David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

Given that answer, I think that the two-year transition period is important. I realise that the minister has to have some ultimate sanctioning authority in this process. I just wanted to clarify exactly, or attempt to clarify, the length and breadth of that authority.

I go to amendment 11, wherein it is set out that:

A person commits an offence if:

  (a) the person supplies DSGL technology; and

  (b) the supply contravenes a notice, or a condition specified in a notice, that is in force under subsection (1); and

  (c) the person knows of the contravention.

I draw attention to the fact that you have included intent in this offence. The penalty is 10 years imprisonment or 2,500 penalty units, or both.

I do not take any issue with the seriousness of the penalty; I think it needs to be very serious. But the fact is that you have introduced intent into that, and yet when you come to amendment 12—and, for the sake of completeness that is:

A person commits an offence if:

  (a) either:

     (i) the person publishes DSGL technology to the public, or to a section of the public, by electronic or other means; or

     (ii) the person otherwise disseminates DSGL technology to the public, or to a section of the public, by electronic or other means;

there is no requirement for intent, and so what you have is an absolute offence. You have a supply, which is intentional, but the publishing and the dissemination may be inadvertent and the person is still liable to the 10 years.

That greatly concerns me. I think that is anomalous. I think that you want to have someone publishing DSGL technology intentionally and I think that you want to have someone disseminating such technology intentionally. But I am open to persuasion, as I always am.