Page 906 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
question before the Assembly is whether this bill should be agreed to, and it is not open to Mr Mulcahy to stand up and start drawing comparisons and then using that as a pretext to critique existing legislation that has been passed by the Assembly. That is not the question before the chair. Mr Speaker, it is disorderly of him to debate in this manner and I ask you to draw him to order.
MR MULCAHY: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: we have an amendment here that seeks to make it very clear that in a partnership one party may not be held liable for the actions of another. I am saying that it would be inequitable to allow the current legislation to continue, and for that reason I am supporting the government and speaking to that principle.
Mr Corbell: You are doing more than that, Mr Mulcahy, and you know it.
MR MULCAHY: It is very relevant, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Order, members! Let us just stick to the Construction Occupations Legislation Amendment Bill.
MR MULCAHY: As I was saying, the important principle that is enshrined in the Construction Occupations Legislation Amendment Bill—and I am thrilled that the government has adopted this principle—recognises that the unfairness and uncertainty that result from being blamed for something over which you had no knowledge or responsibility have greatly increased the risk of doing business and therefore can result in valuable investment and job creation being forgone.
Rather than being sensitive to this initiative, the government, and indeed Mr Corbell, ought to say, “Here is something we have done that is sensible. It is good for business, it is fair, it is equitable and it means that those who might commit a particular offence are held to account.” We in the opposition have no problem with that. It also says that somebody whose partner, for example, is at home and does the books and who was not on the job site where a particular problem occurred should not be held to the same degree of liability.
It is wonderful to see this sort of legislation brought in, and it is wonderful to see that principle embraced, adopted and recognised by the Stanhope government. For that reason, I have much pleasure in supporting this legislation amendment bill and the legal principle that the government has now taken on board and embraced as part of what is obviously a new approach towards equitable treatment of people who are charged with particular offences against businesses.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (5.41), in reply: Mr Mulcahy’s comments are opportunistic, simplistic and irrelevant to the matter before the chair. If Mr Mulcahy wants to have a debate about the Occupational Health and Safety Act, maybe he should do something about that. If he feels so strongly about it, maybe he should introduce legislation to let us have a substantive debate. But now is not the time or the place for that, because today we are dealing with the Construction Occupations Legislation Amendment Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .