Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

Can I say again: there are existing criminal provisions. If a question is posed to someone, 'Do you think there should be criminal provisions?' they will say yes. And there are criminal provisions. If a question is put to someone with the implication that there aren't currently criminal provisions, then I understand that people would say, 'Yes, there should be.' And there are criminal provisions at the Commonwealth level. There are criminal provisions in most jurisdictions, and those that don't have them are looking to put them in specifically in relation to this matter.

I'm not suggesting, and never have suggested, that this is a case of either-or, of either civil penalties or criminal provisions. I've said that civil provisions complement criminal provisions. We do have criminal provisions at the moment. What we don't have at the moment is a civil penalties regime, and that's what this legislation seeks to put in place.

Senator O'Neill asked, in terms of a criminal regime or further amendments to the criminal regime, if that would be of assistance to the eSafety Commissioner. The answer to that is that, at present, the criminal regime is one that would be pursued by the Australian Federal Police. That could well be the case with further amendments. That is the law enforcement body for criminal provisions at the Commonwealth level.

In terms of enforcing legislation in overseas jurisdictions, while the eSafety office does have a great deal of success in working cooperatively with sites and services hosted overseas to have material removed, as Senator O'Neill has mentioned, it is extremely difficult to compel sites hosted overseas to remove material, because Australian law covers Australia. We don't have an extraterritorial capacity in relation to these matters, and that's where cooperation with partner organisations overseas is extremely important.