Copying or disclosing ... all in the same breath.
Creampuff, in your example no harm at all is done by the act of copying a draft report. The harm is done by disclosing it. It matters not whether the material a journalist receives is the original or a copy - it is the fact that the information is disclosed that does the harm.
There are frequent circumstances where documents are copied routinely, innocently, and harmlessly. For example, it is just good corporate governance for a company to have a procedure under which every item of incoming mail is copied.
Likewise, a draft report may be received when the addressee is on the other side of the world, and it may make simple good sense to fax it to him - thereby making a copy. How can it possibly be to a pilot's advantage to be prohibited from getting a draft report faxed to him instead of being sent by the post?
I'm unable to think of an example where just copying a draft report without disclosing it would cause harm. There may be such examples, in which case subsection 26(2)(a) needs to be re-drafted so that it prohibits harmful copying but not harmless copying.
One thing which needs to be remembered is that there are serious legal consequences which flow to a person convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year's imprisonment, even if the sentence imposed is merely a good behaviour bond. Amongst other things, one's right to be a member of various professions (such as Architecture) is affected.
This Bill is clearly in need of genuine - i.e. public - consultation with those affected so that it achieves its objects without trampling on individual freedoms.
Last edited by Boyd Munro; 21st Sep 2002 at 16:58.