well-publicised threats that were made last year that Arnott’s biscuits may have been contaminated.

Those threats led to Arnott’s withdrawing all of its biscuits from more than 200 supermarkets and milk bars in New South Wales and Queensland. 800 truckloads of biscuits were destroyed, and the company’s economic losses ran to some $10m. Considerable distress and disruption resulted to both consumers and retailers. Clearly, this sort of economic and social disruption is unacceptable. It highlights the need for legislation, specifically directed to the activities of people who would contaminate or threaten to contaminate goods. Indeed, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland already have specific legislation dealing with the contamination of goods, while South Australia and Tasmania are taking steps to implement the recommendations in the report.

There are already in the Territory offences of a general nature which may apply where someone contaminates or threatens to contaminate goods. The Criminal Code currently provides for a range of offences that may apply in a particular case of contamination of goods, such as dangerous acts, grievous or bodily harm, murder, manslaughter, blackmail and extortion and criminal damage. However, these offences are not tailored to deal with this sort of activity. The liability of persons engaging in this type of activity should not depend on the possibility that one or other of these existing offences may be shown. There may be no demand such as would constitute blackmail and extortion. There may ultimately be no physical injury to any person as a result of a threat, such as to give rise to an offence of murder, manslaughter or grievous or bodily harm. There may be ultimately no damage to property as a result of a threat, such as to give rise to an offence of criminal damage. The threat may be considered not to have given rise to serious danger to lives, health or safety such as to constitute a dangerous act.

The committee’s report proposed the creation of specific offences to protect consumers, business and employees from persons who contaminate or threaten to contaminate goods. These recommendations will be implemented through these amendments to the Criminal Code. Three new crimes will be created:

· of contaminating goods with intent to cause public alarm or anxiety or to cause economic loss through public awareness of the contamination;

· of threatening to contaminate goods with intent to cause public alarm or anxiety or to cause economic loss through public awareness of the contamination; and

· of making false statements concerning contamination of goods with the intention to thereby cause public alarm or anxiety or to cause economic loss through public awareness of the contamination.

These offences will cover any goods, not just food. The concept of ‘contamination’ is broadly defined to extend even to making it appear that the goods have been contaminated or interfered with. The amendments also recognise that economic loss caused through public awareness of the contamination of the goods may occur in several ways. It might result from members of the public not purchasing or using those or similar goods. Corporations might incur costs in taking steps to avoid public alarm, anxiety or harm to members of the public, for example through advertising or withdrawing goods from sale.

The proposed maximum penalty in each case is 10 years imprisonment. However, should the act give rise to a more serious offence, that act would continue to attract the higher penalties attaching to that offence. For example, if as a result of the contamination a person is killed, a charge of murder or manslaughter might be laid. Consistent with the committee’s recommendations, a broader-than-usual jurisdictional provision is also included in the bill. It will be immaterial that the conduct of a person constituting an offence occurred outside the Territory, so long as the person intended by that conduct to cause public alarm or anxiety in the Territory or to cause economic loss in the Territory through public awareness of the contamination. This is necessary because the very nature of these offences is that they will almost invariably have cross-border consequences. Indeed, recognising that this type of activity may have cross-border consequences, the Model Criminal Code Officers’ Committee recognised in making its recommendations that there would be particular advantages in having nationally uniform legislation on the contamination of goods. There has already been significant interest in a number of jurisdictions in the committee’s recommendations. The government agrees with this goal and is pleased in implementing these reforms to be part of the process of seeking to achieve.

The government, through these amendments, will ensure a better protection of Territorians and indeed all Australians from the significant social and economic disruption which may otherwise flow from the contamination of goods or threats or false statements about the contamination. I commend the bill to honourable members.

Debate adjourned.

 

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]