Page 3365 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Of course, that is important. There must be someone to sue; there must be someone to serve documents on legally. I can see Mr Stefaniak nodding, because he, as a lawyer, understands that. But, of course, normally you have strict liability offences in matters of acute public interest, such as environmental pollution issues where there is a great deal of importance in the public saying, in effect, "You are deemed to have committed the offence".
I think this is an overreaction. It is part of the problem within this Bill of trying to balance out the activities of little voluntary associations with the bigger clubs and the monster licensed clubs as well. I propose to move an amendment that inserts the words "without reasonable cause" in subclause 4 of clause 64 after the words, "If the committee". I anticipated the Attorney giving in on this, since he is such a humanitarian lawyer, and realised only this morning that just for once his Law Office prevailed over him - over his better sense. On reflection, he might give a little bit of discretion to the Minister administering the Act so that an offence will not be proceeded with as of strict liability.
I concede that, when we eventually divide this Act so that a good part of it applies to voluntary associations and the rest of it applies to the big, more commercial organisations, Mr Connolly's point in relation to the top category becomes valid. But I feel that, whilst we do not have that dichotomy, it is pretty excessive for law-abiding citizens to find themselves strictly guilty of an offence and convicted and fined accordingly. In my case, touch wood, that would make me a first offender. I think they are very significant issues for people in the community. I now move the following amendment:
Page 30, line 7, after "committee" insert "without reasonable cause".
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (3.53): Mr Speaker, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee did, in report No. 14, point out that this was a strict liability offence - as is the proper function of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee; it searches for these provisions which are considered undesirable and draws them to the attention of the house without perhaps necessarily saying that they are impermissible. I responded to the committee by suggesting that I did not see the need for an amendment. Clause 64 requires that all committees of associations appoint someone to fill a vacancy of public officer within 14 days of the vacancy occurring and, if that is not done, it creates an offence with a penalty of up to $200.
The committee expressed the concern that that provision might result in a person being found guilty of an offence in circumstances in which he or she might have no knowledge of the vacancy having occurred and so no power to arrange a replacement; for example, a person who is overseas at the time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .