Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I have a few questions for the minister. On the surface, this opposition amendment is an attractive proposition to get consistency between the Criminal Code and the tax act with respect to the measure. I am fortunate in that I am dealing with a minister who is a barrister. If there is an inconsistency between the two, if someone had made a payment which the tax office had not regarded as a bribe under their legislation and had given a tax concession and then, subsequently, that person was prosecuted under the Criminal Code for the same transaction as having paid a bribe, I would assume that a reasonable defence for that person would be that they had already been allowed that payment as a legitimate one under the tax act. It would seem to me that to consider the matter otherwise would introduce the notion of double jeopardy. As a person who is not a lawyer but has had a lot to do with the law, that would be the first proposition I would seek to have tested.

The second thing that concerns me is that I suspect it is far more likely for these matters to turn up in tax affairs than it is for them to turn up in criminal matters. I understand that, to date, there never has been a prosecution under the Criminal Code for bribery as also determined under the tax act. I cannot recall whether the tax office have advised us whether there have been instances where this matter has been dealt with under tax affairs, but my assumption is that it is more likely to turn up in tax in the process of examining transactions than it is in the criminal sense. My expectation is that the difference between the two has arisen by accident. So my question is: did it arise by accident? Perhaps it is necessary to make the two more consistent on a practical basis.