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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3486 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

The Committee notes and commends the provision made in the transitional provisions of the Bill to protect the substantive rights of persons whose injuries occurred before the commencement of the Act.

This committee actually will commend government and, through it, the Parliamentary Counsel if they get something right. All too often people see a scrutiny process as one which is hunting for criticisms to make. Such is not the case.

With regard to these positive sorts of comments, I would dearly love to see such a positive comment come forward to this government and to Parliamentary Counsel over the strict liability application.

Report No 6

MR STEFANIAK:(11.17): Mr Speaker, I present the following report:

Legal Affairs-Standing Committee-Report No 6-Crimes (Industrial Manslaughter) Amendment Bill 2002, dated 16 September 2003, together with a copy of the relevant extracts of the minutes of proceedings.

The report, which includes a dissenting report, was circulated to members out of session. I move:

That the report be noted.

Might I start but not be too effusive, as things were at the meeting of chairs, by thanking a number of people, which I do think is appropriate. Firstly, my colleagues on the committee-Deputy Chair, John Hargreaves, and Kerrie Tucker-for their usual and expected diligence to this inquiry as they show, in fact, to all inquiries that come before us; the secretaries, Derek Abbott, who left us towards the end, and especially Judith Henderson who had to read herself in at a very late stage and who did the thoroughly professional job that we've come to expect from her; and Judy Moutia from administration.

Mr Speaker, the committee looked at this question long and hard. There is a list of people who appeared before the committee. A number of recommendations were made. First, I'll speak just briefly to the six recommendations that were unanimous. I had a dissenting report in relation to one and some additional comments which I will touch on soon.

Recommendation 1 was:

The Committee recommends that Section 49B (1) and (2) be amended to make it clear that their application is limited to relevant responsibilities and undertakings of an employer or senior officer in those capacities.

They currently state:

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