Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the question from Senator Ludwig. I will need to check that. I think that might have been in the Law Council submission, but I am not sure. I can get back to the committee on that. In the meantime, I will keep pursuing the other amendments in the interests of time.

Question negatived.

by leave—The Democrats oppose schedule 3 in the following terms:

(13)  Schedule 3, item 39, page 133 (line 28) to page 134 (line 1), TO BE OPPOSED.

(14)  Schedule 3, item 42, page 134 (lines 8 to 13), TO BE OPPOSED.

(15)  Schedule 3, item 45, page 134 (lines19 to 24), TO BE OPPOSED.

These amendments, like the last one to which I referred, Senator Ludwig, are pretty much sourced directly from the Law Council submission. They deal with the determination of incrimination, the use of incriminating evidence and reversal of the evidential burden. I outlined in my comments in the second reading debate the concerns that the Australian Democrats had with the effect of the bill in seeking to abrogate the privilege against self-incrimination by requiring people to provide a written statement potentially containing self-incriminating information. We have expressed, on a number of occasions, concerns about provisions such as that in law.

So amendment No. 13 would remove the ability for evidence which a participant has indicated may be self-incriminating to be subsequently used in evidence against that witness under section 35 of the Australian Crime Commission Act. Amendment No. 14, dealing with the use of incriminating evidence, would delete the note which reverses the evidential burden of proving that evidence is not false in a material particular. I am happy to commend those to the Senate. Amendment 15 is the one to which I just referred. ‘Removing the ability for evidence for which a participant has indicated may be self-incriminating to be subsequently used in evidence against that witness under section 35’—I think that was No. 14, and No. 15 was: ‘Amend schedule 3 to delete the note which reverses the evidential burden of proving that evidence is not false in a material particular.’

Again, they essentially go to the heart of our concerns, which are the changes involving self-incrimination and also the fact that we are concerned that we are doing the legwork for the ACC. I hope that little messy explanation goes to the heart of our amendments and I commend them to the chamber.