Page 392 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 13 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
our public servants, "Let us deal with these requests in the spirit in which the Freedom of Information Act has been drafted". There is no reason for huge expenses to be incurred by departments if they deal promptly with remission requests. I am convinced that the problem Mr Connolly has raised could easily be dealt with. I commend the Bill to the house.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
CRIMES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
Debate resumed from 8 April 1992, on motion by Mr Humphries:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (12.04): The Leader of the Opposition was a bit agitated about what just happened. It was just that the Government was showing sense in not calling for a needless division, in order to get on with the business of the house.
The proposal that Mr Humphries has before the Assembly in this Bill is a proposal that the Government has some sympathy with. We understand what he is trying to do and it is a goal that we would support. I have some real doubts as to whether this is the way to go about it and whether the mischief that he is directing his attention to has not been solved in a better way under the Corporations Law. It is not something that I will be supporting at this stage, although if the debate were to be adjourned and we were to come back at a later stage on the detail and there were other views available to me we may reconsider.
What Mr Humphries has proposed in his Bill is to insert a new section into the Crimes Act to deal with criminal conduct by directors. That, as I say, is a goal that we would support. It is essential that white collar criminals be pursued with vigour. It is essential that the criminal law deal with the director and the person of substantial means with as much vigour as it deals with the ordinary thief, the armed robber, or what have you. It is essential that the law be seen to be as vigorous for those at the top of the pile as it is for those not so far up the pile.
He directed his attention, in particular, to a problem in the law that was seen to be shown by the case of R v. Roffel, a 1984 decision of the Victorian Supreme Court. That involved the interpretation of section 72 of the Victorian Crimes Act, which is in similar terms to our section 96 which Mr Humphries says is inadequate, for the reasons shown in the case. In that case the defendant was the managing director and secretary of a company. He had the power to withdraw money from the company's account. There was no question about that. He wrote four cheques out to cash and cashed them, and one to a travel agent for a trip. All of that was done quite properly within his power. He had authority to do that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .