House of Representatives
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Bill 2014
Explanatory Memorandum
(Circulated by the authority of the Treasurer, the Hon J. B. Hockey MP)Human Rights Committee, General Comment 32, Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 August 2007.
Engel and Others v the Netherlands , Application no. 5100/71, 5101/71, 5102/71, 5354/72, 5370/72, 8 June 1976.
See, for example, Ozturk v The Federal Republic of Germany , Application no. 8544/79, 21 February 1984 and Ezeh and Connors v United Kingdom , Applications no. 39665/98 and 40086/98, 15 July 2002.
See, for example, Jussila v Finland , Application no. 73053/01, 23 November 2006, Bendenoun v France , Application no. 12547/86, 24 February 1994, Benham v United Kingdom , Application no. 1380/92, 10 June 1996, Ozturk v The Federal Republic of Germany , Application no. 8544/79, 21 February 1984 and Ravnsborg v Sweden , Application no. 14220/88, 23 March 1994.
Ezeh and Connors v United Kingdom , Applications no. 39665/98 and 40086/98, 15 July 2002, Ozturk v The Federal Republic of Germany , Application no. 8544/79, 21 February 1984, and also Lutz v Germany , Application no. 9912/82, 25 August 1987; these factors are noted in the Committee's interim practice note on Civil Penalties, paragraph 1.7.
Subsection 196(3) of the SIS Act.
Section 215 of the SIS Act.
Section 199 of the SIS Act.
Section 221 of the SIS Act.
APRA v Holloway (2000) 45 ATR 278, [12]; citing NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) 141 ALR 640, 648.
Subsection 196(4) of the SIS Act.
Section 200 of the SIS Act.
Case of T v Austria , Applications no. 27783/95, 14 November 2010 at [66].
Olesen v Eddy (2011) 81 ATR 763, [18]; APRA v Derstepanian (2005) 60 ATR 518 at [40].
APRA, Superannuation Fund-level Rates of Return (issued 9 January 2013) available at: http://www.apra.gov.au/Super/Publications/Pages/superannuation-fund-level-publications.aspx; the top 10 funds have total assets in the range of $22 to $51 billion.
Oleson v Eddy (2011) 81 ATR 763, [32]: Mansfield J combined 160 contraventions into 'one contravening course of conduct' such that Eddy was only liable to a single maximum penalty of 2,000 penalty units.
For example, Olesen v Eddy (2011) 81 ATR 763, [35]: $15,000; Oleson v MacLeod [2011] FCA 229, [81]: $12,500; Olesen v Parker [2011] FCA 1096, [86]: penalties of $35,000 and $15,000 were imposed on the first and second respondents respectively; Vivian v Fitzgeralds (2007) 69 ATR 834, [46]: penalties of $20,000 and $10,000 were imposed on the first and second respondents respectively.