Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I am disappointed, again, that I do not have the opposition's support for these amendments, because they are very sensible amendments. I hope that changes by the time we go to the Senate and deal with these.

I wonder if the minister could enlighten us, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, about what 'reasonable steps' might mean. In the 7-Eleven instance, that was in fact the kind of defence that was used by the head office: 'We couldn't have known this. We had an arrangement with our subcontractors.' It is the defence that is regularly used in all of these cases of exploitation. It would seem to many of us who have been following this very closely that exactly what the minister just said about no liability being imposed on franchisors who take reasonable steps means this bill may well be null and void. It may well be of no effect. Could the minister illustrate, for example, whether he considers what happened at 7-Eleven or Caltex to have had reasonable steps taken? Were their actions such that they would fall foul of this provision and the head office would be directly liable?

See this speech in context