|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills - Scrutiny Digests |
1.25 On 5 February 2025, the House of Representatives agreed to two Government amendments.
1.26 Section 106ZPQ of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (the Health Insurance Act) currently abrogates the privilege against self-incrimination by providing that persons are not entitled to refuse to produce documents on the grounds that production of documents might tend to incriminate them. A person may be required under that Act to produce such information or documents as part of a review into the provision of services involving a Medicare or dental benefit. However, use and derivative use immunity is applicable in relation to documents and information obtained except for proceedings for an offence of providing false or misleading documents. A use immunity provides that information or documents produced are not admissible in evidence in most proceedings. By contrast, a derivative use immunity provides that anything obtained as a direct, or indirect, consequence of the information or documents is not admissible in most proceedings.
1.27 Item 19 of amendment (2) seeks to amend this provision to limit when the existing use and derivative use immunities are applicable. This would mean that any information, document or other material obtained under this provision is applicable in the following proceedings:
• for offences for failing to produce documents or give information or for producing false or misleading documents;
• before a Committee or the Determining Authority;
• to recover an amount that is recoverable as a debt to the Commonwealth or otherwise required to be repaid to the Commonwealth; and
• any other proceedings in relation to compliance with a requirement under Part VAA of the Health Insurance Act.[24]
1.28 In addition, item 20 of amendment (2) seeks to provide circumstances when information and certain derivative materials are admissible as evidence in these proceedings. These circumstances include where information, documents or other material is obtained by an appropriate person or body (who are prescribed by the regulations) under sections 106XA or 106XB of the Health Insurance Act for proceedings that are for the purposes of the National Law.[25] Derivative materials may also be admissible in proceedings even if they are not obtained by compulsion under the relevant sections of the Health Insurance Act but were the result of the production of documents under those sections and are obtained by an appropriate person or body.[26]
1.29 In Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2025, the committee requested the minister’s advice as to:
• why it is necessary and appropriate that the exceptions to when use and derivative use immunity apply be expanded to include any proceedings in relation to compliance with a requirement under Part VAA of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (noting this can include criminal proceedings);
• why it is necessary and appropriate derivative use immunity not apply to documents that are obtained by regulatory bodies or other appropriate persons under sections 106XA and 106XB of the Health Insurance Act 1973, allowing these documents or information to be admissible as evidence in certain proceedings; and
• whether the Criminal Justice Division of the Attorney-General’s Department has been consulted in relation to this matter.[27]
1.30 The minister advised that in relation to the necessity and appropriateness of expanding the exceptions for use and derivative use immunities, an objective of Part VAA of the Health Insurance Act is to protect patients and the community from risks associated with inappropriate practice. The minister advised that if restrictions prevent information being considered as part of a review of an individual’s provision of health services, this could risk patient safety.
1.31 In response to the committee’s query concerning the lack of a derivative use immunity for documents obtained by regulatory bodies and other appropriate persons under sections 106XA and 106XB of the Health Insurance Act, the minister advised that these sections outline circumstances where material must be referred to a regulatory body. The minister highlighted that these circumstances of referral include where the Professional Services Review Director, Committee or Determining Authority form the opinion that there is a significant threat to life or health or non-compliance with professional standards. As such, the current application of derivative use immunity, meaning certain information cannot be referred to these regulatory bodies, may prevent appropriate regulatory or compliance action being taken in relation to material involving a significant threat to life or health or non-compliance with professional standards. The minister advised that the role of these regulatory bodies would be frustrated if they were prevented from acting on information that raised risks of harm to patients.
1.32 Finally, the minister advised that the Attorney-General’s Department was engaged during the development of the proposals and had indicated that the proposed measures seem reasonable and targeted towards achieving a legitimate policy aim.
1.33 The committee thanks the minister for this response. The committee notes the minister’s advice that the Attorney-General’s Department was engaged during the development of these proposals and considers that this information would have been useful to have been included in the supplementary explanatory memorandum.
1.34 The committee also notes the minister’s advice in relation to the necessity and appropriateness of expanding the proceedings in which, and documents to which, use and derivative use immunity does not apply. The committee appreciates the minister’s advice that these measures are intended to protect patient safety by ensuring evidence is admissible against individual’s who engage in inappropriate practices in the provision of health services. However, the committee notes that such compliance and regulatory action is dependent on forcing practitioners to provide self-incriminating information or documents that is admissible as evidence. The committee reiterates its view that the privilege against self-incrimination is a fundamental right under the common law and any abrogation of that right represents a significant loss to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence. The committee notes in this instance, in relation to proceedings relating to Part VAA of the Health Insurance Act, the amendments would mean that neither use nor derivative use immunity is available.
1.35 The committee draws to the attention of senators and leaves to the Senate as a whole the necessity and appropriateness of expanding the exceptions to when use and derivative use immunity apply, which may result in practitioners being required to provide self-incriminating information and documents that is admissible as evidence against them.
1.36 On 12 February 2025, the Senate relevantly made a request for one set of amendments (containing proposed Schedule 9). The House of Representatives agreed to this amendment on 13 February 2025, and the bill finally passed both Houses that day. The bill received Royal Assent on 20 February 2025.
1.37 The amendments requested by the Senate, and agreed to by the House, set up a new Defence and Veterans’ Services Commission (the Commission). Under new Part VIIIE of the Defence Act 1903, the Commission is established to provide independent oversight of suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members. In performing its functions, the Commissioner is empowered to issue summons for a person to attend a hearing, give evidence or provide documents, to require a witness to take either an oath or affirmation, and require the provision of information, including sensitive personal information, to the Commissioner. The failure to comply with any of these requirements is a criminal offence. The amendments also allow the Commissioner to apply to a judge for the issue of a search warrant, inspect and retain materials produced, and disclose sensitive personal information in fulfilling its functions. These coercive powers raise a number of scrutiny concerns relating to undue trespasses on personal rights and liberties and the availability of merits review, as set out below.
Abrogation of legal professional privilege
Availability of merits review
1.38 The amended bill provides that the power of the Defence and Veterans’ Services Commissioner (the Commissioner) to require a person to give evidence or produce a document or thing (including by summons) includes the power to require the giving or production of something that is subject to legal professional privilege.[30] New section 110ZHD also provides that it is not a reasonable excuse for a person to fail to give material on the basis that it is subject to legal professional privilege. It provides two exceptions to this, including where a court has found that the material is subject to legal professional privilege, or where a claim has been made to the Commissioner that the material is subject to legal professional privilege. Where a claim for legal professional privilege is made to the Commissioner, the Commissioner can request that the material be produced for inspection in order to determine whether to accept or reject the claim. If the Commissioner accepts a claim, the Commissioner is required to ‘disregard’ the material that is subject to legal professional privilege for the purposes of any report or decision.
1.39 New section 110ZHE also provides that it is an offence for a person to fail to comply with a request to give or produce material where the Commissioner has rejected a claim that the material is subject to legal professional privilege. The offence is subject to a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
1.40 These provisions therefore abrogate legal professional privilege, which is intended to encourage full and frank disclosure by clients in seeking and obtaining legal advice without apprehension of being prejudiced by subsequent disclosure of that communication.[31] The committee has long taken the view that, as recognised by the High Court,[32] legal professional privilege is not merely a rule of substantive law but an important common law right which is fundamental to the administration of justice. The committee will closely examine legislation which removes or diminishes this right, noting that diminishing or removing legal professional privilege may interfere with legitimate, confidential communications between individuals and their legal representatives.
1.41 The committee expects any justification for limiting legal professional privilege should be set out clearly within the explanatory materials to the bill. However, the supplementary explanatory memorandum is silent on the extent to which the legislation is intended to modify the applicable common law principles on legal professional privilege and the justification for these modifications.
1.42 The committee also notes that the bill provides that the Commissioner is required to ‘disregard’ material that the Commissioner has accepted is subject to legal professional privilege, for the purposes of any report or decision. However, it is unclear how this would work in practice given the Commissioner (who would be hearing the case in its entirety) would have reviewed and considered the material by that stage.
1.43 The committee also notes that the amended bill allows a claim to be made to the Commission that information, statements, documents or things are subject to legal professional privilege. The Commissioner may decide whether to accept or reject the claim.[33] It is unclear from this provision whether merits review would be available of the Commissioner’s decision. The committee considers that, generally, administrative decisions that will, or are likely to, affect the interests of a person should be subject to independent merits review unless a sound justification is provided by reference to the Administrative Review Council's guidance document, What decisions should be subject to merits review?.[34] The supplementary explanatory memorandum does not provide any explanation as to whether merits review would be available.
Abrogation of privilege against self-incrimination
1.44 Section 110ZHF provides that an individual is not excused from giving information or evidence, or producing a document or thing, if summonsed to do so under section 110ZGC[35] on the ground that giving that material might tend to incriminate the individual in relation to an offence. This provision therefore overrides the common law privilege against self-incrimination which provides that a person cannot be required to answer questions or produce material which may tend to incriminate them.7
1.45 The committee recognises there may be certain circumstances in which the privilege can be overridden. However, abrogating the privilege represents a serious loss of personal liberty. In considering whether it is appropriate to abrogate the privilege against self-incrimination, the committee will consider whether the public benefit in doing so significantly outweighs the loss to personal liberty.
1.46 The committee notes in this regard that the supplementary explanatory memorandum provides no explanation as to the necessity of abrogating the privilege against self-incrimination.
1.47 In addition, the committee considers that any justification for abrogating the privilege against self-incrimination will be more likely to be considered appropriate if accompanied by both a 'use immunity' and a 'derivative use immunity'. A use immunity provides that information or documents produced are not admissible in evidence in most proceedings. By contrast, a derivative use immunity provides that anything obtained as a direct, or indirect, consequence of the information or documents is not admissible in most proceedings.
1.48 Subsection 110ZHF(3) provides for a use immunity, providing that the giving of information or evidence, or the production of a document or thing, is not admissible in evidence against the individual in criminal proceedings, other than proceedings involving offences for providing false or misleading information or documents; offences relating to the administration of justice; or any proceedings under this new Part VIIIE of the Defence Act 1903. However, it does not include a derivative use immunity.
1.49 The committee considers that it would be more appropriate if a derivative use immunity were also included to ensure information or evidence indirectly obtained from a person could not be used in evidence against them. The lack of a derivative use immunity has not been addressed in the supplementary explanatory memorandum.
Coercive powers
1.50 As set out above, new section 110ZGC allows the Commissioner to summons a person to attend a hearing to give evidence or produce documents or things relevant to a special inquiry by issuing a notice. Further, new section 110ZGE provides that the Commissioner may require a person to give information or a statement, or produce documents or things relevant to a special inquiry. New section 110ZGJ allows the Commissioner or an authorised member of the Australian Federal Police, the police force of a State or Territory or a police member to apply for a search warrant to an eligible Judge in relation to a special inquiry. The warrant would allow a person named in the warrant to enter, search and seize any things of relevance found on the land or in the premises, vessel, aircraft, or vehicle. Further, under new subsection 110ZGJ(6), the warrant is taken to authorise the named person to seize a thing if they believe on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent its concealment, loss, mutilation or destruction, as long as the thing is believed to be connected with a matter into which the Commissioner is inquiring.
1.51 The committee considers that the authorisation of coercive search powers has the potential to unduly trespass on personal rights and liberties. Indeed, the need to properly scrutinise entry, search and seizure powers was the basis on which the Senate in 1978 moved towards establishing this committee.[36] As such, the committee considers it essential that legislation enabling coercive search powers to be tightly controlled, with sufficient safeguards to protect individual rights and liberties. In this case an eligible Judge must authorise the issuance of the warrant, which provides important oversight. However, the provisions in the bill provide for very broad powers for the Commissioner to collect and seize information under subsection 110ZGJ(6), which allows the person executing the warrant to seize anything they believe to be connected with a matter to which the Commissioner is inquiring (including matters unrelated to that which the warrant was issued for). The committee considers that where a bill seeks to confer coercive powers, which includes the seizing of evidential material, the explanatory memorandum should address why it is appropriate, what safeguards exist, and whether the approach taken is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences).[37] However, the supplementary explanatory memorandum provides no justification for the use of these powers. The committee also notes that the bill does not set out any limit on how long the seized items may be retained, any requirement to return them or what the seized items can be used for, contrary to the principles in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences.[38]
Privacy
1.52 New sections 110ZGN and 110ZGP authorise a Commonwealth, State or Territory body, a person holding office or appointment under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law, or a coroner or coroner’s court, to disclose personal information if it is for the purpose of assisting the Commissioner undertaking a special inquiry. This can be done either on their own initiative or at the Commissioner’s request. New subsections 110ZGN(4) and 110ZGP(4) provides that the authorisation to disclose has effect despite anything in a law of a State or Territory or the general law that restricts or prohibits the disclosure of information.
1.53 New subsections 110ZGN(3) and 110ZGP(3) then authorise the Commissioner to use this information for the purpose of performing or exercising any of the Commissioner’s functions or powers. New section 110ZHN further allows the Commissioner to disclose this information (or information collected under summons or by requiring a person to provide information) to a specified entity, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the information will assist the entity to perform its functions or exercise its powers. Entities that the Commissioner can disclose information to under this provision include:
• the Commonwealth, State or Territory Attorney-General;
• the Australian Federal Police;
• the police force of a State or Territory;
• the Director of Public Prosecutions; a Special Prosecutor; a Royal Commission or equivalent body;
• the Australian Crime Commission;
• the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner;
• a coroner or coroner’s court;
• any Commonwealth or State or Territory body; and
• any individual who holds an office or appointment under the law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory.
1.54 In relation to any Commonwealth, State or Territory body or person holding office or appointment under law, the bill restricts disclosure to where the disclosure will assist them to perform a function or power connected with defence member or veteran deaths by suicide.
1.55 Bills which enable the collection, use or disclosure of personal information may trespass on an individual’s right to privacy. Where a bill contains provisions for the collection, use or disclosure of personal information, the committee expects the explanatory memorandum to the bill to address why it is appropriate for the bill to provide for the collection of personal information; and what safeguards are in place to protect the personal information, and whether these are set out in law or in policy, including whether the Privacy Act 1988 applies.
1.56 The committee notes the bill authorises potentially very broad disclosure powers that could allow a wide range of government bodies to disclose sensitive personal information to the Commissioner, who could onwards disclose this information to a wide range of bodies. The disclosure provisions do not appear to provide for safeguards, noting that the bill would appear to authorise disclosure of sensitive information contrary to State or Territory laws or the general laws, which would likely include obligations under defamation, negligence and healthcare law. Noting this legislation authorises Commonwealth bodies to disclose information this would also mean many of the Australian Privacy Principles do not apply.[39] The supplementary explanatory memorandum does not provide any detail about what kind of personal information might be collected and subsequently disclosed to other Commonwealth or State or Territory bodies or individuals. There is also no information in the supplementary explanatory materials about what safeguards are in place to ensure protection of sensitive personal information.
Reversal of the evidential burden of proof
1.57 A number of provisions in the amendments introduce offences that reverse the evidential burden of proof, namely:
• an offence of failing to comply with a notice to attend a hearing, or to give information or produce a document, but which does not apply if it is not relevant to the matters into which the Commissioner was inquiring;[40]
• an offence of failing to give information or produce a document as required by summons for which the Commissioner has rejected a claim for legal professional privilege, but which does not apply if it is not relevant to the matters into which the Commissioner was inquiring;[41]
• an offence for dismissing or prejudicing an employee on account of having appeared as a witness or given evidence, information or produced a document but which does not apply if the employee was dismissed or prejudiced for any other reason;[42]
• an exemption from committing an offence under a secrecy provision where a person is required to answer a question at a hearing, or is required to give information or produce a document in accordance with a notice, and acts accordingly;[43] and
• an exemption from committing an offence under a secrecy provision where a person discloses information to the Commissioner.[44]
1.58 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.
1.59 While in the above instances, 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. The reversals of the evidential burden of proof have not been addressed in the explanatory materials.
1.60 In these cases, it is not apparent that the matters are matters peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge, or that it would be significantly more difficult or costly for the prosecution to establish the matters than for the defendant to establish them. For example, it is not clear how a defendant can raise evidence to establish that a matter is not relevant to the matters into which the Commissioner was inquiring. Some of these matters appear to be matters that may be more appropriate to be included as an element of the offence. For example, subsection 110ZHG(1) makes it an offence for a person to be dismissed ‘on account’ of the employee having given evidence to the Commissioner, but subsection 110ZHG(2) states that this does not apply if the employee was dismissed for some other reason. Noting that it appears to be an element of the offence that the person was dismissed on such grounds, it is not clear why there is also a defence if dismissal were on other grounds.
Significant penalties
1.61 A number of provisions in the amendments introduce significant penalties for these offences, namely:
• failing to comply with a notice to attend a hearing, carrying a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment;[45]
• failing to comply with a notice to give information or produce a document, carrying a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment;[46]
• refusing to take an oath, make an affirmation or answer a question at a hearing, carrying a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment;[47]
• failing to give written notice to the Commissioner of operationally sensitive information, carrying a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment;[48]
• failing to give written notice to the Commissioner of intelligence information, carrying a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment;[49]
• failing to give information or produce a document as required by summons for which the Commissioner has rejected a claim for legal professional privilege, carrying a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment;[50]
• failing to give information or producing a document for inspection for the purpose of deciding whether to accept or reject a claim of legal professional privilege, carrying a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment;[51]
• dismissing or prejudicing an employee on account of having appeared as a witness or given evidence, information or produced a document, carrying a maximum penalty of ten penalty units or one year imprisonment;[52]
• publishing information in contravention of a non-publication direction, carrying a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment;[53] and
• unauthorised use or disclosure of protected information, carrying a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.[54]
1.62 The committee's expectation is that the rationale for the imposition of significant penalties will be fully outlined in the explanatory memorandum. In particular, penalties should be justified by reference to similar offences in Commonwealth legislation. This not only promotes consistency, but guards against the risk that liberty of the person is unduly limited through the application of disproportionate penalties. In this regard, the committee notes that the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that a penalty ‘should be consistent with penalties for existing offences of a similar kind or of similar seriousness. This should include a consideration of... other comparable offences in Commonwealth legislation’.[55]
1.63 In this instance, the penalties for similar offences in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 are six months’ imprisonment, or ten penalty units, or both.[56] As such, it is unclear why the amount of the penalties for the offences introduced by these amendments are significantly higher than for comparable existing offences. The supplementary explanatory memorandum does not provide any explanation for the penalties proposed in the provisions outlined above.
1.64 Finally, section 110ZHJ makes it an offence to engage in conduct that obstructs or hinders the Commissioner in the exercise of its functions or powers, and to engage in conduct that would constitute a contempt of court if the Commissioner were a court of record. These offences are punishable by two penalty units or imprisonment of three months. However, the committee notes that the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that imprisonment should be reserved for serious offences.[57] Offences with penalties of less than six months should not be imposed because they are likely to indicate that the offence is not a serious one and may burden State and Territory correctional systems with minor offenders. If a longer term of imprisonment would never be justified, a fine should be used. The committee notes that the supplementary explanatory materials do not provide any explanation or justification for the penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
1.65 The committee considers the new Part VIIE of the Defence Act, as inserted by these amendments, raises a large number of scrutiny concerns, as outlined above, which appear to unduly trespass on personal rights and liberties and may not adequately provide for the availability of merits review.
1.66 The committee is concerned by the quality of the supplementary explanatory memorandum accompanying these amendments, which did not provide any explanation for scrutiny issues raised by the amendments. The committee’s expectation is that explanatory materials should not merely restate the operation of proposed laws but provide reasons and justifications for why provisions have been designed a particular way where they raise scrutiny concerns.
1.67 The committee considers that the government should give consideration to amending these provisions to ensure consistency with drafting practices and to address the scrutiny concerns outlined above.
1.68 New section 110ZJK provides that rules can be made in relation to a broad range of matters, including the Commissioner’s acting appointments; leave of absences; paid work engagements outside the duties of the Commissioner’s office without approval; disclosure of interests; resignation; and termination of appointment. These are matters are usually set out in the primary Act alongside provisions governing the Commissioner’s functions and powers.
1.69 The committee's view is that significant matters should be included in primary legislation unless a sound justification for the use of delegated legislation is provided. The committee notes that a legislative instrument, made by the executive, is not subject to the full range of parliamentary scrutiny inherent in bringing proposed changes in the form of an amending bill. As such, the committee expects the explanatory memorandum to address why it is appropriate to include the relevant matters in delegated legislation and whether there is sufficient guidance on the face of the primary legislation to appropriately limit the matters that are being left to delegated legislation. In this instance, the supplementary explanatory memorandum contains no justification regarding why it is necessary to allow these matters to be set out in delegated legislation. It is unclear to the committee why at least high-level guidance in relation to these matters cannot be provided on the face of the bill.
1.70 In addition, new section 110ZLA provides for rules to be made in relation to the delegation of the Commissioner’s powers and functions. On the face of the bill, there appears to be no limitations on the power to delegate and may allow for inappropriate delegation of the Commissioner’s powers.
1.71 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 as to why these are considered necessary should be included in the explanatory memorandum. In this instance, the supplementary explanatory materials provide no information about why these powers are proposed to be delegated and to whom it is proposed such delegations would be made.
1.72 The committee notes that the amendments to the bill enable significant matters to be left to delegated legislation and would enable delegated legislation to set out the delegation of any of the Commissioner’s powers and functions. The committee considers that the supplementary explanatory memorandum should have addressed why it is considered necessary and appropriate for these matters to be set out in delegated legislation.
1.73 The supplementary explanatory memorandum does not address either of these scrutiny concerns. However, in light of the fact that the bill has passed both houses of the Parliament the committee makes no further comment.
1.74 The committee also draws these provisions to the attention of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation.
[22] This report can be cited as: Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Commentary on amendments, Scrutiny Digest 3 of 2025; [2025] AUSStaCSBSD 34.
[23] Amendment (2) items 19 and 20, government sheet [FL102]. The committee draws senators’ attention to these provisions pursuant to Senate standing order 24(1)(a)(i).
[24] Amendment (2), item 19, proposed subsection 106ZPQ(2).
[25] Amendment (2), item 20, proposed subsection 106ZPQ(3).
[26] Amendment (2), item 20, proposed subsection 106ZPQ(4).
[27] Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2025 (13 February 2025) pp. 26–29.
[28] The minister responded to the committee’s comments in a letter dated 3 March 2025. A copy of the letter is available on the committee’s webpage (see correspondence included with the committee’s assessment of this bill).
[29] Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, sections 110ZGC, 110ZGE, 100ZGJ, 110ZGN, 110ZGP, 110ZHA, 110ZHB, 110ZHC, 110ZHD, 110ZHE, 110ZHF, 110ZHG, 110ZHJ, 110ZHL, 110ZHN, 110ZHQ. The committee draws senators’ attention to these provisions pursuant to Senate standing order 24(1)(a)(i) and (iii).
[30] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, subsections 110ZGC(5) and 110ZGE(5).
[31] Esso Australia Resources Ltd v FCT [1999] HCA 67; (1999) 201 CLR 49 at [35].
[32] See for example Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52.
[33] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, subsection 110ZHD(2).
[34] Administrative Review Council, What decisions should be subject to merit review? (1999).
[35] However, it is noted that the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply where are a person is required under section 110ZGE to give information or produce documents or things.
[36] Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills, Twelfth Report of 2006: Entry, Search and Seizure Provisions in Commonwealth Legislation (4 December 2006) p. 317.
[37] Attorney-General's Department, A Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, May 2024.
[38] See Attorney-General's Department, A Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, May 2024, pp. 76–78.
[39] See Privacy Act 1988, Schedule 1, Australian Privacy Principles 3.4; 3.6; 6.2(b); 8.2(c).
[40] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, subsections 110ZHA(1), (2) and (4).
[41] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, subsections 110ZHE(1) and (5).
[42] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, section 110ZHG.
[43] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, subsection 110ZHQ(1).
[44] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, subsection 110ZHQ(2).
[45] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, subsection 110ZHA(1).
[46] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, subsection 110ZHA(2).
[47] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, section 110ZHB.
[48] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, subsection 110ZHC(1).
[49] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, subsection 110ZHC(2).
[50] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, subsection 110ZHE(1).
[51] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, subsection 110ZHE(2).
[52] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, section 110ZHG.
[53] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, section 110ZHL.
[54] See Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, section 110ZHM.
[55] Attorney-General's Department, A Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, May 2024, pp. 39.
[56] See, for example, sections 168-170 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.
[57] Attorney-General's Department, A Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, May 2024, pp. 41.
[58] Government amendment (2) on sheet ED101, new Schedule 9, item 1, sections 110ZJK and 110ZLA. The committee draws senators’ attention to these provisions pursuant to Senate standing order 24(1)(a)(ii) and (iv).
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AUSStaCSBSD/2025/34.html