Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I will be brief, but I offer my support for the Corporations Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2008 [2009]. The bill amends the Corporations Act to disqualify a person from managing corporations if disqualified by a court of a foreign jurisdiction from managing a foreign corporation. It does only apply to New Zealand at present, and it certainly is, I would assume, a test of the waters with regard to whether this is to be expanded. We hear much in this place about the frustrations between various state agencies and the Commonwealth. It is, I think, a recognition of the global corporate market that we live in that we are now starting to see more and more legislation that raises some of the challenges with regard to the sovereign nation of Australia and other jurisdictions around the world. The reality is that we live in a global environment—in particular, a global business environment—so to establish some nets to catch those that are moving comfortably between those international jurisdictions, to work against all the various jurisdictions that they are doing business in, is, I would hope, a principle that most, if not all, in this chamber would certainly welcome.

I welcome the basic fundamentals on the surface of this bill, and I also acknowledge, as with the previous legislation with regard to the trade practices changes, that this has deep bipartisan roots in its genesis. I think it should be acknowledged that both sides of this House, regardless of politics, are supportive of the general direction, and that is to be welcomed. I do note, however, the previous speaker’s comments on the possibility for exemptions. It is important that those exemptions exist. It is in proposed section 206EAA with regard to this not being too prescriptive, but there are still discretionary powers from Australian courts to acknowledge differences between different company laws, and then potentially different breaches that may happen in different jurisdictions.

I did want to raise, as a point of interest, differences in the directors duties in Australia, in New Zealand and in various jurisdictions around the world. I think it is in section 112 of the New Zealand Companies Act. Whilst in Australia the focus for directors duties is very much on protecting the best interests of the company, it is a different law in New Zealand, in that it is protecting not only the best interests of the company but also other stakeholders—however those other stakeholders might be defined by New Zealand law at the time. It is very similar in the UK, where the focus is on not only protecting the interests of the company but also the interests of the employees of that company. For those who have got an interest in that, I think it is section 309 of the UK company law. So there are differences, and the point is that there are differences in the detail when it comes down to what we would consider the givens of things such as directors duties. That is why I think the exemptions that are held within this amendment bill are so important and really are, for me, the deal maker or the deal breaker in supporting this legislation.

I hope that everyone in this chamber does support the fundamental principle of rule of law in Australia. If you do believe in that, you do need to believe in the integrity of the rule of law. This is, I hope, a step forward in what is now a global business environment in recognising breaches that can occur across nations and therefore across jurisdictions. I welcome the bill and I hope it works.

See this speech in context