Page 4814 - Week 13 - Thursday, 28 November 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that some of these payments are overdue, it instantly falls on the directors, and I know that that is not the way that it would be intended.
I would note, too, that in my opening address I was leading up to calling for the motion to be adjourned, so I did not address some of the wonderful aspects of this bill that have been canvassed by some people in this chamber. I think that 85 or 90 per cent of it is exceptional.
Amendments 5 and 6 seek to make the intention of these clauses crystal clear. It should not be the case that a corporation is one day late on the payment of a fine, causing a director to become personally liable. Certainly, in the very short time frame that we have had to look at this, that is the advice that I have had. As the bill currently stands, it does not make it clear that this will be or should be the case. This is neither fair nor good practice. I commend these amendments to the Assembly.
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Manager of Government Business, Minister for Advanced Technology and Space Industries, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Minister for Planning and Land Management and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.56): The government will not be supporting Mr Parton’s amendments. Amendment 1, to clause 26, we see as unnecessary. This happens automatically and only when it can be applied retrospectively, as is expressly outlined.
Amendment 2, to clause 41, would mean the provision does not take effect for over 10 years. Does Mr Parton really want people not to have the protection outlined in this bill in the foreseeable future, and who is he trying to protect? It is also poorly considered. Does he propose that it not take effect from the time the construction service started or ended? These are really important details that Mr Parton has not thought about, as many large projects take years to complete. It is also important to note that there are mechanisms built into the provisions that allow for directors to submit to the registrar as to why an order is inappropriate in relation to them, as I went through earlier. The issue of an order is also reviewable.
The response regarding amendment 3, to clause 41, is the same as for amendment 2. It causes the same issues as that amendment causes.
Amendments 4 to 6, to clause 56, have has been poorly considered and show that Mr Parton really does not understand how the bill works or how the construction industry is regulated. He seems to think that there will be a manual process for these clauses. There is not. All of these provisions happen by operation of law. It is automatic.
Mr Parton seems to think that the liability under this section is incurred at the same time as the debt, fine or penalty is incurred. It does not. It only does if the amount is not paid on time, at which point the liability is automatic.
Amendment 4 seems to create a process where one does not exist. It is not clear if Mr Parton wants this to operate like a quasi-criminal offence and that the government must apply back to the court for it to take effect. By exhausting all avenues, it is poorly defined and, given that it is related to corporations, which can wind up, it can
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video