I should explain that we are about to discuss the Report Stage of the Criminal Damage Bill, 1990. If a Senator moves that the Bill be recommited in respect of amendments and if this motion is opposed under Standing Order 91, the Chair allows the proposer to make an explanatory statement of the reasons for the proposed recommittal and a statement from the Senator who opposes the motion before I put the question on the motion. I call on Senator Norris to explain to the House if he is moving to recommit the Bill and if he will give an explanatory statement of the reasons for the proposed recommittal.
Criminal Damage Bill, 1990: Motion to Recommit.
Acting Chairman
I move:
That the Criminal Damage Bill, 1990, be recommitted in respect of section 6.
The Bill is defective and dangerous because of the absence of a proper definition of the word "authorise". It is not clear whether authorisation is to take place by the systems operator, the rules of the company or whether it can be made by the individual operator. What the Bill does is extremely dangerous in that it criminalises the individual operator in something that happens every single day of the week, that is, the exchange of passwords which is the method of entry into the computer system. In other words, a daily activity in this city in academic, political and economic life is being criminalised because of the absence of a proper, clear definition of "authorise". For that reason I seek the leave of the House to recommit this section of the Bill.
Acting Chairman
Is the motion to recommit being opposed?
I oppose the recommittal motion. There is no valid reason to recommit the motion. It has been gone through section by section in an orderly way. Unfortunately, for whatever good reason, Senator Norris was not present at the appropriate time and it would be argued that nobody was at fault but himself.
Question put and declared lost.