Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the 10th report of 2006 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 13 of 2006, dated 8 November 2006.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

In tabling the committee’s Alert Digest No. 13 of 2006, I would like to draw senators’ attention to a matter of concern to the committee.

In recent Alert Digests, the committee has sought clarification from ministers in relation to provisions for the inclusion of significant powers and offences in legislation and has drawn senators’ attention to the limited justification provided for such powers and offences.

In this current Digest, the committee has considered two bills which fall into this context: the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2006, which seeks to introduce strict liability and absolute liability offences; and the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006, which seeks to introduce strict liability offences.

No doubt there are well thought out policy reasons for each of these provisions. The committee has noted before that the Minister for Justice and Customs has established within his portfolio a consultative process aimed at ensuring that offence, penalty and enforcement provisions are framed in a sound, effective and coherent manner. This process requires the explanation and justification of the proposed amendments in order to secure the agreement of the Minister for Justice and Customs and is supported by the Guide to framing Commonwealth offences, civil penalties and enforcement powers, which provides a consolidated statement of legal policy, principles and advice relevant to the framing of these types of provisions.

The committee’s concern is that the justification for these types of provisions is often given scant attention in the explanatory memorandum.

These are significant and intrusive powers and should only be conferred in exceptional and specific circumstances. The committee expects that proposals for the inclusion of such powers in legislation should be accompanied by detailed justification in the explanatory memorandum as to why such powers are required in the particular circumstances.

This would not only limit correspondence between the committee and the relevant minister, but would be of valuable assistance to the committee and the parliament in the consideration of the bill.

Question agreed to.