|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills - Scrutiny Digests |
|
Purpose
|
This bill seeks to amend various Acts to improve the legal frameworks
applying to the territories of Norfolk Island, Christmas Island,
the Cocos
(Keeling Islands) and the Jervis Bay Territory
|
|
Portfolio
|
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications
|
|
Introduced
|
House of Representatives on 7 October 2020
|
|
Bill status
|
Before the House of Representatives
|
2.112 In Scrutiny Digest 15 of 2020 the committee requested the minister's advice as to:
• why it is considered necessary and appropriate to allow for such a broad delegation of a person or authority's powers under these provisions;
• whether the bill can be amended to provide some legislative guidance as to the scope of powers that might be delegated, or the categories of people to whom those powers might be delegated; and
• whether the bill can be amended to require that the minister or the relevant person or authority be satisfied that persons exercising delegated powers have the appropriate expertise and qualifications to exercise those delegated powers.[47]
Minister's response[48]
2.113 The minister advised:
As discussed in the explanatory memorandum of the Bill, proposed subsections 8G(5) of the CI Act and the CKI Act, as well as proposed subsection 18B(5) of the NI Act, are based on existing provisions of these Acts, which deal with the delegation of powers vested in the minister under applied state or territory laws. These applied laws arrangements have been in place in the Indian Ocean Territories since 1992 and Norfolk Island since 2016.
The laws of Western Australia, as in force from time to time in that State, are applied in the Indian Ocean Territories, while presently, the laws of New South Wales, as in force from time in that State, are applied in Norfolk Island. These applied laws regimes provide that non-judicial powers and duties under these applied laws are vested in the minister, who has a capacity to delegate the powers, or direct that they be delegated, to some other person or authority.
Considering the potential breadth and scope of the powers and duties conferred by these applied laws upon the minister, which could, in practice, extend to all the non-judicial powers and duties contained in the laws of a state or territory, it is necessary and appropriate for the minister to have a broad delegation power to ensure that these powers are exercised effectively at an appropriate level. If the minister was constrained in his or her ability to delegate these powers there is a risk that these applied laws may not be properly or effectively administered in the external territories.
Similarly, it would not be appropriate to amend the Bill to provide some legislative guidance as to the delegation of these powers or that the minister or relevant person or authority be expressly satisfied that the persons exercising delegated powers have the appropriate expertise and qualification to exercise those delegated powers. Again, considering the potential breadth and scope of these powers and duties under these applied laws, it is desirable to allow significant discretion with respect to this delegation power. This is because the circumstances for which it may be appropriate to delegate these powers are not certain and cannot necessarily be foreseen. Similarly, it is impractical and restrictive to anticipate the factors with respect to these applied laws that the minister or relevant person or authority may consider when determining whether persons exercising delegated powers have the appropriate expertise and qualification to exercise those delegate powers.
Finally, it should be noted that in circumstances where there is an arrangement between the Commonwealth and a state or territory to administer the laws in force in the external territory, that the state or territory official, with the corresponding power in the relevant state or territory, will ordinarily exercise the delegated powers of the minister (see proposed subsections 8G(5A) of the CI Act and the CKI Act and proposed subsection 18B(5A) of the NI Act). This is the case in the Indian Ocean Territories, where under service delivery arrangements between the Commonwealth and Western Australia, Western Australian officials routinely exercise a range of functions and powers under applied Western Australian laws as in force in these territories in the same way that they would in Western Australia.
2.114 The committee thanks the minister for this response. The committee notes the minister's advice that, in light of the potential breadth and scope of the powers and duties under the applied laws, it is necessary and appropriate for the minister to have a broad delegation power to ensure that these powers are exercised effectively at an appropriate level. The committee also notes the minister’s advice that in circumstances where there is an arrangement between the Commonwealth and a state or territory to administer the laws in force in the external territory, that the state or territory official, with the corresponding power in the relevant state or territory, will ordinarily exercise the delegated powers of the minister, and that the circumstances for which it may be appropriate for the minister to delegate powers under the applied laws are not certain and cannot necessarily be foreseen.
2.115 The committee requests that an addendum to the explanatory memorandum containing the key information provided by the minister be tabled in the Parliament as soon as practicable, noting the importance of these explanatory materials 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).
2.116 In light of the information provided, the committee makes no further comment on this matter.
2.117 In Scrutiny Digest 15 of 2020 the committee requested the minister's advice as to why it is considered necessary and appropriate to allow regulations to determine which state or territory laws will be in force on Norfolk Island, and which state and territory courts will have jurisdiction to hear and determine matters in relation to Norfolk Island.[50]
Minister's response
2.118 The minister advised:
New South Wales (NSW) has announced that the existing arrangements in Norfolk Island, under which it provides some state-type education and health support services, will cease by the end of 2021. In light of this, the Australian Government is considering its options with respect to the future provision of state-type services in Norfolk Island and is currently involved in confidential government-to-government negotiations with a number of jurisdictions about possible future state-type service delivery options in Norfolk Island.
Accordingly, the applied laws amendments are intended to provide a flexible legal mechanism under which the laws of a state or territory may be applied as Commonwealth law in Norfolk Island and will enable state-type service arrangements to be entered into with a state or territory. These applied laws arrangements are intended to operate in a similar way to the existing applied NSW laws arrangements. An ‘applied law jurisdiction’, being NSW or another state or territory, may be prescribed by regulations made under the Act. The laws of a jurisdiction would only be applied when there is an agreement in place between the relevant state or territory and the Government.
Amendments in relation to the jurisdiction of Norfolk Island courts complement the proposed amendments to the NI Act which allow state or territory laws to be applied in Norfolk Island. The provisions to permit the courts of a prescribed state or territory to have jurisdiction in relation to Norfolk Island would only be utilised if the Australian Government entered into an agreement with a state or territory government for the delivery of state-type services and it was considered appropriate for the courts of that jurisdiction to also operate in Norfolk Island. Where a state or territory government was delivering most or all state-type services in Norfolk Island under the laws of that state or territory, it may be appropriate for the courts of that state or territory to adjudicate on matters arising under those laws.
In light of the present circumstances regarding the provision of state-type services in Norfolk Island, it is considered necessary and appropriate to allow regulations to determine which state or territory laws will be in force in Norfolk Island. Prescribing these matters in regulations will allow these arrangements to be implemented in a timely manner if agreement is achieved between the relevant state or territory and the Government. If provision for these matters were to be included in primary legislation there is risk of a delay in implementing state-type arrangements which would have an adverse effect on the provision of state-type services to the community in Norfolk Island.
Further, any regulations prescribing these matters are disallowable by a single House of Parliament acting alone, and are subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny, including the Senate Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee. As legislative instruments, section 17 of the Legislation Act 2003 requires that the instrument-maker be satisfied that appropriate consultation has occurred. For instance, should a decision be made in the future to transfer the jurisdiction of the Norfolk Island courts to the courts of another Australian state and territory, then there would be consultation with all relevant parties to inform development of a comprehensive transition plan, with justice system administrators being a key part of that process.
Committee comment
2.119 The committee thanks the minister for this response. The committee notes the minister's advice that the applied laws amendments are intended to provide a flexible legal mechanism under which laws of a state or territory may be applied in Norfolk Island, and that the laws of a jurisdiction would only be applied when there is an agreement in place between the relevant state or territory and the Commonwealth government. The minister advised that, if provision for these matters were to be included in primary legislation, there is a risk that the implementation of state-type arrangements would be delayed, which would have an adverse effect the provision of state-type services to the community in Norfolk Island.
2.120 The committee also notes the minister’s advice that the provisions to permit the courts of a prescribed state or territory to have jurisdiction in relation to Norfolk Island would only be utilised if the Commonwealth government entered into an agreement with a state or territory government for the delivery of state-type services and it was considered appropriate for the courts of that jurisdiction to also operate in Norfolk Island.
2.121 The committee reiterates its view that significant matters, such as the determination of which laws will be in force on Norfolk Island and which state or territory courts will have jurisdiction for Norfolk Island, should be included in primary legislation unless a sound justification for the use of delegated legislation is provided. In this instance, while the minister’s response notes a risk of delay in the implementation of arrangements for the provision of services to the Norfolk Island community, it is not clear to the committee that the determination of applied laws for Norfolk Island would need to occur on a regular basis. The committee considers that a new bill to set out the 'applied law jurisdiction' and the state or territory whose courts will be conferred with jurisdiction in relation to Norfolk Island should be introduced into the Parliament in the future. Such a bill could, if necessary and with appropriate parliamentary support, be passed through the Parliament quickly to ensure continuity of services on Norfolk Island.
2.122 The committee requests that an addendum to the explanatory memorandum containing the key information provided by the minister be tabled in the Parliament as soon as practicable, noting the importance of these explanatory materials 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).
2.123 The committee draws its scrutiny concerns to the attention of senators and leaves to the Senate as a whole the appropriateness of allowing regulations to set out which laws will be in force on Norfolk Island and which state or territory courts will have jurisdiction for Norfolk Island.
2.124 In Scrutiny Digest 15 of 2020 the committee requested the minister's advice regarding: why it is appropriate to specify that instruments made under proposed sections 18B and 18D are not legislative instruments, and whether the bill could be amended to provide that these instruments are legislative instruments to ensure that they are subject to appropriate parliamentary oversight.[52]
Minister's response
2.125 The minister advised:
The instruments made under section 18B, as amended, and proposed section 18D, deal with a range of matters relating to the vesting and delegation of powers under applied state and territory laws in Norfolk Island. Proposed subsections 18B(13) and 18D(13) respectively provide that an instrument made under section 18B or 18D is not a legislative instrument. These provisions are based on existing subsection 18B(11) of the NI Act which similarly provides that an instrument made under this section is not a legislative instrument.
I note that subsections 8(1) and (4) of the Legislation Act 2003 have the combined effect that an instrument that is made under a power delegated by Parliament and has one or more provisions that have legislative character (rather than administrative character) will be a legislative instrument: unless the relevant Act expressly exempts the instrument from being a legislative instrument.
In Visa International Services Association v Reserve Bank of Australia [2003] FCA 977; (2003) 131 FCR 300 at 424 (Visa International), the Federal Court identified a number of factors that are likely to have bearing on whether a decision is to be characterised as being of administrative or legislative character. The list included (at paragraph 592):
• whether the decision determined rules of general application, or whether there was an application of rules to particular cases;
• whether there was Parliamentary control of the decision;
• whether there was public notification of the making of the decision;
• whether there was public consultation;
• whether there were broad policy considerations imposed;
• whether the regulations (or other instrument) could be varied;
• whether there was power of executive variation or control;
• whether there was provision for merits review; and
• whether there was binding effect.
The case law makes it clear that not one of these factors will determine whether the decision is of an administrative or legislative character. Rather, it is necessary to consider the decision in light of all these factors.
Legislative and administrative decisions can also be broadly distinguished between legislative decisions which determine the content of the law and administrative decisions which apply the law in particular cases (Roche Products Pty Limited v National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee [2007] FCA 1352; (2007) 163 FCR 451 per Branson J).
Applying these factors to the instruments made under sections 18B and 18D, I am satisfied that none of these instruments determine the content of the law. Notably, these instruments deal with the vesting, delegating or directing of powers otherwise vested in the minister and other persons under applied state or territory laws. In this respect, the instruments are of an administrative character, dealing with the application or carrying out of these powers, and do not determine or alter the content of these delegated, vested or otherwise directed powers.
Furthermore, there is no public consultation required for making the instrument, nor is there any requirement to notify the public when the instrument is made. The policy considerations imposed are narrow, being confined to the administration of these applied laws, and do not otherwise generally affect the public.
In any case, I also note that an instrument of delegation, including any directions to the delegate, as well as an instrument that is a direction to a delegate are classes of instruments that are not legislative instruments for the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003: see Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015 (the Regulation), items 1 and 2 of the table in subsection 6(1). The explanatory statement to the Regulation explains that delegations, including directions to the delegate, ‘are administrative in character, as they facilitate the carrying out of powers and functions but do not alter the scope or effect of those powers and functions.’
In light of this, I consider that the instruments made under section 18B and 18D will be instruments of an administrative character, rather than a legislative character. The statements in proposed subsections 18B(13) and 18D(13), that the relevant instruments are not legislative instruments, are declarations of the law and do not provide an exemption from the Legislation Act 2003.
However, because the legislative versus administrative character test is complex, the declaratory statement is intended to assist readers of the Bill to understand that the instruments are not legislative instruments.
Committee comment
2.126 The committee thanks the minister for this response. The committee notes the minister's advice that, taking into account factors set out in case law, the minister considers that the instruments made under section 18B and 18D will be instruments of an administrative character, rather than a legislative character. The committee also notes the minister’s advice that the statements in proposed subsections 18B(13) and 18D(13), that the relevant instruments are not legislative instruments, are declarations of the law intended to assist readers of the bill, and do not provide an exemption from the Legislation Act 2003.
2.127 The committee requests that an addendum to the explanatory memorandum containing the key information provided by the minister be tabled in the Parliament as soon as practicable, noting the importance of these explanatory materials 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).
2.128 In light of the detailed information provided, the committee makes no further comment on this matter.
2.129 In Scrutiny Digest 15 of 2020 the committee requested the minister's advice as to whether the bill can be amended to include additional protections to protect the rights of an accused person whose trial is held in a prescribed state or territory, rather than on Norfolk Island.[54]
Minister's response
2.130 The minister advised:
As discussed in the explanatory memorandum, these provisions dealing with the criminal jurisdiction of the courts of a prescribed state or territory with respect to Norfolk Island are modelled on 2018 amendments to the NI Act, contained in the Investigation and Prosecution Measures Act 2018, which similarly authorise the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island to hear criminal trials outside Norfolk Island in its criminal jurisdiction if the court is satisfied that the interests of justice require it.
The Committee expresses concern that these measures may, over time, have the effect of reducing the number of criminal trials held in Norfolk Island and have the potential of limiting access to justice in Norfolk Island for accused persons, including by creating barriers to accessing legal representation, evidence and trial support. In light of this, the Committee requests whether the Bill can be amended to include additional protections to protect the rights of an accused person whose trial is held in a prescribed state or territory, rather than in Norfolk Island.
It should be noted that the proposed provisions to permit the courts of a prescribed state or territory to have jurisdiction in relation to Norfolk Island would only be utilised if the Government entered into an agreement with a state or territory government for the delivery of state-type services and it was considered appropriate for the courts of that jurisdiction to also operate in Norfolk Island. Where a state or territory government was delivering most or all state-type services in Norfolk Island under the laws of that state or territory, it may be appropriate for the courts of that state or territory to adjudicate on matters arising under those laws.
This is the same as the situation in Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands where the courts of Western Australia have jurisdiction as if these external territories were part of Western Australia. Similar to the proposed provisions of the NI Act, provisions in the CI Act and the CKI Act provide that the Supreme Court of Western Australia may, when exercising its criminal jurisdiction with respect to these external territories, conduct criminal trials in Western Australia if the court is satisfied that the interests of justice require it.
If these provisions were ever utilised in the future, I do not consider that they would substantially change the manner in which the courts presently exercise their criminal jurisdiction in Norfolk Island or limit access to justice in Norfolk Island for accused persons. As is presently the case, serious criminal trials would only take place outside Norfolk Island in circumstances where the interests of justice require it, for instance where there are concerns about the ability to empanel an impartial local jury. Many of the existing services of the Norfolk Island courts are already delivered remotely by judicial officers sitting on the mainland and it is expected that these arrangements would continue.
In response to the Committee’s concerns about access, I note that courts serving remote communities, like Norfolk Island, adopt a range of practices to ensure appropriate access to justice, including circuit visits and the use of technology such as telephone and video conferencing. In practice, if these provisions were ever utilised in the future, the experience of defendants and practitioners would be very similar to the present administration of the Norfolk Island courts. Legal aid would continue to be available.
Also consistent with present arrangements, an accused required to be remanded for significant periods would be transferred to the mainland. This is because Norfolk Island has very limited remand facilities and this would not change under any future criminal justice arrangements.
I also do not think it is appropriate to further restrict the discretion of judicial officers when considering whether the hearing of a criminal trial in a prescribed state or territory, rather than Norfolk Island, is in the interests of justice. The judiciary is best placed to consider these factors on a case by case basis and case law indicates that these factors will include the court considering any potential hardship on the accused, including potential reduced access to witnesses or evidence. Under the proposed provisions, the accused can make submissions to the court on whether a trial should be heard in a prescribed state or territory, rather than Norfolk Island, including making submissions on access to legal representation, evidence and trial support in their specific circumstances. It is impractical and restrictive to anticipate the factors that a court may legitimately consider when determining this matter in practice, on a case by case basis. Accordingly, if further provision for these matters were to be expressly included in primary legislation there is the risk that such factors may, in restricting judicial discretion, lead to inadvertent or perverse outcomes and may actually work against the interests of justice.
In light of these circumstances, I do not consider it necessary to amend the Bill to include additional protections to protect the rights of an accused person whose trial is held in a prescribed state or territory, rather than in Norfolk Island.
Committee comment
2.131 The committee thanks the minister for this response. The committee notes the minister's advice that it is more appropriate for the judiciary to consider, on a case by case basis, whether the hearing of a criminal trial in a prescribed state or territory, rather than Norfolk Island, is in the interests of justice. The minister advised that restricting judicial discretion through express provision for these matters in primary legislation may lead to inadvertent or perverse outcomes.
2.132 The committee also notes the minister’s advice that the accused will be able to make submissions to the court on whether a trial should be heard in a prescribed state or territory, rather than Norfolk Island, including making submissions on access to legal representation, evidence and trial support in their specific circumstances. The minister further advised that case law indicates that factors for the court to consider in relation to this issue will include any potential hardship on the accused, including potential reduced access to witnesses or evidence under the proposed provisions.
2.133 The committee requests that an addendum to the explanatory memorandum containing the key information provided by the minister be tabled in the Parliament as soon as practicable, noting the importance of these explanatory materials 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).
2.134 In light of the information provided, the committee makes no further comment on this matter.
2.135 In Scrutiny Digest 15 of 2020 the committee requested the minister's advice as to:
• why it is necessary and appropriate to leave significant matters, such as exemptions from the requirements of the Privacy Act, to delegated legislation, noting the potential impact on the privacy of individuals;
• whether the bill can be amended to include at least high-level guidance in relation to when the exemption power may be used; and
• how the minister will assess whether the relevant state or territory jurisdiction has equivalent or substantially similar privacy protections as provided for under the Privacy Act.[56]
Minister's response
2.136 The minister advised:
Proposed subsection 6(5A) of the Privacy Act will potentially allow the minister, by legislative instrument, to exempt a body, office or appointment, established by or under a law of a state or territory as in force in an external territory, from the definition of ‘agency’ (see proposed paragraphs 6(1)(ca) or 6(1)(ea) of the definition of ‘agency’). The effect of any such instrument would be to exclude these entities from the requirements of the Privacy Act which operate with respect to a range of Commonwealth entities and officials, such as Commonwealth ministers and their departments.
The amendments made to the Privacy Act by the Bill will clarify its application with respect to this very small category of public entities established under applied laws in the external territories. In this context, the minister’s power to exempt any of these bodies from the definition of ‘agency’ is expected to be rarely used. As discussed in the explanatory memorandum, the minister would only exempt where the relevant body, office or appointment would be subject to an applied state or territory law which provides equivalent, or substantially similar, requirements regarding the use of personal information by public bodies, for instance, the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) which regulates the use of personal information with respect to local government councils in NSW.
These amendments ensure that these public entities and officials are subject to the operation of appropriate privacy legislation but recognise that in certain circumstances, it may be more appropriate for the relevant entity or official to be subject to the privacy law requirements of the applied state or territory law instead of the Privacy Act. This is consistent with Government policy that public bodies in the external territories, such as local government bodies, which are established and regulated by an applied state and territory should be subject to the same regulatory environment as equivalent bodies in the relevant state or territory. These arrangements are important for ensuring that with respect to any state-type service delivery arrangements agreed by the Commonwealth with a state or territory, that the relevant state or territory official may administer these applied laws consistently with the operation of these laws in their home jurisdiction.
The applied laws regimes which apply in the external territories are dynamic and subject to change, because laws apply in the external territories as they are in force from time to time in their original jurisdiction. The administration of applied laws is dependent on state-type service delivery arrangements entered into with state or territory governments which are also subject to change over time. Accordingly, the use of delegated legislation to exempt bodies established and regulated by these applied laws is appropriate in this context as it allows these arrangements to be adjusted relatively quickly as circumstances change. If provision for these matters were to be included in primary legislation there is the risk that such exemptions may quickly become redundant or inappropriate as circumstances change.
Further, any legislative instrument made by the minister pursuant to proposed subsection 6(5A) of the Privacy Act is disallowable by a single House of Parliament acting alone, and subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny, including the Senate Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee. The minister will be obliged in any explanatory statement to justify the making of the instrument, including any reasoning that the relevant entity will be subject to an applied state or territory law which provides equivalent, or substantially similar, requirements regarding the use of personal information as the Privacy Act, as well as recording any relevant consultation undertaken. In making this assessment, the minister would consult relevant stakeholders, including the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
Given the special context of the applied laws regimes in the external territories, and noting the oversight mechanisms available to Parliament, the use of delegated legislation here remains appropriate. Accordingly, I do not consider it necessary to amend the Bill to include additional high-level guidance in relation to when this exemption power may be used. However, acknowledging the views of the Committee, my Department will carefully monitor these arrangements.
Committee comment
2.137 The committee thanks the minister for this response. The committee notes the minister's advice regarding the government's policy that public bodies in the external territories which are established and regulated by an applied state or territory should be subject to the same regulatory environment as equivalent bodies in the relevant state or territory. The minister advised that these arrangements are important for ensuring that state or territory officials may administer applied laws consistently with the operation of these laws in their home jurisdiction.
2.138 The committee also notes the minister's advice that, in making an assessment of whether the relevant entity will be subject to an applied state or territory law which provides equivalent, or substantially similar, requirements regarding the use of personal information as the Privacy Act, the minister would consult relevant stakeholders, including the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. The committee notes, however, that such consultation is not required in the bill or elsewhere in the Privacy Act 1988.
2.139 The committee requests that an addendum to the explanatory memorandum containing the key information provided by the minister be tabled in the Parliament as soon as practicable, noting the importance of these explanatory materials 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).
2.140 In light of the information provided by the minister, and with reference to the committee’s scrutiny concerns in relation to this matter outlined in Scrutiny Digest 15 of 2020, the committee requests the minister's further advice as to whether the bill can be amended to provide that the minister must consult with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner before making an instrument to exempt a body, office or appointment for the purposes of proposed paragraphs 6(1)(ca) or 6(1)(ea) of the definition of 'agency' in the Privacy Act 1988.
[46] Schedule 1, item 14, proposed subsection 8G(5) of the Christmas Island Act 1958; Schedule 1, item 40, proposed subsection 8G(5) of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955; Schedule 1, item 66, proposed subsection 18B(5) of the Norfolk Island Act 1979. The committee draws senators’ attention to these provisions pursuant to Senate Standing Order 24(1)(a)(ii).
[47] Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Scrutiny Digest 15 of 2020, pp. 40-41.
[48] The minister responded to the committee's comments in a letter dated 24 November 2020. A copy of the letter is available on the committee's website: see correspondence relating to Scrutiny Digest 17 of 2020 available at: www.aph.gov.au/senate_scrutiny_digest
[49] Schedule 1, item 57, proposed subsection 5(2) and Schedule 1, item 81, proposed subsections 60AA(1) and (2). The committee draws senators’ attention to these provisions pursuant to Senate Standing Order 24(1)(a)(iv).
[50] Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Scrutiny Digest 15 of 2020, pp. 41-42.
[51] Schedule 1, items 67 and 72, proposed subsections 18B(1) and 18D(13). The committee draws senators’ attention to these provisions pursuant to Senate Standing Order 24(1)(a)(v).
[52] Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Scrutiny Digest 15 of 2020, p. 43.
[53] Schedule 1, item 112, proposed section 60C. The committee draws senators’ attention to this provision pursuant to Senate Standing Order 24(1)(a)(i).
[54] Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Scrutiny Digest 15 of 2020, pp. 44-46.
[55] Schedule 3, item 60, proposed subsection 6(5A). The committee draws senators’ attention to this provision pursuant to Senate Standing Order 24(1)(a)(i) and (iv).
[56] Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Scrutiny Digest 15 of 2020, pp. 46-47.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AUSStaCSBSD/2020/222.html