Senator COONEY (6:09 PM) —This is very a interesting debate, because it deals with when it is appropriate to have strict liability offences put in legislation. Strict liability offences are put in, in many cases, in terms of monitoring, and I think that is what the minister is saying. But I got somewhat alarmed when he was talking about offences that might have something to do with firearms, illegal drugs and matters of that nature, and saying that somehow they would become strict liability offences. In a certain sense, the more serious the offence, the more people being accused of it should be protected, because your reputation can be very much at stake. I am sure the minister did not intend that offences like introducing firearms or illegal drugs into Australia should be strict liability offences. They should certainly be offences, but they are of such a heinous nature and such a serious nature that people should not be found guilty of those offences unless they intended to commit them.

Strict liability offences are more apt when they apply to ensuring that there is a monitoring process that should be enforced. If somebody fails to do what they are supposed to do under that, a penalty is attached but it does not in any way take from a person's character. You can commit a strict liability offence without your character coming into the issue. That is the sort of thing that happens, say, with speeding, when you do 70 kilometres per hour instead of 60 kilometres per hour. It is not a good thing, but it does not ruin your reputation. I was most concerned, when the minister was talking about firearm offences and illegal drug offences, that the impression might have been gained—which I am sure is not the impression that he wanted to give—that somehow we are going to have a strict liability offence, where people's reputations are at stake and can be very readily lost, because of an offence where they in fact had no moral turpitude attaching to what they did but they just happened to do something which was quite mechanical and were nevertheless convicted of drug offences or firearm offences. Perhaps you would clarify that, Minister.