Page 5280 - Week 16 - Thursday, 28 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In other words, there are certain requirements of notification by the commissioner. The commissioner has to do something to notify somebody of what they have done and that places an obligation on the commissioner. Yet, in subclause (3), it says: "Well, if the commissioner does not do that, it does not matter". I would suggest that we delete that subclause.
Amendment negatived.
MR STEVENSON (4.46): I move:
Omit clause 92, substitute the following clause:
"92. No person shall be required to provide information, produce documents or answer questions where that information, document or answer would, or would tend to incriminate that person.".
Clause 92 talks about self-incrimination and it suggests that a person is not excused from providing information, producing a document, or answering a question when required to do so under other clauses in the Bill on the ground that the information, document, or answer might tend to incriminate the person. I believe that that entire clause should be deleted. It does suggest that any information, document, or answer so provided, information, or thing, et cetera, is not admissible in evidence against the person in criminal proceedings, other than proceedings for a number of things. It mentions a number. However, it still means that persons can incriminate themselves under this Bill, and we have some protections against that in Australia. So, I would delete clause 92 and insert:
No person shall be required to provide information, produce documents or answer questions where that information, document, or answer would, or would tend to, incriminate that person.
This would allow the natural justice requirement, that persons do not have to incriminate themselves.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (4.48): I can only say that this is a standard provision that is found in Acts like this in every State, in the Commonwealth Act and in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal legislation. It is a standard administrative power.
MR STEVENSON (4.48): I make the point that the fact that it is a standard provision under this sort of legislation does not help anybody who is subjected to it and who is forced to incriminate themselves.
Amendment negatived.
Clauses agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .