A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Bill 1998

Introduction

The Committee dealt with this bill in Alert Digest No. 1 of 1999, in which it made various comments. The Assistant Treasurer has responded to those comments in a letter dated 10 March 1999. A copy of the letter is attached to this report. An extract from the Alert Digest and relevant parts of the Assistant Treasurer's response are discussed below.

Extract from Alert Digest No. 1 of 1999

This bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 2 December 1998 by the Treasurer. [Portfolio responsibility: Treasury]

One of a package of 16 bills to reform the taxation system, the bill proposes to introduce the Australian Business Number (ABN) as a single business identifier. An ABN will be available to all companies registered under the Corporations Law, government and business entities and entities which require to be registered for the Goods and Services Tax, such as charitable and religious institutions.

Reversal of the onus of proof

Subclause 16(3)

Proposed clauses 14 and 15 of this bill impose an obligation to notify the Registrar of the Australian Business Register of relevant information and of changes in that information. Proposed subclause 16(1) imposes this obligation on each member of a partnership, but states that it may be discharged by any of the partners. Similarly, proposed subclause 16(2) imposes this obligation on each member of the management committee of an unincorporated association, but states that it may be discharged by any of those members.

Proposed subclause 16(3) goes on to provide a defence for persons prosecuted for such offences under section 8C of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 as members of partnerships or unincorporated associations. In general terms, subclause 16(3) reverses the onus of proof, requiring those prosecuted to prove that they were not involved or knowingly concerned in the conduct which led to the commission of the offence.

This provision has been included because section 8C of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 would otherwise impose strict criminal liability on such persons. However, a number of other matters are not clear from the structure of the legislation. For example, the bill does not canvass liability or the availability of defences where such offences are committed by other legal entities such as trusts, incorporated associations or corporations. Similarly, it is not clear whether this approach to liability and defences is characteristic of the approach taken elsewhere in the taxation legislation, or has been developed with specific reference to these offences.

In general terms, it is not clear whether those who might seek to use the proposed subsection 16(3) defences are being treated more or less favourably than, or the same as, others who commit these offences on behalf of other legal entities, or others who commit similar offences under other parts of the taxation legislation. The Committee, therefore, seeks the Treasurer's advice on these matters.

Pending the Treasurer's advice, the Committee draws Senators' attention to the provisions, as they may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties in breach of principle 1(a)(i) of the Committee's terms of reference.

Relevant extract from the response from the Assistant Treasurer

Clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill impose obligations on Australian Business Number (ABN) registered entities to notify the Australian Business Registrar of relevant information and changes to that information. Subclauses 16(1) and 16(2) extend those obligations to cover each member of a partnership or each member of a management committee of an unincorporated association. That is, the subclauses extend the obligations to legal entities who can be prosecuted for an offence (partnerships and unincorporated associations cannot be prosecuted for an offence). Any one of those members can discharge the obligation.

As the Bill will be an Act which is taxation law, the provisions of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (“TAA”) will apply. Where the obligations under clauses 14, 15 and 16 are not met, there will be an offence under section 8C of the TAA.

However, the Bill does not, of itself, create any offence. Nor does it reverse the onus of proof set out under section 8C, ie, that it is incumbent upon the Commissioner of Taxation to prove that the person was capable of providing the required information.

Because of the need to extend the information obligations to cover each member of a partnership or each member of a management committee of an unincorporated association, the Bill provides an additional safeguard to those members. Essentially, the proposed defence provided by subclause 16(3) of the Bill ensures that no offence will have occurred where the person proves that they did not knowingly fail to give the information. Of course, this defence will not be necessary if the Commissioner of Taxation cannot prove that the person was capable of providing the required information.

Your Committee has indicated that they are concerned that the provisions may trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. Four concerns which lead to this belief were advanced.

The first concern is that subclause 16(3) of the Bill “reverses the onus of proof”. That is, that it is up to the person, not the Commissioner to prove that an offence has occurred. This concern is unfounded as it remains the Commissioner who must prove that an offence has been committed, that is, that the person was capable of providing the information and did not do so. The Bill merely provides an additional defence. That defence requires a knowledge of the person's mind. Such knowledge is not provable by the Commissioner.

The second concern is that the Bill does not deal with the liability for offences (and any defence) for entities other than partnerships and unincorporated associations. This concern is also unfounded. The Bill clearly notes at the end of clause 15 that section 8C of the TAA will apply to any entity registered for the ABN if it does not comply. As noted above, the Commissioner of Taxation continues to have the onus of proving the offence.

The third concern is whether the Bill's approach to liability and defences is the approach taken elsewhere in the taxation legislation, or is this a new approach. Clearly, the use of section 8C of the TAA is the normal approach throughout the taxation legislation. In regard to the defences for members of partnerships and unincorporated associations, the approach taken in the Bill is also common in the taxation legislation. For example, sections 220AZF and 220AZG of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 or sections 165 and 166 of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 provide virtually identical defences for members of partnerships and unincorporated associations to the defences provided under subclause 16(3) of the Bill.

The fourth concern is that the Committee is unsure whether subclause 16(3) of the Bill treats members of partnerships or unincorporated associations in a more or less favourable way in comparison to others, wither within this Bill or within taxation legislation generally. It is clear from the above that members of partnerships or unincorporated associations have an advantage over most other persons, as they have an additional defence open to them when being prosecuted under section 8C of the TAA which is not open to most other persons being prosecuted under that section.

In summary, I do not consider that the Bill's provisions unduly trespass on personal rights and liberties.

The Committee thanks the Assistant Treasurer for this detailed response.

Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998

Introduction

The Committee dealt with this bill in Alert Digest No. 1 of 1999, in which it made various comments. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has responded to those comments in a letter dated 23 March 1999. A copy of the letter is attached to this report. An extract from the Alert Digest and relevant parts of the Minister's response are discussed below.

Extract from Alert Digest No. 1 of 1999

This bill was introduced into the Senate on 3 December 1998 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. [Portfolio responsibility: Immigration and Multicultural Affairs]

The bill proposes to amend the Migration Act 1958 to:

• ensure that provisions of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 and the Ombudsman Act 1976 do not apply to persons who are in immigration detention, having arrived in Australia as unlawful citizens, unless such persons themselves initiate a written complaint to HREOC or orally or in writing to the Ombudsman; and
• clarify the duties of the Minister and officials concerning advice relating to applications for visas and on access to legal and other advice.

Introduction

In general terms, this bill is similar in form to the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) 1996 (“the 1996 bill”), which was introduced into the Senate on 20 June 1996, and on which the Committee reported in its Sixth Report of 1996.

Retrospective effect and the current bill

Clause 2

Clause 2 of the 1998 bill provides that the proposed amendments are to commence on the date the bill was introduced into the Senate (ie 3 December 1998). In commenting on this provision, the Committee notes that, for more than 2 years between 1996 and 1998, the law was apparently administered on the basis of legislation which was said to operate retrospectively and yet was never passed by the Parliament. It is conceivable that such a situation might again arise in the case of the present bill.

It is also conceivable that the bill may ultimately be passed in an amended form. Again, this may have implications for the way the law will be administered in the period between the introduction of the bill, and its final passage through the Parliament.

The Committee reiterates that it is opposed in principle to retrospective legislation which detrimentally affects rights. The Committee considers that, in principle, legislation which changes the nature of people's access to justice should commence from the date it is passed by the Parliament rather than the date it is introduced into the Parliament. Given the experience of the 1996 bill, the Committee seeks the Minister's advice on the reasons for making this bill operative from its introduction rather than its passage, and on the implications of this for Departmental officers and administration should the bill again not be passed, or be passed in an amended form.

Pending the Minister's advice, the Committee draws Senators' attention to this provision, as it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties, in breach of principle 1(a)(i) of the Committee's terms of reference.

Relevant extract from the response from the Minister

The Committee has noted that the Bill commences on the date of its introduction into Parliament, rather than its passage. The Committee believes that this may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties, in breach of principle 1(a)(i) of the Committee's terms of reference.

This Bill is largely the same as the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996, which was before the last Parliament. That Bill was introduced on 20 June 1996 and had a commencement date linked to my public announcement on the issue on 19 June 1996.

The present Bill has a commencement date of 3 December 1998, being the date of the Bill's re-introduction into the Senate. This date was chosen to take into account the two-year delay associated with the previous Bill and because there had been no events between 20 June 1996 and 3 December 1998 that could have required retrospective validation.

I assure the Committee that making the Bill operative from the date of introduction rather than its passage does not have implications for Departmental officers or administration as both the Human Rights Commissioner and the Commonwealth Ombudsman have given undertakings that they will carry out the functions under their respective legislation as if the Bill has been passed.

I trust that these comments will be of assistance to the Committee.

The Committee thanks the Minister for this response, and accepts his assurance that “there were no events between 20 June 1996 and 3 December 1998 that could have required retrospective validation”. The Committee also notes the Minister's assurance that making the bill operative from the date of its introduction rather than its passage has no implications for Departmental officers or administration “as both the Human Rights Commissioner and the Commonwealth Ombudsman have given undertakings that they will carry out the functions under their respective legislation as if the Bill has been passed”. However, the Committee continues to be concerned at the potential implications of the bill's approach to its commencement.

For example, the Committee notes recent media reports that 95 illegal immigrants had entered Australia or been found in Australian waters at Cairns, Gove, Christmas Island and off the coast of Darwin in February and March of this year. The Committee would appreciate the Minister's further advice as to whether this bill is currently being applied to these people, and to the functions of the Human Rights Commissioner and the Commonwealth Ombudsman under their respective legislation in relation to these people.

Pending the Minister's advice, the Committee continues to draw Senators' attention to this provision, as it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties, in breach of principle 1(a)(i) of the Committee's terms of reference.

Sales Tax Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998

Introduction

The Committee dealt with this bill in Alert Digest No. 1 of 1999, in which it made various comments. The Assistant Treasurer has responded to those comments in a letter dated 10 March 1999. A copy of the letter is attached to this report. An extract from the Alert Digest and relevant parts of the Assistant Treasurer's response are discussed below.

Extract from Alert Digest No. 1 of 1999

This bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 3 December 1998 by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. [Portfolio responsibility: Treasury]

The bill proposes to amend the following acts:

Sales Tax Assessment Act 1992 and Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1992 to provide exemptions from sales tax for:

• satellites, space launch vehicles and other commercial space equipment; and
• certain goods imported by, or on behalf of, non-Australian Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Family Members and delegations and participants in the Sydney 2000 Olympics, Paralympic and associated events; and

Sales Tax Assessment Act 1992 to:

• change the sales tax rules for the computer industry; and
• provide that goods imported into Australia under a temporary importation exemption, used in Australia, exported and then re-imported are subject to sales tax at the time of the later importation.

Indeterminate commencement

Subclause 2(2)

Subclause 2(2) provides that a number of items in Schedule 2 are to commence on a day to be fixed by Proclamation, with no further time fixed for automatic commencement or repeal.

The Committee has frequently commented on such provisions in the context of Drafting Instruction No 2 of 1989 issued by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. This Drafting Instruction states that, as a general rule, a restriction should be placed on the time within which an Act should be proclaimed. The commencement clause should fix either a period or a date after Royal Assent, together with a provision stating that, if no proclamation has been made, the Act either commences at the fixed time, or is to taken to be repealed at that time. The Drafting Instruction concludes that clauses providing for commencement by proclamation without the restrictions mentioned above should be used “only in unusual circumstances, where the commencement depends on an event whose timing is uncertain”.

Paragraph 3.13 of the Explanatory Memorandum to this bill states that the new rules for exported goods will start from a date to be prescribed “to give exporters time to apply for accreditation”. If exporters were given a fixed time after Assent within which to apply for accreditation, then the amendments referred to in subclause 2(2) would commence as suggested within the Drafting Instruction. The Committee, therefore, seeks the Minister's advice as to why this commencement provision cannot be made more certain by fixing a time for exporters to apply for accreditation.

Pending the Minister's advice, the Committee draws Senators' attention to this provision, as it may be considered to inappropriately delegate legislative powers in breach of principle 1(a)(iv) of the Committee's terms of reference.

Relevant extract from the response from the Assistant Treasurer

As you will be aware, subclause 2(2) refers to the commencement date for provisions relating to the export of various computer goods. The provisions will commence on a date to be fixed by Proclamation, which can be at any time after Royal Assent, with no time fixed for automatic commencement or repeal. The Committee asked why it was not possible for the provisions to have a fixed starting date.

The provisions which will commence on Proclamation will form part of the recently enacted rules to combat sales tax evasion in the computer industry. At the moment, the main features of the scheme - the system of accreditation of reputable traders and authorisation of transactions by the Commissioner - only apply to goods (personal computers and related equipment) for use in Australia.

Since exports are exempt from sales tax, there is a fear that dishonest traders may try to exploit this and the proposed provisions will extend accreditation and authorisation to goods for export. It is known that industry members are aware of the possibility of evading tax by abusing the export exemption, and a slight increase in exports of the relevant goods (not enough to warrant immediate action) has been noticed.

The Committee asked why the start date could not be more certain.

The Government's intention was that the start date should be as flexible as possible. A flexible approach is necessary because of the entrenched nature of the evasion and the ease and speed with which evaders will adopt new methods of evasion. It is hoped that these amendments will act as a deterrent, to discourage this kind of evasion from developing. The deterrent value would be limited if a quick response to an emerging problem was not possible.

Moreover, under these provisions, the potential compliance costs for some exporters could be significant. If the provisions do operate effectively as a deterrent to evasion, it may be possible to defer the start date and associated costs indefinitely. Industry was consulted on the design of the legislation and wanted provisions which targeted evasion but had a limited impact on complying taxpayers and markets. Flexibility as to the starting date of these new rules for exports is in line with the industry's view on the design of the legislation.

Avoiding compliance costs in this case is specially desirable, because it is intended that sales tax will end on 1 July 2000. Even if the legislation had a fixed starting date, that date would not be until several months after Royal Assent, because time would have to be allowed for public education and the processing of applications. The starting date would then be no more than 9 or 10 months before 1 July 2000, and, in the absence of proof of abuse of the export exemption, it would not be cost effective for either the industry or the Tax Office, to incur expenditure to prevent abuse.

It should be noted that there is a similarly open-ended commencement date with respect to the retailer withholding regime, which is another anti-evasion measure aimed at the computer industry.

I trust this information is of assistance to the Committee.

The Committee thanks the Assistant Treasurer for this response.

Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1999

Introduction

The Committee dealt with this bill in Alert Digest No. 3 of 1999, in which it made various comments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care has responded to those comments in a letter dated 11 March 1999. A copy of the letter is attached to this report. An extract from the Alert Digest and relevant parts of the Parliamentary Secretary's response are discussed below.

The Committee notes that this bill was passed by the Senate on 11 March 1999, and so these comments are made for the information of Senators.

Extract from Alert Digest No. 3 of 1999

This bill was introduced into the Senate on 17 February 1999 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. [Portfolio responsibility: Health and Aged Care]

The bill proposes to provide a new framework for the regulation and management of complementary medicines by amending the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Act 1997 to:

• amend key definitions to delineate between foods, complementary medicines and other medicines such as over the counter and prescription medicines;
• establish the existing Complementary Medicines Evaluation Committee as a statutory committee;
• enable sponsors of relatively low-risk products to market those products without delay by enabling the efficient listing of the products on the Register;
• ensure that all sponsors of listable goods must hold evidence to substantiate therapeutic claims made in the market place;
• describe offences and penalties in relation to the publication of certain advertisements in print media; and
• establish a statutory body, the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee.

Insufficient Parliamentary scrutiny

Proposed new subsections 17(5) and (6)

Item 10 of Schedule 1 to the bill proposes to insert a new subsection 17(5) in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. This subsection enables the Minister, by publishing a Gazette notice, to add to the Register of listed goods. Proposed new subsection 17(6) then provides for such a notice to cease to have effect if the regulations are amended to include those goods as either listed or registered goods. The Explanatory Memorandum notes that these amendments should “reduce delays in the marketing of low-risk products by allowing these to be included in the Register as listed goods, rather than registered goods”.

However, it appears that one effect of proposed new subsection 17(5) is that it may enable additions to the Register of listed goods to be made without the need to include them in regulations. If so, this may avoid Parliamentary scrutiny of such additions. The Committee, therefore, seeks the Minister's advice on whether additions to the Register for listed therapeutic goods under proposed subclause 17(5) will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

Pending the Minister's advice, the Committee draws Senators' attention to this provision, as it may be considered to insufficiently subject the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny in breach of principle 1(a)(v) of the Committee's terms of reference.

Extract from the response from the Parliamentary Secretary

The Government notes the Committees concern about insufficient Parliamentary scrutiny of proposed subsection 17(5) and (6) of the Act.

The Parliament does not scrutinise the approval of any therapeutic goods except new, low risk complementary medicines substances. This is an historical anomoly. Approval for marketing of prescription medicines, over-the-counter medicines and therapeutic devices is granted following consideration by expert committees and is not subject to disallowable procedures.

These amendments will ensure timely market availability by gazettal of low risk complementary medicines only after they have been evaluated by the expert Complementary Medicines Evaluation Committee.

However, the TGA has undertaken to include the approved substances from the Commonwealth Gazette notices in the Schedules to the Therapeutic Goods Regulations every time the Regulations are updated (currently 4-5 times per annum). The scheduling of the gazettal notices will ensure that there is an easily accessible, consolidated list of all gazettals and will, at the same time, provide Parliament with an opportunity to disallow any such schedule.

The Committee thanks the Parliamentary Secretary for this response.

Definitions and interpretation

Proposed new Part 4A

Item 12 of Schedule 1 to the bill proposes to insert a new Part 4A in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. This new Part, which previously resided in the Therapeutic Goods Regulations, deals with the advertising of designated therapeutic goods.

As a general observation, the Committee notes that it is difficult to understand the meaning of many of these provisions unless the reader has a set of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations close at hand.

Secondly, proposed new section 42B, which contains relevant definitions, defines mainstream media as “any magazine or newspaper for consumers containing a range of news, public interest items, advertorials, advertisements or competitions”. The Committee notes that, in some respects, this definition is broad – possibly extending to magazines containing a range of competitions – and yet does not refer to other common means of advertising therapeutic goods, such as on the Internet.

The definition also refers to “consumers” with no further indication of the products or services likely to be consumed. The definition also includes the word “advertorial”, with no further explanation of its meaning. While this term is apparently referred to in guidelines for Advertising Therapeutic Goods to the Public, it is appropriate that it should be more formally defined or referred to in the legislation itself.

The Committee is aware of some previous correspondence on these issues between the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family Services as incorporated in the Senate Hansard on 13 May 1998. However, the Committee seeks the Minister's advice on why these drafting issues have not been clarified in introducing this legislation.

Extract from the response from the Parliamentary Secretary

The Government notes the Committee's concerns regarding definitions of advertising. The definitions for “mainstream media” is taken from the Therapeutic Goods Regulations and reflects exactly the definition currently employed.

The term “Mainstream” is intended to encompass only mediums of mass communication, for example newspapers or magazines for national or regional general circulation. “Mainstream” is not intended to apply to internal industry or organisation publications such as newsletters or bulletins for practitioners or targeted membership audiences.

Assurances along these lines will be given in the Senate and the House of Representatives Second Reading Speech.

I also note that the definition of “advertorial' is now included in the Macquarie Dictionary.

The Committee thanks the Parliamentary Secretary for this response, and for the assurances to be given in the Second Reading Speech. The Committee remains of the view that such clarifications are more appropriately a matter for inclusion in the legislation itself, rather than in the material accompanying the legislation.

Strict liability and other offences

Proposed new sections 42C and 42D

Proposed new section 42C deals with offences relating to the publication of non-approved advertisements for therapeutic goods. Proposed subsection 42C(7) provides that these are strict liability offences. However, the Explanatory Memorandum provides no guidance as to the need for imposing strict liability in these circumstances.

Proposed subsection 42C(1) states that section 42C “does not apply to a publisher in respect of an advertisement received by the publisher for publication or insertion in the ordinary course of business”. Publishers are instead subject to proposed new section 42D, which creates an offence of `knowingly or recklessly publishing or inserting a non-approved advertisement'. A publisher is defined as “a person whose business it is to publish or insert, or to arrange for the publication or insertion of, advertisements in any publication”.

Given that publishers are not subject to section 42C, it is not entirely clear to whom that section is intended to apply. For example, an advertising agency is, arguably, within the definition of a publisher (being in the business of arranging for the publication of advertisements) and so outside the scope of section 42C. Individuals may publish advertisements, but these are likely to be classified advertisements only.

The Committee therefore, seeks the Minister's advice on why proposed section 42C creates offences of strict liability, and on those persons who are likely to be subject to those offences.

Pending the Minister's advice, the Committee draws Senators' attention to this provision, as it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties in breach of principle 1(a)(i) of the Committee's terms of reference.

Extract from the response from the Parliamentary Secretary

The Government also notes your concerns regarding the strict liability nature of penalty provisions for advertising breaches.

Under the Therapeutic Goods Regulations, advertisements placed in mainstream print media are required to be cleared by the Secretary before they may be published. The Secretary has, under the terms of the Regulations, delegated this function to the Proprietary Medicines Association of Australia (PMAA) and the Complementary Healthcare Council of Australia (CHC). The offences and penalties relating to advertisements in mainstream print media that are required to be pre-cleared by the CHC or the PMAA, have been moved from the Regulations into the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.

The offence provisions in the new Section 42C are identical to those that are currently in the Therapeutic Goods Regulations at regulation 5D and 5E.

The inclusion of these offence and penalty provisions in the Act will enhance the pre-clearance scheme. Under the existing Regulations the maximum penalty that could be imposed, in accordance with Commonwealth government legal policy as reflected in section 63 of the Act, is 10 penalty units ($1,000). While this penalty was recognised as inappropriate at the time, it was considered more important that the offences be included in order to lend some support to the pre-clearance decision making of the (then) Nutritional Foods Association of Australia (NFAA) and PMAA.

The offences and penalty provisions have been moved from the Regulations into the Act, and penalties have been increased for two key reasons:

(a) to lend greater support to industry decisions and consumer confidence, though the CHC and PMAA clearance process. Moving the offences and penalties to the Act reflects the importance of the provisions and provides greater recognition to the role of the CHC and PMAA in assessing the appropriateness of advertisements for publication in mainstream media; and

(b) to achieve a degree of consistency with similar provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

The Broadcasting Services Act (BSA) describes the offences and penalties in relation to the broadcast of advertisements in electronic media under a similar pre-clearance scheme. A similar offence for publishing advertisements that are in breach of the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 attracts a penalty of $200,000. By contrast, the maximum penalty available under the Therapeutic Goods Regulations is $1,100.

Penalties should as far as possible be consistent across Commonwealth legislation (“like penalties for like offences”). While the proposed new penalties for inclusion in the amendment Bill are still significantly less than those in the Broadcasting Services Act, they fit within the penalty levels imposed under the Act and the Attorney General's Department have advised that, whilst still low, they are acceptable.

The Attorney General's Department has advised that, the offences should attract strict liability in view of the fact that the penalties are significantly lower than the penalties currently applying under the Broadcasting Services Act for comparable offences. This also properly reflects the serious nature of a breach of the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code applying to medicines, which in part is designed to discourage self diagnosis and self-treatment of serious and major medical conditions.

I hope that these explanations assist the Committee and trust that these amendments, introduced mainly at the behest of industry and consumer groups, will see smooth passage through Parliament and implementation.

The Committee thanks the Parliamentary Secretary for this response. While the transposition of these provisions from the regulations to the bill is clearly a worthwhile measure, this seems to the Committee to have been an opportunity lost to clarify some of the drafting and other issues. For example, those persons or organisations to whom section 42C is intended to apply remain unclear.

For this reason, the Committee continues to draw Senators' attention to this provision, as it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties in breach of principle 1(a)(i) of the Committee's terms of reference

Barney Cooney

Chairman