Joe O'Toole (Independent)

We are at the core of the issue, which is, to decide the role of company directors. It is a much broader discussion than perhaps what is contained in the Bill. Senators Coghlan, Quinn and Maurice Hayes have made this point. While I agree with the general approach they have taken, I wish to raise substantial points.

Directors must be responsible for compliance. There is no getting away from this. We should park that point and look at the question what needs to be done. Company directors have to ensure those down the line running some aspect of the company are not ripping it off. They have to put in place structures to ensure they are not being ripped off, even though they are only executive directors and not watching goods coming in to see they are weighed properly, looked after and processed. They have to have trust and confidence in the structures in place. It is the same in terms of the law of the land.

Senator Quinn made a point about health and safety. While I would not expect the directors of Superquinn or any other food company to know all of the food safety legislation, I consider it a fundamental requirement for those appointed to certain levels to know and ensure the law of the land is complied with. I expect them to be responsible, not the directors, as Senator Maurice Hayes rightly pointed out.

That brings us to how directors do their jobs. Senator Maurice Hayes highlighted a significant point when he said section 43(4)(d) stated that having made all reasonable endeavours to secure the company's compliance by asking various questions, directors must state that, apart from instances of non-compliance of a minor or otherwise immaterial nature, the company has complied. A number of speakers have said this is frightening as it is written. One could read it in that way. A director could say he or she is writing down that a large company has paid all its taxes and complied with the law of the land but that he or she might be getting it wrong. I would have no problem including the phrase, "as far as I can reasonably attest". Perhaps we should include such a phrase which would not change the intent of the paragraph in any way. It is a subject of judgment.