Page 905 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
provide protection for individuals in a partnership when another partner commits an offence under the act. These changes did take my attention.
The bill provides that, in cases where a partner can prove that he or she did not know about the contravention involved in an offence and either took reasonable steps to avoid the contravention or was not in a position to influence the partnership’s conduct involved in the contravention, that partner is not liable for prosecution. This amendment establishes an extremely important principle; that is, if you did not personally cause an offence, did not know about it, took reasonable steps to stop it or were not able to stop it, you will not be held liable for prosecution.
This is significant because it is reflective of the reality of what goes on, particularly in small business. I often fear that there is a lack of appreciation by some here of the reality for people running small businesses. In many cases, they are husband-and-wife operations. From my knowledge over the years of various people involved in small business, often half of the partnership is at home, maybe doing the books, and the other may carry out the day-to-day operational work in a particular enterprise. That is quite a common situation; you see it in service stations and in lots of small businesses involved in trades. Therefore, to recognise that one partner might be—to use the American term—a homemaker, as well as doing the bookkeeping, and should not be held liable for an offence that may have occurred as a consequence of what happened in the day-to-day operation of that partnership I think is a good principle.
But, since this principle has been accepted by the government, which I commend them for, the time has come for it to be applied when considering breaches of occupational health and safety legislation. Members would be aware of the inequity.
Mr Corbell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, on relevance. This bill has nothing to do with occupational health and safety legislation. This bill is about construction occupations and licensing. Whilst Mr Mulcahy is welcome to make the point that this is a different approach from other legislation, he should not be venturing into other areas around occupational health and safety.
MR MULCAHY: Mr Speaker, I do not believe that it is a point of order. I am talking about a legal principle.
MR SPEAKER: Remain relevant.
Mr Seselja: I think he is saying that you are relevant.
MR SPEAKER: That is not what I said.
MR MULCAHY: Members would be aware of the inequity in practice—for example, where a partner in a firm can be held liable for the actions of another partner, even in cases where one partner had no knowledge of or influence over the other partner’s actions, which may have contributed to an accident, which is why this is a good amendment.
Mr Corbell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Mulcahy is critiquing other pieces of legislation that have nothing to do with the question before the Assembly. The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .