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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 4 March 2004) . . Page.. 792 ..

Leave granted.

MS GALLAGHER: I move amendments Nos 20 to 26 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 816].

Since the bill was drafted and introduced to the Assembly, ACT WorkCover has further considered its ability to complete investigations within the six-month time limit. There are a number of cases where complex investigations are taking longer than six months to complete, so the government is proposing to amend the time limit in this clause to 12 months. The government and WorkCover are committed to completing investigations as quickly as possible, but the time limit needs to encompass a full range of investigations, which can include very complex processes.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 169, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 170 to 191, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 192.

MS DUNDAS (5.42): I move amendment No 6 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 817].

The opposition is seeking to do more than just oppose this clause. We are seeking to omit clause 192(3). Clause 192 provides that the mental element proved to be held by one person can incriminate another. In other words, the guilty intentions of one person can land another person in jail. I accept that it is quite reasonable for employers to be held responsible for the actions of their employees. Clauses 192(4) and 193 cover that situation—as they should. But there is a significant legal leap to hold a person responsible for the thoughts of another, as we do in clause 192(3).

There is a long established principle of law that the prosecution must prove criminal culpability in order for a person to be convicted of a crime. We have enshrined this principle into the criminal code and it does not need to be violated under the Dangerous Goods Bill. It is a serious erosion of standard of evidence required for a conviction and it is unnecessary for the functioning of this act and I don’t think it should be included in this piece of legislation.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.43): Ms Dundas has proposed deleting clause 192(3). Clause 192 provides that, for the purposes of offences under the act, a person can be held liable for the acts or omissions done by a person’s agent as long as the agents are acting within the scope of their actual or apparent authority. It is necessary to include these provisions to ensure that people cannot avoid their duties under the act by simply delegating them on to another person. This is a common approach to obligations under safety legislation, including occupational health and safety and dangerous goods legislation.

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