|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills - Scrutiny Digests |
|
Purpose
|
This bill seeks to amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act
2009 and the Fair Work Act 2009 to:
• prohibit terms of a modern award or an enterprise agreement
requiring or permitting contributions for the benefit of an employee
to be made
to any fund other than a superannuation fund, a registered worker entitlement
fund or a registered charity;
• require any term of a modern award or enterprise agreement that
names a worker entitlement fund or insurance product to allow
an employee to
choose another fund or insurance product;
• prohibit any term of a modern award, enterprise agreement or
contract of employment permitting or requiring employee contributions
to an
election fund for an industrial association;
• prohibit any action with the intent to coerce an employer to pay
amounts to a particular worker entitlement fund, superannuation
fund, training
fund, welfare fund or employee insurance scheme;
• require registered organisations to adopt, and periodically review,
financial management policies;
• require registered organisations to keep credit card records and to
report certain loans, grants and donations
• require specific disclosure by registered organisations and
employers of the financial benefits obtained by them and persons
linked to them
in connection with employee insurance products; and
• introduce a range of new penalties to ensure compliance with
financial management, disclosure and reporting requirements
|
|
Portfolio
|
Employment
|
|
Introduced
|
House of Representatives on 19 October 2017
|
|
Bill status
|
Before Senate
|
|
Scrutiny principles
|
Standing order 24(1)(a)(i),(ii) and (iii)
|
2.103 The committee dealt with this bill in Scrutiny Digest No. 13 of 2017. The Minister responded to the committee's comments in a letter dated 3 December 2017. Set out below are extracts from the committee's initial scrutiny of the bill and the Minister's response followed by the committee's comments on the response. A copy of the letter is available on the committee's website.[42]
Initial scrutiny – extract
2.104 Currently section 237(4) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 provides that a statement lodged with the Fair Work Commissioner, which details its loans, grants and donations, may be inspected by a member of the organisation concerned. The bill proposes amending the level of detail to be set out in such statements, including adding a requirement to include the name and address of the person to whom a grant or donation was made, or who made a grant or donation.[44] Proposed subsection 237(4A) would require the Commissioner, when allowing a member of a registered organisation to inspect such statements, to omit residential addresses and allows the omission of 'other personal information' at the discretion of the Commissioner.
2.105 The explanatory memorandum states these provisions give 'the Commissioner the necessary power to ensure that other personal or sensitive material can be redacted to protect the privacy of such information during an inspection.'[45] However, the committee notes that the Commissioner would not be obliged to omit such 'other personal information'; it is left to the Commissioner's discretion. The statement of compatibility acknowledges that this provision engages the right to privacy and states that it is necessary to ensure adequate financial transparency in relation to the affairs of registered organsiations.[46] However, it does not explain why it is necessary to leave the protection of personal information to the discretion of the Commissioner, rather than making such protection a statutory requirement.
2.106 The committee therefore requests the Minister's advice as to why it is necessary and appropriate to leave the protection of personal information to the discretion of the Commissioner, rather than making this a statutory requirement.
Minister's response
2.107 The Minister advised:
Effect of proposed subsection 237(4)
Section 237 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (RO Act) requires registered organisations to lodge particulars of specified loans, grants and donations with the Registered Organisations Commissioner (the Commissioner). These particulars can include the name and address of the person to whom the loan, grant or donation was made (s237(5) and s237(6)). Members of the organisation have the right to inspect statements given to the Commissioner (s237(4)), however, there is currently no capacity for the Commissioner to protect the privacy of individuals whose personal details are included in the statement.
Proposed subsection 237(4A) of the Bill creates a new protection for persons who give or receive loans, grants or donations by providing that, prior to a member inspecting a statement, the Commissioner must omit any residential address included in the statement. Subsection 237(4A) also provides the Commissioner with the discretion to omit other personal information from statements prior to member inspection.
Issue
The committee notes that whilst a discretion to omit personal information is included in the Bill, the Commissioner would not be obliged to omit such 'other personal information'. The committee requests advice as to why it is necessary and appropriate to leave the protection of personal information to the discretion of the Commissioner, rather than making this a statutory requirement.
Discussion
The Royal Commission noted that creating greater transparency about the financial transactions of registered organisations would ensure that members have the capacity to inquire into individual transactions.
The proposed amendments to section 237 of the RO Act do not add to the level of particularity that needs to be provided to the Commissioner in a statement about any loans, grants or donations made by an organisation that exceed $1,000. As detailed above, under current subsections 237(5) and (6), organisations must already disclose the name and address of the person to whom any loan, grant or donation over $1,000 is made and, in the case of loans, the arrangements made for the repayment of the loan. The principal alteration to section 237 is that organisations will now be required [to] provide the same details about loans, grants and donations made to the organisation, as per recommendation 39 of the Royal Commission.
In providing the discretion to the Commissioner to redact private information, the Bill ensures that members are provided with as much transparency as possible about the persons with whom their organisation arranges loans, grants and donations with, whilst also ensuring personal information is protected. Statements provided to the Commissioner in accordance with section 237 would become futile if, in addition to the omission of residential addresses, the Commissioner were required to remove the only other detail that organisations will be required to be provided about loans, grants and donations; the name of the other party involved in the transaction.
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Attorney-General's Department were both consulted during the drafting of the Bill in order to ensure that appropriate attention was directed toward protecting privacy of personal information.
Committee comment
2.108 The committee thanks the Minister for this response. The committee notes the Minister's advice that the proposed amendments to section 237 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the Act) would not add to the level of detail that must currently be provided to the Commissioner in a statement about any loans, grants or donations made by an organisation, but would add a new requirement that the same level of detail be provided about loans, grants and donations made to an organisation.
2.109 The committee also notes the Minister's advice that the effect of proposed subsection 237(4A) would be to require the Commissioner to redact residential addresses from statements prior to their inspection by members, and to give the Commissioner the discretion to redact other personal information from such statements prior to their inspection. The committee further notes the Minister's advice that these provisions would provide transparency for members while also protecting personal information, and that the provision of statements under section 237 of the Act would become futile if the Commissioner were required to redact further personal information.
2.110 The committee requests that the key information provided by the Minister be included in the explanatory memorandum, noting the importance of this document as a point of access to understanding the law and, if needed, as extrinsic material to assist with interpretation (see section 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901).
2.111 In light of the information provided, the committee makes no further comment on this matter.
Initial scrutiny – extract
2.112 The bill seeks to place a number of obligations on the operator of a registered worker entitlement fund with respect to the fund's constitution and the provision of information.[48] Proposed section 329MB seeks to make these obligations subject to the infringement notice regime under Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. Proposed paragraph 329MB(2)(b) and subsection 329MB(3) would allow the Registered Organisations Commissioner (the Commissioner) to delegate the authority to issue infringement notices to any member of staff working for the Registered Organisations Commission (the Commission), which can be any APS level employee.[49] In addition, proposed subsection (3) would allow the Commissioner to authorise any other person assisting the Commissioner, including employees of agencies, officers and employees of a State or Territory or of authorities of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory whose services are available to the Commissioner.
2.113 The committee has consistently drawn attention to legislation that allows the delegation of administrative powers to a relatively large class of persons, with little or no specificity as to their qualifications or attributes. Generally, the committee prefers to see a limit set either on the scope of powers that might be delegated, or on the categories of people to whom those powers might be delegated. The committee's preference is that delegates be confined to the holders of nominated offices or to members of the Senior Executive Service. Where broad delegations are provided for, the committee considers that an explanation of why these are considered necessary should be included in the explanatory memorandum.
2.114 In addition, the committee notes that the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences notes that the legitimacy of an infringement notice scheme depends on the existence of a properly managed process for the issuing of notices and that a common approach is to require that a person issuing the notice possess special attributes, qualifications or qualities and a provision that allows 'an APS employee' to issue a notice is likely to be inappropriate. [50]
2.115 In this instance, the explanatory memorandum states that the delegation of functions with respect to issuing infringement notices will, in practice, be restricted to 'a small group of persons with particular expertise in the regulation of registered organisations and their associated entities.'[51] However, there is nothing in the bill that would limit the delegation of powers to persons with such appropriate expertise.
2.116 The committee considers it may be appropriate to amend the bill to require persons authorised to issue infringement notices be confined to officers that hold special attributes, qualifications or qualities, and seeks the Minister's advice in relation to this.
Minister's response
2.117 The Minister advised:
Effect of proposed subsection 329MB(3)
Proposed paragraph 329MB(2)(b) and subsection 329MB(3) authorise the Commissioner to delegate the authority to issue infringement notices to any member of staff working for the Registered Organisations Commission (the Commission) and any other person assisting the Commissioner.
Issue
The committee considers it may be appropriate to amend the Bill to require persons authorised to issue infringement notices be confined to officers that hold special attributes, qualifications or qualities. The committee's preference is that delegates be confined to the holders of nominated offices or to members of the Senior Executive Service.
Discussion
Upon the successful passage of this Bill, the Commission will have the additional function of managing the regulation and oversight of worker entitlement funds. Given that the Commission is a small agency with a limited number of SES officers, it is appropriate not to limit the Commissioner's power to delegate the ability to issue infringement notices to its SES officers.
Committee comment
2.118 The committee thanks the Minister for this response. The committee notes the Minister's advice that the passage of the bill would give the Commission the additional function of managing the regulation and oversight of worker entitlement funds and that, given the small size of the agency, it is considered inappropriate to limit the Commissioner's ability to delegate the power to issue infringement notices to SES officers.
2.119 The committee does not consider that the small size of the Commission provides a sound justification for allowing the delegation of the power to issue infringement notices to a broad class of people with little or no specificity as to their qualifications or attributes. The committee also does not consider that the small number of SES officers in an agency provides an adequate justification for a broad delegation of administrative powers as it is possible to limit the scope of the delegation by specifying particular attributes, qualifications or qualities delegates will be required to possess.
2.120 The committee reiterates that it considers it would be appropriate to amend the bill to require persons authorised to issue infringement notices be confined to officers that hold special attributes, qualifications or qualities.
2.121 The committee otherwise draws its scrutiny concerns to the attention of Senators and leaves to the Senate as a whole the appropriateness of allowing the broad delegation of a power to issue infringement notices.
Initial scrutiny – extract
2.122 Proposed Subdivision B of Division 4 of proposed Part 3C sets out a deregistration process for non-compliant registered worker entitlement funds. Under proposed section 329MG, where the Commissioner proposes to deregister a fund he or she must give written notice to the fund operator setting out the grounds for and proposed date of deregistration, and inviting submissions from the operator. In deciding to exercise this power, the Commissioner must consider the seriousness of non-compliance, any previous non-compliance with ongoing conditions, whether deregistration would be in the best interests of fund members and whether it may be more appropriate to exercise powers other than deregistration in the circumstances.
2.123 Proposed section 329MK states that this Subdivision is taken to be an exhaustive statement of the requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to the Commissioner's decision to deregister a registered worker entitlement fund.
2.124 The natural justice hearing rule enables the courts to consider whether a hearing provided prior to an adverse decision is fair in the circumstances of the case, including in the statutory context of the power being exercised. If the natural justice hearing rule is excluded, the only available procedural fairness requirements would be those set out in the Subdivision itself. Given that what constitutes a fair hearing is necessarily dependent on the context of the inquiry, the consequence could be that a fund may be deregistered in circumstances where it has not been afforded a fair opportunity to put its case. The explanatory memorandum provides no explanation as to why it is necessary to limit procedural fairness requirements in this way.
2.125 The committee requests the Minister's advice as to why it is necessary and appropriate to exclude aspects of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to the deregistration process.
Minister's response
2.126 The Minister advised:
Effect of proposed section 329MG
Under proposed section 329MG, where the Commissioner proposes to deregister a registered worker entitlement fund, he or she must give written notice to the fund operator setting out the grounds for and proposed date of deregistration, and invite submissions from the operator. Proposed section 329MK states that proposed Subdivision B of Division 5 of Part 3C of Chapter 11 is taken to be an exhaustive statement of the requirements of the natural justice hearing rule.
Issue
The committee considers that a consequence of proposed sections 329MG and 329MK could be that a registered worker entitlement fund may be deregistered in circumstances where it has not been afforded a fair opportunity to put its case. The committee seeks advice as to why it is necessary and appropriate to exclude aspects of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to the deregistration process.
Discussion
Proposed sections 329MG and 329MK are not intended to exclude the natural justice hearing rule. Provision is made in proposed paragraph 329MG(2) for a notice of proposed deregistration to a fund operator to specify the grounds for deregistration and for the operator to be invited to make submissions on the proposed deregistration. Under proposed paragraphs 329MH(1)(c) and 329MI(1)(c), the Commissioner must consider any submissions before deciding whether a condition of registration has not been, or is not being, complied with. These provisions ensure that a fund operator has a fair opportunity to put its case should the Commissioner propose that a fund be deregistered and ensure that due consideration is given to submissions before any decision is taken.
In addition, proposed paragraph 329NI(b) provides for application for Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) review of deregistration decisions. This reinforces natural justice requirements for an operator to be heard on decisions concerning deregistration of a worker entitlement fund and for due consideration to be given to the submissions of an operator. Under section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, an application for AAT review may be made on grounds including improper exercise of power or failing to take a relevant consideration into account.
Committee comment
2.127 The committee thanks the Minister for this response. The committee notes the Minister's advice that proposed sections 329MG and 329MK are not intended to exclude the natural justice hearing rule. The committee also notes the Minister's advice that there is provision for a notice to be given to a fund operator before a decision is made, for the operator to be invited to make submissions and for the Commissioner to consider any submissions before making a decision, which ensures that a fund operator has a fair opportunity to put its case should the Commissioner propose that a fund be deregistered.
2.128 The committee notes that the Minister's response does not address why proposed section 329MK, which provides that the Subdivision is taken to be an exhaustive statement of the requirements of the natural justice hearing rule, is necessary and appropriate. The committee reiterates that the natural justice hearing rule enables the courts to consider whether a hearing provided prior to an adverse decision is fair in the circumstances of the case, including in the statutory context of the power being exercised. Proposed section 329MK would mean that the only applicable procedural fairness requirements are those set out in the Subdivision. The committee reiterates that given what constitutes a fair hearing is necessarily dependent on the context of the inquiry, the consequence of proposed section 329MK may mean that a fund may be deregistered in circumstances where it has not been afforded a fair hearing. For example, procedural fairness may require, in the circumstances of a particular case, that a submission received after the specified deadline be considered as part of the inquiry, yet proposed paragraph 329MI(1)(c) would only require the Commissioner to consider a submission made by the specified deadline.
2.129 In the absence of a satisfactory response as to why it is necessary and appropriate to provide that proposed Subdivision B provides an exhaustive statement of the natural justice hearing rule, the committee draws its scrutiny concerns to the attention of Senators and leaves to the Senate as a whole the appropriateness of excluding aspects of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to the deregistration process.
Initial scrutiny – extract
2.130 Proposed section 329NI lists a number of decisions made by the Commissioner that are reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). However, this does not include decisions taken under proposed section 329MA. Proposed section 329MA seeks to provide the Commissioner with the power to direct the operator of a registered worker entitlement fund to take, or stop taking, one or more actions. As it is not listed in proposed section 329NI, such decisions are not subject to any form of merits review. The explanatory memorandum justifies this exclusion on the grounds that the decisions taken under proposed section 329MA are of a law enforcement nature.[54] However, it is not clear to the committee that decisions made under proposed section 329MA are akin to law enforcement decisions. The decision the Commissioner takes is based on whether a condition of registration is being breached and the Commissioner must be satisfied that issuing a notice would be in the best interests of the fund's contributors or members. It is not clear to the committee that these determinations are of a law enforcement nature.
2.131 The committee requests the Minister's more detailed explanation of why decisions taken under proposed section 329MA are considered to be of a law enforcement nature and therefore appropriate for excluding merits review.
Minister's response
2.132 The Minister advised:
Effect of proposed section 329MA
Proposed section 329MA provides the Commissioner with the power to direct the operator of a registered worker entitlement fund to take, or stop taking, one or more actions relating to compliance with an ongoing condition for registration or to ensure that a report, notice, information or statement given in accordance with an ongoing condition for registration is not false or misleading. It is one of a suite of measures intended to ensure compliance with the conditions for registration and is an alternative to the provision in proposed section 329MG for the Commissioner to give notice of a proposed deregistration.
Issue
The committee seeks an explanation as to why decisions taken under proposed section 329MA are considered to be of a law enforcement nature and therefore appropriate for exclusion of merits review.
Discussion
Decisions under proposed section 329MA are directed towards ensuring compliance with the conditions for registration of a worker entitlement fund that are set out in the table of conditions in proposed section 329LA and are thus properly characterise[d] as law enforcement in nature.
Decisions under proposed section 329MA are also subject to separate review processes not administered by the Commissioner. For example, non-compliance with a direction issued by the Commissioner under proposed subsection 329MA(1) is subject to a civil liability action under subsection 329MA(3). Review of a decision under proposed section 329MA is available in the Federal Court and the operator of a worker entitlement fund can explain its decision not to comply with a direction in relation to taking, or to stop taking, one or more actions. In addition, decisions of the Commissioner to direct an operator of a worker entitlement fund to take, or stop taking, one or more actions are subject to review by the Federal Court under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 or the High Court under section 75(v) of the Constitution.
Committee comment
2.133 The committee thanks the Minister for this response. The committee notes the Minister's advice that decisions taken under proposed section 329MA are directed towards ensuring compliance with the conditions for registration of a worker entitlement fund and are thus properly characterised as law enforcement in nature. The committee also notes the Minister's advice that non-compliance with a direction given under proposed section 329MA is subject to a civil liability action and judicial review of the Commissioner's direction under proposed section 329MA is available.
2.134 The committee notes that the decision under proposed section 329MA of the Commissioner to give a notice to an operator to take, or stop taking, a specified action may be taken to ensure a condition is being complied with or to ensure certain reports are not false or misleading. Before giving such a notice the Commissioner must be satisfied that issuing a notice would be in the best interests of the fund's contributors or members. It is not unclear to the committee that these determinations are of a law enforcement nature, and it remains unclear why it would be inappropriate to allow merits review of the Commissioner's decision.
2.135 In the absence of a satisfactory response as to why decisions under proposed section 329MA are considered to be of a law enforcement nature, the committee draws its scrutiny concerns to the attention of Senators and leaves to the Senate as a whole the appropriateness of excluding merits review for decisions made under this section.
Initial scrutiny – extract
2.136 Proposed section 329NF seeks to provide the Commissioner with the power to require a person to produce documents or information relevant to determining whether a registered worker entitlement fund has complied or is complying with its ongoing conditions of registration, or with requirements concerning final reports following deregistration.
2.137 Proposed subsection 329NF(4) seeks to make a failure to comply with a notice from the Commissioner an offence subject to a maximum punishment of 30 penalty units. Proposed subsection 329NF(5) provides an exception (offence specific defence) to this offence, stating that the offence does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.
2.138 Subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 provides that a defendant who wishes to rely on any exception, exemption, excuse, qualification or justification bears an evidential burden in relation to that matter.
2.139 At common law, it is ordinarily the duty of the prosecution to prove all elements of an offence. This is an important aspect of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Provisions that reverse the burden of proof and require a defendant to disprove, or raise evidence to disprove, one or more elements of an offence, interferes with this common law right.
2.140 While in this instance the defendant bears an evidential burden (requiring the defendant to raise evidence about the matter), rather than a legal burden (requiring the defendant to positively prove the matter), the committee expects any such reversal of the evidential burden of proof to be justified.
2.141 In this instance, the explanatory memorandum describes proposed section 329NF as providing for a civil penalty and so does not address the question of why it is proposed to reverse the burden of proof.[56] However, proposed section 329NF clearly appears to impose a criminal, not civil, penalty to a person who fails to comply with a notice requiring the person to give or produce certain information or documents.[57]
2.142 As the explanatory materials do not adequately address this issue, the committee requests the Minister's advice as to why it is proposed to use an offence-specific defence (which reverses the evidential burden of proof) in this instance. The committee's consideration of the appropriateness of a provision which reverses the burden of proof is assisted if it explicitly addresses relevant principles as set out in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences.[58] The committee also requests the Minister's clarification as to whether it is intended that this provision be subject to a civil or criminal penalty.
Minister's response
2.143 The Minister advised:
Effect of proposed subsection 329NF(5)
Proposed section 329NF provides the Commissioner with the power to give a notice requiring a person to produce specified documents or information relevant to determining whether an ongoing condition of worker entitlement fund registration has been or is being complied with or whether a deregistered fund has complied with the requirements of proposed section 329NC in relation to final reports after deregistration.
Proposed subsection 329NF(4) provides that it is an offence for a person who has been provided with a notice to give information or produce documents, to not do so. Proposed subsection 329NF(5) provides an exception to this offence, where the person has a reasonable excuse.
Issue
The committee has requested advice as to why it is proposed to use an offence-specific defence in subsection 329NF(5). The Committee is concerned that this provision reverses the evidential burden of proof and asks for a response that explicitly addresses the relevant principles of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences (the Guide). The Committee has also sought clarification as to whether it is intended that proposed subsection 329NF(4) be subject to a civil or criminal penalty.
Discussion
It is intended that proposed subsection 329NF(4) be subject to a criminal penalty.
The offence-specific defence of reasonable excuse in proposed subsection 329NF(5) puts an onus on a defendant to give a reason or reasons why they did not do as they were required to do and requires a consideration of the excuse put forward. The existence of a reason to not give information or not produce documents would be a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of a defendant. It would also be significantly more difficult and costly for the prosecution to disprove that a defendant has a reasonable excuse than for a defendant to establish a reasonable excuse. These factors satisfy the principles in the Guide applicable to the inclusion of offence-specific defences.[59]
The appropriate burden of proof applies to the offence-specific defence in proposed subsection 329NF(5). The principle in the Guide is that an evidential burden should generally apply to an offence-specific defence.[60]
Proposed subsection 329NF(5) does not impose a legal burden of proof upon a defendant as it is not expressed to do so (section 13.4 of the Criminal Code). On this basis a defendant has the burden of adducing or pointing to some evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the matter exists or does not exist (subsection 13.3(6) of the Criminal Code). If the defendant meets this evidential burden, the prosecution then has to refute the defence beyond reasonable doubt (subsection 13.1(2) and section 13.2 of the Criminal Code).
It is appropriate that the offence-specific defence of 'reasonable excuse' be applied to the offence in proposed subsection 329NF(4). The principle in the Guide is that such a defence should not be applied unless it is not possible to rely on the general defences in the Criminal Code (such as duress, mistake or ignorance of fact, intervening conduct or event, and lawful authority) or to design more specific defences.[61] It is not possible to rely on the general defences in the Criminal Code as these are too narrow to encompass all the circumstances of what may be a reasonable excuse. It is therefore preferable to defer the evaluation of the reasonableness of an excuse to the discretion of the Court.
Committee comment
2.144 The committee thanks the Minister for this response. The committee notes the Minister's advice that it is intended that proposed subsection 329NF(4) be subject to a criminal penalty, and that whether a person has a reasonable excuse as to why they did not give information or produce documents is a matter peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge and it would be significantly more difficult and costly for the prosecution to disprove.
2.145 The committee requests that the key information provided by the Minister (including correcting the incorrect reference to the provisions as being subject to a civil penalty), be included in the explanatory memorandum, noting the importance of this document as a point of access to understanding the law and, if needed, as extrinsic material to assist with interpretation (see section 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901).
2.146 In light of the information provided, the committee makes no further comment on this matter.
[42] See correspondence relating to Scrutiny Digest No. 15 of 2017 available at: www.aph.gov.au/senate_scrutiny_digest
[43] Schedule 1, item 6. The committee draws Senators’ attention to this provision pursuant to principle 1(a)(i) of the committee’s terms of reference.
[44] See Schedule 1, item 10.
[45] Explanatory memorandum, p. 5.
[46] Statement of compatibility, p. xiii.
[47] Schedule 2, item 13, proposed section 329MB. The committee draws Senators’ attention to this provision pursuant to principle 1(a)(ii) of the committee’s terms of reference.
[48] See Schedule 2, item 13, proposed sections 329ME and 329MF.
[49] See section 329CA of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009.
[50] Attorney-General's Department, A Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, September 2011, p. 60.
[51] Explanatory Memorandum, p. 27.
[52] Schedule 2, item 13, proposed section 329MK. The committee draws Senators’ attention to this provision pursuant to principle 1(a)(i) of the committee’s terms of reference.
[53] Schedule 2, item 13, proposed section 329NI. The committee draws Senators’ attention to this provision pursuant to principle 1(a)(iii) of the committee’s terms of reference.
[54] Explanatory memorandum, p. 31.
[55] Schedule 2, item 13, proposed section 329NF. The committee draws Senators’ attention to this provision pursuant to principle 1(a)(i) of the committee’s terms of reference.
[56] Explanatory memorandum, p. 30.
[57] See paragraph 4D(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 which provides that a penalty set out at the foot of any provision of an Act, where the provision does not expressly create an offence, indicates that contravention of the provision is an offence against the provision.
[58] Attorney-General's Department, A Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, September 2011, pp 50-52.
[59] Attorney-General's Department, A Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, September 2001, p. 50.
[60] Attorney-General's Department, A Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, September 2001, p. 51.
[61] Attorney-General's Department, A Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, September 2001, p. 52.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AUSStaCSBSD/2017/413.html
