Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

On the same point, Minister: I have understood the supplementary explanatory memorandum, and it does state in its final sentence:

... that the legal position is that recoupment is not required to prove a breach of section 46.

It is always dangerous to put yourself in the other man’s shoes but, as I read Senator Fielding’s questions and as I read my own position and that of the Labor Party, that is not what is worrying, because recoupment is not required to prove a breach of section 46. The problem is whether the inability to recoup would be an impediment to proving section 46. You might perhaps suggest that the wording of both my previous amendment and Senator Sherry’s amendment is not clear enough. But that, to me, is what we are trying to elicit. Perhaps in your response you could explore that problem: that, if there were an inability to recoup the losses, could a section 46 case still be successfully prosecuted?