House of Representatives

Explanatory Memorandum

(Circulated by the authority of the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, the Hon Wayne Swan MP)

Chapter 2 - Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011

Commonwealth Government Securities Legislation Amendment (Retail Trading) Bill 2012

2.1 This Bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

Overview

2.2 The Commonwealth Government Securities Legislation Amendment (Retail Trading) Bill 2012 (the Bill) amends the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911 (the CIS Act) to facilitate trading of beneficial interests in Commonwealth Government Securities (CGS) on financial markets in Australia that are accessible to financial investors. The Bill also contains amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 requiring financial advisers to provide a prescribed information statement to retail clients when they give them personal advice about investing in CGS. Finally, a number of minor amendments are made to the CIS Act to facilitate the Australian Office of Financial Management's daily administrative work and to remove some redundant provisions.

Human rights implications

2.3 This Bill may raise human rights issues because it contains a number of offences where the evidentiary burden is reversed. This may raise concerns with respect to the presumption of innocence.

2.4 The reasons for reversing the evidentiary burden have been assessed in the light of guidelines provided by the Attorney General's Department and have been found to be consistent with those guidelines (see paragraph 1.59 above for details).

2.5 The main reason for reversing the burden of proof for the offences is that the relevant matters are particularly within the knowledge of the defendant and would be very difficult for the prosecution to prove or disprove.

Conclusion

2.6 This Bill is compatible with human rights because, to the extent that it may limit those rights, those limitations are reasonable, necessary and proportionate.