|
senate vote 2024-02-29#6
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2025-02-22 20:13:03
|
Title
Description
-
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-02-29.45.1) introduced by West Australian Senator [Michaelia Cash](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/michaelia_cash) (Liberal), which means it failed.Senator Cash [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-02-29.42.1):> *This is an amendment within the committee stage itself, so it does formally amend the bill. It would reinsert a deferred prosecution agreement scheme into the legislation. Why are we moving these amendments? It's because the evidence on this issue is impossible to ignore. When the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee looked at this particular version of the bill, they had the benefit of weighty submissions by entities with a respected track record in integrity issues. The committee heard from the Uniting Church Synod of Victoria and Tasmania, Allens Linklaters, the Law Council of Australia and Transparency International Australia. The overwhelming position that has been put forward by these bodies is very, very clear. All of these bodies support a deferred prosecution agreement scheme. But it doesn't actually stop there. If you look at what Austrade said, Austrade itself was clear on its support for measures that incentivise self-reporting which, as we know, is exactly what a DPA scheme is intended to do.*- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-02-29.45.1) introduced by West Australian Senator [Michaelia Cash](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/michaelia_cash) (Liberal), which means it failed. The amendment would have introduced an [deferred prosecution agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_prosecution) (DPA) scheme.
- ### Amendment text
- See the official parliamentary website for the [text of the bill](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7055_amend_4fc9a9f4-2e31-4408-9bfb-405e8f8f193c%22;rec=0).
-
-
|
|
senate vote 2024-02-29#6
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2025-02-22 19:54:05
|
Title
Bills — Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023; in Committee- Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023 - in Committee - Deferred prosecution agreements
Description
<p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 2042 together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "3", substitute "4".</p><p class="italic">(3) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:</p><p class="italic">4 Review of operation of amendments</p><p class="italic">(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act to be conducted as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 18 months starting on the day Part 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act commences.</p><p class="italic">(2) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.</p><p class="italic">(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.</p><p>Senator Pocock moved a second reading amendment that referred to the introduction of a DPA scheme, which is an important issue; however, it only went as far as saying it was worthy of consideration. I will be moving an amendment in the committee stage to formally, not just by way of a second reading amendment, amend the bill to ensure that a scheme is not just worthy of consideration but, indeed, adopted.</p><p>The amendments that I have just moved, though—amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 2042—are in relation to a statutory review which the coalition has proposed as part of the bill. This is a very simple and sensible proposition. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, we support the provisions of the bill that the government has put forward. These are sensible changes to the law which adopt coalition policy from the previous parliament. But we acknowledge, of course, that best practice in this space evolves over time. That is why we have proposed a statutory review. It is a straightforward solution to ensure that the measures are working as intended and it demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that our corporate criminal laws are appropriately calibrated in a rapidly changing world.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>Thanks, Senator Cash, for that contribution. The government will be supporting amendments (1) and (3). Under the deferred prosecution agreement scheme proposed by the former government, companies engaged in serious corporate crime, including foreign bribery, would have been able to negotiate a fine, agree to a set of conditions and have their cases put on indefinite hold, subject to compliance with that agreement. The government will entertain the introduction of a deferred prosecution scheme only after the measures introduced by this bill have been implemented and given time to work.</p><p>We do, however, support amending the bill to include a statutory review provision whereby the amendments made by this bill will be reviewed after 18 months. A review will ensure that the measures introduced and debated today can be assessed after an appropriate period and guarantee that companies engaged in serious criminal wrongdoing, like foreign bribery, feel the full force of the law.</p><p>I thank senators from the Australian Greens and Senator Pocock as well, who have indicated that they will support the review mechanism. The bill, with these amendments, shows the government's commitment to tackling corruption and, in particular, ensuring that our laws are effective in detecting, investigating and prosecuting foreign bribery.</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>On behalf of the Greens, I indicate we support these two amendments—amendment (1) being a commencement provision and amendment (3) being the review of the operation of the bill's amendments. I was glad to hear in the government's contribution that the review of the operation of the amendments will also include consideration of deferred agreements. We supported Senator David Pocock's second reading amendment to the effect that a proper and prompt review of deferred prosecution agreements would be essential in looking at the efficacy of these amendments. We are grateful that the government is leaning into it. We would hope that the review would, as far as possible, have a public element and seek public submissions, but, in any event, we think a statutory review, which is tabled in the House, to see if what's promised is delivered is a very sensible step forward.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-02-29.45.1) introduced by West Australian Senator [Michaelia Cash](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/michaelia_cash) (Liberal), which means it failed.
- Senator Cash [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-02-29.42.1):
- > *This is an amendment within the committee stage itself, so it does formally amend the bill. It would reinsert a deferred prosecution agreement scheme into the legislation. Why are we moving these amendments? It's because the evidence on this issue is impossible to ignore. When the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee looked at this particular version of the bill, they had the benefit of weighty submissions by entities with a respected track record in integrity issues. The committee heard from the Uniting Church Synod of Victoria and Tasmania, Allens Linklaters, the Law Council of Australia and Transparency International Australia. The overwhelming position that has been put forward by these bodies is very, very clear. All of these bodies support a deferred prosecution agreement scheme. But it doesn't actually stop there. If you look at what Austrade said, Austrade itself was clear on its support for measures that incentivise self-reporting which, as we know, is exactly what a DPA scheme is intended to do.*
- ### Amendment text
- See the official parliamentary website for the [text of the bill](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7055_amend_4fc9a9f4-2e31-4408-9bfb-405e8f8f193c%22;rec=0).
-
-
|