Page 3366 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I advised the committee that, after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, we took the view that prosecution for such an offence under those circumstances would be contrary to normal prosecution policy and extremely unlikely; that it is not absolutely necessary to structure the law to positively exclude every extraordinary circumstances; and that there was an important underlying policy in the Bill that all incorporated associations should at all times have a public officer and thus it was important to have a provision like clause 64 to require that, under pain of potential prosecution - and, of course, as Mr Collaery would acknowledge, a $200 offence is, in the scheme of things, a very minor matter.
Mr Collaery has now formally moved an amendment - I think I have in front of me somewhere the precise form of his amendment. It certainly is helpful in these circumstances if an amendment can be provided with somewhat greater notice than when it appears on the floor of the house, and I would suggest to all members who are proposing amendments at detail stages that it helps enormously if we can have them in advance.
The Government does not want to be inflexible in this situation and, although not conceding that it would have been inappropriate to leave the Bill in its present form, I am happy to accept Mr Collaery's insertion of "without reasonable cause", which operates, as he says, to turn what was otherwise a strict liability offence into an ordinary offence with a standard defence.
It is, of course, as he indicates, a problem with this legislation that we are covering everything from the small stamp collecting club with a dozen members and no assets to large, multi-million dollar operations with many thousands of members, and I would agree with him that, in the case of the large, multi-million dollar business, to all effects and purposes, probably a strict liability offence is quite appropriate; but for the small stamp collecting club it may be seen as a bit harsh.
So, we are prepared to accept this amendment; but, in doing so, wish to reiterate that we do not think that the previous structure of the Bill was harsh or oppressive. However, in order to facilitate debate and indicate our preparedness to accept reasonable propositions from non-government members, we will accept this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .