Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity of joining the debate on the Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. This is an important bill. It is a bill which, in my view, is vital to be passed so that it can be entrenched as part of the law of Australia. This bill aims to improve further Australia's defences against cybercrime—which, believe it or not, is now a bigger industry world wide than the trafficking of illegal narcotics.

It is extremely difficult for those of us in the community to actually appreciate the growth of cybercrime. It was only 10 or 15 years ago that cyberspace was something that most people knew very little about. The internet has become very much a tool used by just about everybody and the new division of our society is no longer between rich and poor but between information rich and information poor.

Cybercrime is a criminal growth area that requires an equivalent growth in the strategies and tactics to combat it. Too often we hear stories of innocent computer users having their world turned upside down suddenly through identity theft, online robbery of funds and the theft and fraudulent use of other personal information like bank account numbers, credit card details and the like. We also hear of the internet being used for the commission of crimes like child pornography, online fraud and the unauthorised use of data stored on computers in computer networks.

The situation is heightened by the fact that many people using computers can turn a computer on, can log on and can participate in the internet but have very little actual knowledge of how the internet operates and how those people who are ill disposed are able to break the law of Australia by participating in cybercrime. It is also relevant to note that the internet has made the world more accessible and has made the world smaller. Cybercriminals can base themselves virtually anywhere in the world, being able to pinpoint and hone in on targets anywhere, including Australia. So the need for a truly international offensive is as important as ever.

It often concerns me that we have these microstates in some parts of the world, which, for all intents and purposes, are failed states. They are economically unviable and heavily dependent on foreign aid and sometimes on crime and the proceeds of crime. A nightmare is that a criminal syndicate or criminal people could effectively take over one of these mini states and, by doing so, acquire all of the respectable authority of being a nation state. So it is important for us to remain vigilant and for us to recognise that an international offensive against cybercrime is as important as ever.

With more and more commerce being conducted on the internet and the increase in online social interaction, in line with the growing popularity of social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and MySpace, it is not hard to see why cybercrime is the growth industry that it is and why criminals would see the opportunity to trawl the internet for their next victim and prey on unsuspecting computer users and for the internet to be a handy and powerful tool for committing all sorts of crimes. With the increase in these online offences comes a proportionate increase in the need to set up barriers and preventive measures to ensure that computer users are protected as best they can be. This bill provides for changes to be made to the laws of Australia that will enable our country to join the Budapest convention, which is otherwise known as the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. Some people would ask, 'Why on earth would Australia want to become a party to the Budapest convention, or the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime?' Interestingly enough, the convention has been acceded to by the United States, Canada, Japan and South Africa. It was tabled in parliament on 1 March this year. As is appropriate under our system of government, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has had a good look at it.

This international treaty will provide for telecommunications providers in Australia to be required to preserve telecommunications data, for specific reasons, when that information is requested by international crime-fighting authorities as well as by domestic organisations, like the Australian Federal Police. Its main aim is to foster a common international policy that has, as its No. 1 goal, a regime that enables all of society to be protected against cybercrime by adopting appropriate legislation and by encouraging international partnerships and cooperation.

There have been some concerns raised with the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties that focus on issues of privacy, jurisdiction and the loss of autonomy in future investigations. Some of the submissions suggested the accession to the treaty allowed increased surveillance and information-sharing powers but did not also include sufficient privacy and civil libertarian protections to counteract these provisions. Major concerns raised in submissions focused on the collection and use of computer data.

As I said before, there will be tens of thousands, if not millions, of people—I did not say the actual numbers—who consider themselves to be computer literate but just do not really understand what happens when they turn the computer on and log on and what can occur to their privacy simply as a result of joining the World Wide Web. It should be noted in response to some of the concerns expressed by those worried about the impact of this bill that the powers granted by this bill under the treaty will not impact on surveillance activities, like wire-tapping, because the amendments focus only on data collected by telecommunications carriers.

Regarding the concerns about the impact of any overlap of jurisdictions of the Commonwealth and the states, the Criminal Code does provide that Commonwealth cyberlaws are not intended to limit or undermine the operation of any state or territory laws, so that safeguard exists. Since Federation in 1901 the states of Australia have, with some justification, been concerned about the ongoing encroachment by the Commonwealth parliament into areas which were hitherto seen as being matters of state constitutional responsibility. We all know that that has happened in a range of ways from constitutional amendment—not that the Constitution is amended formally on very many occasions—to judicial interpretation and by the Commonwealth using its treaty-making power and entering into treaties with foreign states. So it is understandable that the states see their position as constantly being eroded, but sometimes, with respect to matters such as cybercrime, I think it is important that we look at this issue on a national basis and recognise that the overall national good might outweigh what would otherwise be seen as understandable concerns by the states that constitute the Commonwealth of Australia.

See this speech in context