View Single Post
Old 13th Jan 2014, 19:27
  #211 (permalink)  
Kharon
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
On His Miniscule Secret Salad Service.

Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 No. 153, 1997 as amended
There are only a humble 90 pages in this document, but it does make clear who gets the pineapple. The problem of course is one of delivery.

responsible Minister means:
(a) for a Commonwealth authority—the Minister who is responsible for the authority; or
(b) for a Commonwealth company:
(i) the Minister who is prescribed by the regulations as the Minister responsible for the company; or
(ii) if no Minister is prescribed—the Minister who is responsible for the company.
27E Responsibility for actions of directors delegate.

(1) If the directors of a Commonwealth authority delegate a power under its enabling legislation, a director is responsible for the exercise of the power by the delegate as if the power had been exercised by the directors themselves.

(2) A director is not responsible under subsection (1) if:
(a) the director believed on reasonable grounds at all times that the delegate would exercise the power in conformity with the duties imposed on directors of the Commonwealth authority by this Act and the authority’s enabling legislation; and
(b) the director believed:
(i) on reasonable grounds; and
(ii) in good faith; and
(iii) after making proper inquiry if the circumstances indicated the need for inquiry; that the delegate was reliable and competent in relation to the power delegated.
You can discern the issues, why bother with paragraph one (1) and then provide a world of wriggle room in paragraph two (2). In a 'normal' world the terms would seem reasonable to an honest man; the term 'in good faith' is used. There's the entire cost of a child's education right there for any legal eagle. However if a case was ever driven through all the hoops, would it, in the final analysis come down to a two dog fight, Minister v Director.

Perhaps the WLR should consider some of the CASA actions in terms this Act and of potential court actions, against individual officers. Because one thing is certain, if anyone, under pressure from personal liability breaks ranks and blows the whistle, the only screaming heard will be that of liability, through responsibility. The Nuremburg defence didn't work when it was first used, it has no chance here, not in our proudly independent, litigious country. But the WLR needs to conduct the orchestra with caution; one trumpet out of tune can really spoil the performance. Remember:-


Toot toot.
Kharon is offline