Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3493 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

It also allows for the inclusion of corporate culture, Mr Speaker. Mr Stefaniak is quite right. It is in the Criminal Code. But a lot of this stuff needs to be underscored. This is a significant issue, Mr Speaker. The ACT-Mr Stefaniak is quite right-is leading the way. The opposition should be congratulating this jurisdiction for doing it, not pointing to it as being inappropriate.

Mr Speaker, one of the things which have been misrepresented in the media is the fact that the burden of proof-the general principles of criminal responsibility, which include corporate criminal responsibility, the burden of proof, the general defences-needs to be beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be a significant contribution to the negligence. It is not-and I repeat not-a case that, if someone is accidentally killed at work, someone is going to go to jail. If that was so, we would have had 20-odd people in jail over the last few years, not just one person prosecuted.

Those people who are diligent in their OH&S practices, those people who concede, particularly in some dangerous workplaces, that the potential for significant injury and death is there and take reasonable steps to avoid it, have nothing to fear before the law.

And with what conviction do I say this, Mr Speaker? The fact is that the laws of manslaughter apply to those people today, already. They know this legislation is nothing new. It is not a monster that can be held up to frighten the horses. The same burdens of proof exist under this legislation as exist under the existing legislation.

I was interested to hear Mr Stefaniak say that if there are lesser criteria-and that's my word-for proof, he would have some concerns. He was told, Mr Speaker, that the burden of proof-the criteria for establishing responsibility-has not been diminished under this legislation. So introducing that possibility is to give birth to a furphy. Mr Speaker; it is just not the responsible thing to do.

Mr Speaker, it was also reported in the press that the illustrious Mr Peters said that this is bad for business. I would like to ask this question then: what are these people afraid of? Are they suggesting, Mr Speaker, that it is bad for business to look after your workforce, to make sure they don't get significantly injured and killed in the workplace? Are they suggesting that good OH&S practices are a barrier to profit margins? Are they trying to protect the corporate entities? Are they trying to avoid the business going broke because it had a strongly proven example of negligence resulting in death?

What are they trying to avoid, Mr Speaker? When these people have got corporate lawyers by the yard-they're so thick on the ground, Mr Speaker, that you trip over them-why on earth haven't those same lawyers said to them, "There is nothing different about this; it is just putting the accent further on it."But the fundamental difference, of course, is that non-natural persons can get done as well. All of a sudden, Mr Speaker, it's not the foreman that is in jeopardy; it is those people making corporate decisions who are also in jeopardy. Hence the scare mongering that has been trotted out.

Mr Speaker, opposition to this legislation is nothing more than supporting a regime which sheets home a responsibility to minor players, to minor people in the workplace. The opposition to this legislation seeks to exempt people who are responsible for corporate culture. It seeks to eliminate the definition of an agent, of a contractor, what is

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .