Thank you.
Again on page 145, we are dealing with proposed section 13.17. I don't know if I should call it a reverse image, but it reiterates in the Migratory Birds Convention Act what is currently provided for at proposed section 13.14 and explicitly provides for the defence of due diligence. It creates an exception from the due diligence offence for those offences that require proof of intent. So where mens rea is required, you don't need a due diligence defence.
However, as it's currently drafted on page 145, at proposed section 13.17, the offence of knowingly falsifying documents is not explicitly excluded, which it should be as a mens rea offence. Again, it's a drafting error in which, after the reference to paragraph 5.2(a), (c), or (d), we should have included also “knowingly contravening paragraph 5.2(b) or contravening section 5.3”. In other words, paragraph 5.2(b) was inadvertently omitted, but it is a mens rea offence and therefore it needs to be excluded from proposed section 13.17, which is intended to provide a due diligence defence where there is no mens rea requirement.