Page 394 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 13 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
volume 11 of the Australian Company Law Reports, the full court of the South Australian court held that it was a breach of these provisions if a person, knowing that there were liquidity problems, took money out for their lawful use but in such a manner that it defeated the claims of the creditors.
So, Madam Speaker, the Government understands what Mr Humphries is trying to do and has sympathy. We should always be vigilant to ensure that our white collar crime provisions are robust and will catch dishonest conduct. The type of dishonest conduct that was referred to in the debate is conduct that we believe should be made criminal. As at present advised, I think that we have probably got it in section 232, and the various catch-all provisions there. We could be open to persuasion to the other view, but we would really need to get the views of the Law Society and the ASC on that.
In some discussions that I had with Mr Humphries earlier he suggested, very sensibly, because this is important - when you are tampering with the criminal law and when you are creating new offences, particularly if you are creating new offences that have an impact on corporate behaviour, which is what we are doing here, you should be really confident that you are doing the right thing - that we could perhaps adjourn this debate, after we have had the Government's preliminary response, to enable both Opposition and Government to get some broader canvassing on this and to ensure, Madam Speaker, that if we do move to tighten up the law, if that is necessary at the end of the day, we do so confident in the knowledge that it is not either unnecessary, which on my current advice may be the situation here, or potentially adding further confusion to an already complex area of law.
With the 1,300-odd sections of the national companies scheme, State or Territory assemblies ought to be wary of creating new offences for directors and officers of corporations which could lead to confusion and, indeed, possibilities of legal technical arguments by which well paid and clever lawyers may be able to get a person off the hook by creating confusion between potentially conflicting sections. So, it is a matter that we should tamper with only if we are totally convinced that it is necessary, and as presently advised the Government is not convinced that this is necessary. Mr Humphries's suggestion that we all have a bit of a further think about it is one which is sensible, given the nature of the legislation.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lamont) adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 12.13 to 2.30 pm
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Medically Acquired AIDS
MRS CARNELL: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. There are at least five people in the ACT who have acquired HIV AIDS through their medical treatment. Two other people in a similar situation died last year. Assistance for these people is obviously urgent. We must not wait while their situation deteriorates. What is the Government doing to urgently provide compensation for these people with medically acquired AIDS?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .