Bills Digest No. 13 2003-04
Workplace Relations
Amendment (Codifying Contempt Offences) Bill 2003
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
Workplace Relations Amendment
(Codifying Contempt Offences) Bill 2003
Date Introduced:
26 June 2003
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Employment and Workplace
Relations
Commencement:
The substantive provisions
commence 28 days after Royal Assent
The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (WRA) to codify the current generic criminal contempt
offence provision in relation to the Australian Industrial
Relations Commission (the Commission).
The Bill also:
- proposes a new offence of giving false evidence to the
Commission(1)
- increases the penalty provisions in WRA Part XI (the criminal
offence provisions), and
- inserts explanatory and cross-referencing notes to the offence
provisions.
The current Bill is complementary to the
Workplace
Relations Amendment (Compliance with Court and Tribunal Orders)
Bill 2003 (the Courts and Tribunals Bill) which allows for the
Minister to bring proceedings in relation to new civil offences for
non-compliance with Court or Commission orders. That Bill was
introduced on 13 February 2003 and, like the present Bill, is due
to be debated in the sitting period beginning 11 August 2003.
Examples of successful prosecutions for contempt are given in the
Digest to that Bill. The two Bills together provide specific
coverage in the WRA by way of civil and criminal offences for acts
which would amount to contempt in the common law.
Contempt of court is a common law doctrine. It
may occur where a person disobeys an order of a court or interferes
with the process of the administration of justice. (2)
Typically it is either a form of disobedience contempt, where Court
orders are not followed, or scandalizing contempt, where the Court
or its members are brought into disrepute.
In the
industrial relations context, these actions seem to arise most
commonly where there has been a failure to follow the orders of the
Commission or the Federal Court. These are usually orders for
injunctions against, or for the cessation of, industrial
disputes.(3)
Part XI of the WRA contains criminal offences.
These generally protect orders and directions made by the various
tribunals, protect the standards set by the Act, and protect the
carrying out of functions under the Act. (4) The
proposed amendments are to provisions in this Part.
Some aspects of the common law of contempt
have already been codified for offences against the Commission. WRA
section 299 currently states:
SECT 299 Offences in relation to
Commission
(1) A person shall not:
(a) insult or disturb a member of the Commission in
the exercise of powers, or the performance of functions, as a
member; or
(b) interrupt the proceedings of the Commission; or
(c) use insulting language towards a member of the Commission
exercising powers, or performing functions, as a member; or
(d) by writing or speech use words calculated to influence
improperly a member of the Commission or a witness before the
Commission; or
(e) do any other act or thing that would, if the Commission were a
court of record, be a contempt of that court.
Penalty:
(a) in the case of a natural person $500 or
imprisonment for 6 months, or both; and
(b) in the case of a body corporate
$1,000.(5)
(2) A
reference in subsection (1) to the Commission or a member of
the Commission includes a reference to a person authorised to take
evidence on behalf of the Commission.
Section 299 was amended in 1993 following a
finding that a previous subparagraph 299(1)(d)(ii), which made it
an offence to use words calculated to bring a member of the
Commission or the Commission itself into disrepute , was invalid.
That case was about whether the section covered too much, such as a
genuine exercise of a right of criticism. (6)As a
result, the section was amended to use the words in current
paragraph 299(1)(e). The effect of this paragraph is to import the
common law of contempt to protect the Commission as if it were a
Court. It is now proposed that this paragraph be replaced by the
codified offences in this Bill.
The enforcement of the contempt protections
under the WRA is a matter for the Federal Court. In other words,
the Commission cannot make an order to protect itself against
contempt. It is also worth noting that paragraph 299(1)(e) does not
appear to have been used in a prosecution.
In addition to section 299, there are other
provisions in the WRA, the Crimes Act and the Criminal
Code which provide sanctions for matters that interfere in the
administration of justice. These include offences for:
- the threatening, intimidation, coercion, or prejudice of
witnesses (WRA section 301)
- non-compliance with Commission requirements to appear, swear or
make affirmation, answer questions or produce documents (WRA
section 303)
- dishonest conduct, conspiracy to defraud, bribery of
Commonwealth public officials (that includes members of the
Commission) 5‑12 years imprisonment (Chapter 7 of the
Criminal Code)
- interference with witnesses and destruction of evidence 1 5
years imprisonment (Crimes Act)
On 19 December 2002, the Minister for
Employment and Workplace Relations made an
announcement that the Commonwealth would take a much more
active role in bringing contempt proceedings.
In his announcement, the Minister stated:
The Government will
introduce amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996
to clarify the scope of the criminal prohibition against
disciplinary contempt of the Commission and to bring the maximum
penalties into line with Commonwealth policy for offences of this
kind. Evidence of breaches will be referred to the Director of
Public Prosecutions for possible prosecution in line with the
Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth.
Attached to the media release was a list of 22
breaches (including alleged breaches) of industrial court orders
since 1999 by 4 unions. Three of those cases resulted in
significant pecuniary penalties against unions for deliberate
defiance of earlier court orders.(7) Most of these cases
involved either return to work orders made by the Commission or
other injunctions made by the Court to enforce section 127
orders.
In general terms, unions criticise the current
Government for what they state is a biased interest in prosecutions
against union activities without an equivalent focus on other
aspects of workplace legislation that could found cases against
employers. For example, the Australian Council of Trade Unions
(ACTU) notes the examples of failures to pay minimum award wages
and overtime entitlements, and the lack of criminal sanctions
against employers with negligent practices that lead to workplace
deaths or injuries. (8)
In relation to this Bill, it has been reported
that ACTU President Sharan Burrow has stated that:
[the ACTU] would petition the Parliament to
consider the interests of employees and employers and oppose this
irresponsible legislation. The provocative legislation was designed
to give Australia the most adversarial industrial relations climate
it has ever seen (9)
In the light of its past support for the
findings of the Cole Royal
Commission and the establishment of the Building Industry
Taskforce, it is expected that the Australian Chamber of
Commerce and Industry (ACCI) would support the Government s
proposals in the present Bill and the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
(10)
In any
Commonwealth prosecution, the decision to initiate investigative
action ordinarily rests with the Department responsible for
administering the legislation. Investigations are usually carried
out by the Australian Federal Police except where the Department
has its own investigative arm. (11)
Inspectors(12) and Authorised
Officers(13) under the WRA are generally authorised to
investigate whether awards, certified agreements, Australian
Workplace Agreements (AWAs), the freedom of association provisions,
and safety matters of the WR Act are being or have been
observed.
It is
understood that Inspectors would be used to gather information to
assemble briefs of evidence for prosecution under the proposed new
codified contempt provisions in this Bill.(14)
In general
terms, Inspectors powers are, amongst other things, for the
purposes of ascertaining whether the requirements of this Act are
being observed .(15) Under the WRA, the powers of
inspectors include that they may:
- without force, enter premises during working hours or at any
other time at which it is necessary to do so
- inspect any work, material, machinery, appliance, article,
facility or document,
- interview any employee
- require the production of a relevant document within a
specified time and make copies or take extracts from any document
produced,
- retain any
document produced for such period as is necessary
- take a sample of any goods or substances after informing the
owner or their representative
- by written
notice require production of a document at a specified place within
a specified time (not being less than 14 days), and
- recover penalties for breaches of an award or certified
agreement under Part VIII.(16)
The Minister states in his Second Reading
Speech that the Commonwealth
will take a much more active role in instigating
legal action and pursuing penalties against people and
organisations that fail to comply with Federal Court or Commission
orders. (17)
In his
announcement on 19 December 2002, the Minister stated:
In assessing whether it is in the public interest
for the Commonwealth to take legal action, the Government will give
particular emphasis to matters such as the impact of the offending
conduct on third parties and on the broader economy, the history of
previous contraventions by the party engaging in the conduct and
the deterrent effect of bringing proceedings.
In order to prosecute Commonwealth criminal
offences such as those in WRA Part XI, it is the practice that the
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) agree to
prosecute the offences in accordance with its policies on public
prosecution.
In practical terms, the final decision whether
to prosecute is a matter for the DPP.(18) Relevant
guidelines for this decision are stated in the Prosecution
Policy of the Commonwealth (the Policy):
(2.1) Sir Hartley Shawcross QC, then
Attorney-General, stated to the House of Commons [in the United
Kingdom] on 29 January 1951:
'It has never been the rule in this country I
hope it never will be that suspected criminal offences must
automatically be the subject of prosecution. Indeed the very first
Regulations under which the Director of Public Prosecutions worked
provided that he should. . . prosecute 'whenever it appears that
the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of
such nature that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in
the public interest.' That is still the dominant
consideration.' (H.C. debates, Vol. 483, col, 681, 29 January
1951).
This statement is equally applicable to the
position in Australia. The resources available for prosecution
action are finite and should not be wasted pursuing inappropriate
cases, a corollary of which is that the available resources are
employed to pursue with some vigour those cases worthy of
prosecution. (19)
The initial hurdle is whether the evidence
discloses a reasonable prospect of conviction. The Policy notes
further that the decision to prosecute is ultimately subject to a
test of whether proceeding with a prosecution is in the public
interest. Relevant factors noted in the Policy at paragraph 2.10
include:
- the seriousness or triviality of the offence
- whether the alleged offence is of considerable public
concern
- whether the prosecution would be seen as counterproductive, for
example, by bringing the law into disrepute
- the availability and efficacy of any alternatives to
prosecution
- the likely length and expense of a trial, and
- the necessity to maintain public confidence in such
institutions such as the Parliament and the
Courts.(20)
In recent times, attention on the
Government s attempts to enforce possible breaches of industrial
relations laws has emerged following the recent Royal Commission
report into the building industry.
Following an interim report of the
Cole Royal Commission, an Interim
Building Industry Taskforce (IBIT) commenced operation
on 1 October 2002
to investigate 32 referrals of possible
breaches of industrial relations laws. A further 52 matters
referred to the taskforce following the Royal Commission s final
report delivered on 27 March
2003.
The current Budget contains a further
$6.9 million to fund an extension of the IBIT until June 2004. At
present, the IBIT has approximately 50 investigations. On
11 June 2003, the head of the IBIT stated that 32 of the 84
matters were not being pursued because of insufficient evidence, or
they were out of date, or witnesses were unwilling to
cooperate.(21)
On 12
June 2003, it was reported that 4
prosecutions against union officials had commenced. A further 4
cases had been briefed out for external legal advice. Two of these
cases are against employers. Thirteen other cases, including
allegations of secondary boycott, phoenix companies and tax evasion
have been referred to state police, the ACCC, ATO and ASIC. These
were not matters arising from the Royal
Commission. (22)
The former Shadow for Industrial Relations
stated in response to
the Cole Royal Commission Report :
It is hard to think of a worse form of third party
intervention than a coercive regulator, programmed with this
Government's ideological values, intruding on the scene to inflame
a dispute after it has been settled.(23)
On 2
May 2003, contempt charges against
the Victorian Secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and
Energy Union (CFMEU) were dismissed by a Melbourne Magistrate. The
contempt charge was brought by the Commonwealth for the alleged
failure to provide documents to the Cole Royal Commission about
shop stewards attending a CFMEU training course. It was held that
the documents were never in the control of the Secretary. Costs
were awarded against the Commonwealth. (24)
This Bill specifically codifies criminal
offences for:
- contravening an order of the Commission
- publishing a false allegation of misconduct affecting the
Commission
- inducing another person to give false evidence to the
Commission, and
- giving false evidence to the Commission
It also increases the penalties for other Part
XI offences including:
- intimidation or
prejudicing another person assisting the Commission
- failure to
appear or cooperate with the Commission
- offences relating to the application for and conduct of secret
ballots, and
- employment agencies making agreements on behalf of employers on
terms that do not meet the minimum legal requirements.
Item 2 removes the generic
catch-all offence of contempt paragraph 299(1)(e) noted above which
states:
A person shall not (e) do any other act or thing
that would, if the Commission were a court of record, be a contempt
of that Court
Item 3 adds two notes
and 3 subsections to the end of section 299.
As it proposed that paragraph 299(1)(e) be
removed, these notes now follow an offence in existing paragraph
299(1)(d) of improperly influencing a Commission member or
witness.
Note 1 states that in
addition to this offence, that there are provisions in the
Criminal Code that create offences of using various
dishonest means such as bribery and threats to influence a
Commonwealth public official in the performance of their duties.
The maximum Criminal Code penalties range from 5-12 years
imprisonment.
Equivalent Crimes Act 1914 sections
for interference with a witness and the destruction of evidence are
stated in Note 2. The maximum penalties for these
offences range from 1-5 years imprisonment. The note refers to
offences in section 301 of the WRA which are about intimidating,
etc. those who may provide information, documents, or appear before
the Commission. Note 2 also refers to WRA section
303 which is about the witness behaviour in providing the
Commission with information.
Proposed subsection 299(3)
adds a new offence in relation to the Commission similar to
disobedience contempt. This is an offence of a person engaging in
conduct that contravenes a Commission order under the WRA which
binds that person. The maximum penalty prescribed is 12 months.
Proposed subsection 299(4) clarifies that to
engage in conduct includes omitting to perform an act.
Proposed subsection 299(5)
adds a new offence in relation to the Commission similar to
scandalizing contempt. This is an offence of publishing a false
statement impliedly or expressly stating misconduct by a Commission
member that will have a significant adverse effect on public
confidence that the Commission is properly performing its functions
and exercising its powers.
Item 4 states that the
offences can only apply to conduct or publications which occur
after commencement although the orders breached or statements made
can be made before the commencement.
Item 5 adds
proposed subsections 303(3) and 303(4) creating
offences for a witness giving, or a person inducing a witness to
give, false evidence before the Commission or to a person taking
evidence on behalf of the Commission. The maximum penalty for these
offences is 12 months imprisonment.
These offences apply to all
evidence received by the Commission, regardless of whether it was
given on oath,(26) or whether orally or in writing.
Unlike section 35 of the Crimes Act, this offence does not require
that the false evidence touch on matter material to the proceeding.
In addition to the existing WRA offences for threatening,
intimidating or coercing a witness, this offence would cover
offering benefits to a person to give false
evidence.
Item 6 states
that the offences can only apply to false statements or inducements
which occur after commencement although the relevant proceedings
can be instituted before commencement.
Comment: With regard to
items 4 and 6, it is worth noting the general presumption against
the retrospective application of statutes. Persons could become
subject to an offence that did not exist at the commencement of
proceedings or at the time the order was made. For example, it is
possible that likely remedies for perjury or inducement to give
false evidence would be different depending on when testimony in a
particular case was given. However, as noted in the items, the
offences would only apply to conduct that occurred after the
commencement of the Bill
and so those who could be subject to the offences
should be on notice of their existence.
Section 4B of the Crimes
Act 1914 actually specifies that where a natural person is
convicted of a Commonwealth offence punishable by imprisonment
only, then unless a contrary intention appears and a court thinks
it appropriate in all the circumstances of the case, this can be
converted into a pecuniary penalty by multiplying term of
imprisonment (expressed in months) by 5 to get a figure in penalty
units (currently $110). For example, where the maximum penalty is
6 months, the maximum pecuniary equivalent would be 30 units,
or $3300 for a natural person. These pecuniary penalties may also
be imposed in addition to any available terms of imprisonment.
However, there is no scope to translate pecuniary penalties into
prison terms.(27)
In addition, unless there is a
contrary intention, offences that relate to a natural person are
also deemed to apply to a body corporate. In such cases, a maximum
penalty of 5 times the maximum pecuniary penalty that would
otherwise be applicable to a natural person could apply to a body
corporate if the Court thinks fit. For example, if a penalty is
listed as 6 months, the maximum pecuniary equivalent would be
30 units for a natural person, and for a body corporate, would be
150 units, which is $16 500. As noted below, this could amount to a
significant increase in pecuniary penalties available against
bodies corporate.
The Minister noted in his Second
Reading Speech that many of these provisions [in Part XI of
the WRA] have not been updated since the 1970s or 1980s, so an
update is timely. (28)
Items 1-4 provide
legislative notes after earlier WRA provisions to cross reference
and further explain that offence provisions are available in WRA
Part XI.
The changed penalties
are:
- Item 5: section
299 for the existing and newly codified contempt offences against
the Commission increases from $500 and/or 6 months for natural
persons and $1000 (29) for bodies corporate to 12 months
imprisonment (increasing available fines to $6600 for natural
persons and $33 000 for bodies
corporate)(30)
- Item 6: section 300
for non-attendance at compulsory conferences increases from $1000
to $2200 (20 penalty units)
- Item 7: section
301 for threatening, intimidating, coercing, prejudicing a person
assisting the Commission increases from $500 and/or 6 months for
natural persons and $1000 for bodies corporate to 12 months
imprisonment (increasing available fines to $6600 for natural
persons and $33 000 for bodies corporate)
- Item 9: section
302 for creating a disturbance near the Commission removes the
express $500 fine and leaves the 6 months imprisonment (increasing
a possible fine to $3300)
- Item 10: section
303 for disobeying summons to appear, refusing or failing to be
sworn or make affirmation, or answer question or produce a document
required by the Commission removes the express $500 fine and leaves
the 6 months imprisonment (increasing a possible fine to
$3300)
- Item 11:
subsection 307(1) a false statement in a secret ballot application
increases from $1000 to $3300 (30 penalty units)
- Item 12:
subsection 308(1) failure to comply with a Commission order for a
secret ballot removes the 6 month imprisonment option for natural
persons and increases the fine from $500 for natural persons and
$1000 for bodies corporate, to $3300 (and up to $16 500 for a body
corporate).
- Item 13:
subsection 317(1)(31) failure to make a register of
members of an organisation or branch available increases the fine
from $500 to $3300 (30 penalty units) and removes the 6 months
imprisonment option.
- Item 13:
subsection 317(2) other ballot offences including impersonating
voters, interfering with or destroying envelopes or ballot boxes,
recording extra votes, forging ballot papers etc increases the fine
from $500 to $3300 (30 penalty units) and removes the 6 months
imprisonment option.
- Item 13:
subsection 317(3) obstructing, intimating, threatening, in relation
to a vote, or advising not to vote, increases the fine from $500 to
$3300 (30 penalty units) and removes the 6 month imprisonment
option.
Item 14: subsection
317(4) for requiring a ballot to be shown or permitted to be seen
inappropriately increases removes the imprisonment option and
increases the fine from $500 to $3300 (30 penalty
units).
- Item 15: section
338 for an employment agency, as an agent for an employer, making
an agreement less favourable to an employee than the entitlements
required by awards, Commission orders, or certified agreements
increases from $500 to $2200 (20 penalty units)
- Item 16: section
339 for publication of, or contravention of Court or Commission
directions in relation to trade secrets tendered as evidence
increases from $1000 to $2200 and the possibility of imprisonment
is removed.
The Bill
further codifies the common law of contempt in the WRA. It
potentially provides further means to move away from the current
practice where actions for contempt are brought by the parties who
are directly aggrieved by the conduct in question. Generally,
whether the new codified contempt provisions will result in a
series of successful prosecutions in the Federal Court, would
depend on the cases that arise and whether the briefs of evidence
provided to the DPP persuade him or her to pursue such actions in
the context of the overall policy on Commonwealth criminal
prosecutions.
- This is noted separately as giving false
evidence is not so much a codification of the general common law of
contempt as that of perjury.
- CCH Australian
Labour Law Reporter (ALLR), para. 4-800. See also, On
Union Fines, Lack of Enforceability and Government Intent
Industrial Relations and Management Letter (IRML),
Vol. 18, No. 6, July 2001, pp. 2-4. The procedure for contempt
is set out in the Federal Court rules.
- WRA section 127 expressly provides that the
Commission may give directions that industrial action stop or not
occur. This can be done on the Commission s own motion, or through
an application by an affected party. It is worth noting that
proposals in relation to the operation of this section were the
subject of the Workplace
Relations Amendment (Improved Remedies for Unprotected Action) Bill
2002. That Bill was introduced in the House on 26 June 2002 but
also has not yet been debated.
- CCH Australian
Labour Law Reporter (ALLR),
para 5-100.
- Proposed increases to these penalties are
noted below.
- Nationwide News v Wills (1992) 177
CLR 1. See also CCH Australian Labour
Law Reporter (ALLR), para
5-100.
- Examples 18-20 of the media release. As noted
above, see S. Sen, Workplace Relations Amendment (Compliance with
Court and Tribunal Orders) Bill 2003 (Court
and Tribunal Orders Digest), Bills Digest, No. 134,
2002-03 for a discussion of the major contempt awards
against unions.
Further background to the Minister s views on industrial reform and
union practices is available at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/2001/Dec01/Abbott.htm
The Minister concluded that [Industrial reform] doesn t mean
changing systems so much as changing people s attitudes and
preconceptions. It doesn t require sweeping legislative change so
much as more determined use of the law which is already there.
- For further details and examples see ACTU
Briefing Note, What Tony
Abbott doesn t say about workplace law breaches
19 December 2002.
- David Wilson, Laws give IRC muscle ,
Herald Sun Sunday, 6 July 2003.
- See ACCI Media Releases of 27 March 2003 and
20 August 2002 respectively.
- Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions,
Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth, para 3.2. See Note 14
below.
- WRA Part V, sections 84-88. Inspectors have
the powers and functions in relation to the observance of the WRA
as are conferred on them by the Act as noted and specified in their
instrument of appointment.
- WRA section 83BH. Authorised Officers
generally deal with compliance with the terms of an AWA and the
Freedom of Association provisions. Regulations can prescribe other
provisions of the Act which the Authorised Officers can exercise
their powers.
- See the announcement that briefs of evidence
would be presented to the DPP cited above in policy commitment
section.
- WRA section 86(1). The powers are in WRA
section 86 unless otherwise noted.
- WRA paragraphs 178(5)(a) and 178(5A)(a)
- The Hon Tony Abbott MP, House of
Representatives, Debates, 26 June 2003, p. 17617.
- Technically, it is possible for the
Departments to make the initial decision to prosecute, but the DPP
has the responsibility to determine whether a commenced prosecution
should proceed. The Policy notes that it is therefore generally
desirable wherever practicable that matters be referred to the DPP
prior to the institution of a prosecution. Para. 3.4.
- The full policy with regard the instigation
and conduct of prosecutions against Commonwealth offences is
available at http://www.cdpp.gov.au/Prosecutions/Policy/Part2.aspx
- Ibid. It is worth noting that the DPP has
arrangements with a few Commonwealth agencies to conduct their own
summary prosecutions. These are generally high volume matters of
minimal complexity (where, for example, pleas of guilty are common
or averment provisions can be relied on) and where prison sentences
are rarely imposed (in many instances the maximum penalty involved
is a fine) The Policy goes on to note that, in any case it is
expected that those responsible for such prosecutions will observe
these guidelines, and that they will consult with the DPP when
difficult questions of fact or law arise See paragraph 3.6 of the
Policy. The maximum penalties for some of these codified contempt
provisions are currently $6600 / $33000 and up to one year in
jail.
- Marcus Priest, Construction suspects slip
Abbott s net , Financial Review, 12 June 2003.
- Ibid.
- Mr Robert McClelland MP, Tabling of Cole
Royal Commission Report , 27 March2003.
- Paul Robinson, Kingham contempt
charge dismissed The Age, 3 May 2003. See also CFMEU,
Cole Royal Commission Contempt Charges Fail 2 May 2003.
- References are to items in Schedule 1 unless
otherwise noted.
- The Explanatory Memorandum notes at p. 7 that
Edwards v Director of Public Prosecutions (1987)
62 ALJR 38 held that testimony does not include unsworn evidence.
It is intended that such a limitation not be found in prosecution
of these offences as the Commission can receive both sworn
(affirmed) and unsworn evidence.
- Note also that WRA section 350 states that a
court may not direct that a person shall serve a sentence of
imprisonment in default of the payment of a fine or other pecuniary
penalty imposed under this Act.
- The Hon Tony Abbott MP, House of
Representatives, Debates, 26 June 2003, p. 17617.
- As a technical point, Crimes Act
section 4AB allows for the conversion of penalties expressed in
dollar amounts to be translated to penalty units. This is done by
dividing the dollar amount by 100 to get penalty units, and
rounding up in cases where these are not whole numbers. So in
reality, $1000 = 10 penalty units which (currently) = $1100. This
formula applies to all the existing $500 and $1000 amounts noted
below.
- It should be noted that the available
penalties would be 5 times the dollar amounts noted for any bodies
corporate convicted of Part XI offences.
- Currently, WRA section 317 has one penalty
provision at the end of the section that applies to all the
offences in the section. The revised drafting clarifies the
penalties at the foot of each subsection consistent with
interpretation under Crimes Act section 4D.
Sudip Sen
8 August 2003
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's
contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with
members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 2003
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
2003.
Back to top