Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation - Monitor |
Purpose
|
Amends the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management
Regulations 1995 to require licence records relating to the import, export or
manufacture of ozone depleting substances or synthetic greenhouse gas
to be kept
at the licensee's principal place of residence, align the fit and proper person
test in the principal regulations with
the Ozone Protection and Synthetic
Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989, establish a framework for issuing and
administering infringement notices under the principal regulations, and insert a
reference
to the Exemption List for Non-Quarantine and Pre-Shipment Applications
of Methyl Bromide for 2014
|
Last day to
disallow[1]
|
15 May 2014
|
Authorising legislation
|
|
Department
|
Environment
|
Issue:
Insufficient information regarding infringement notice regime
This instrument makes a number of amendments to the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Regulations 1995, including to establish a framework for issuing and administering infringement notices under the regulations. The ES states that new regulation 911 provides that payment of an infringement notice discharges all liability for an alleged contravention. However, it goes on to state that 'payment does not discharge liability if the notice is subsequently withdrawn and the penalty amount refunded'. Regulation 911 states that in such cases the person may be prosecuted in a court in relation to the alleged contravention. The committee considers that the ability for a notice to be withdrawn and for prosecution to proceed following payment of a penalty amount raises a question of double jeopardy, to the extent that the payment of a fine would normally finalise matters. While there may be a regulatory justification for this element of the infringement notice scheme, the ES does not provide any information as to the need for this provision [the committee requested further information from the minister].
MINISTER'S RESPONSE:
The Minister for the Environment advised that subregulation 911(1):
...sets out the effect of payment of an infringement notice namely, that its payment discharges all liability for the alleged contravention, without constituting an admission of fault. This is appropriate for an administrative remedy that may be discharged without abjudication [sic] by the courts. However, subregulation 911(2) of the Regulations provides that subregulation 911(1) does not apply if the notice is subsequently withdrawn pursuant to subregulation 910(2) of the regulations.
The minister further advised that Regulations 910 and 911 are consistent with the Attorney-General's A Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offence, Infringement Notice and Enforcement Powers (the Guide) that allow infringement notices to be withdrawn for a variety of reasons. The minister noted:
Subregulation 910(3) of the Regulations sets out the factors the Secretary may consider when deciding whether or not to withdraw an infringement notice. These include whether a court has previously imposed a penalty on the person for a contravention of an infringement notice provision, the circumstances of the alleged contravention, whether the person has paid an earlier infringement notice penalty relating to the same, or substantially the same, conduct, and any other matter that the secretary considers relevant.
COMMITTEE RESPONSE:
The committee thanks the minister for his response and has concluded its interest in the matter.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/cth/AUSStaCSDLM/2014/86.html