Right: Bernie Banton, known as the face of the Hardie compensation campaign, was ill for many years before finally succumbing to mesothelioma, an almost invariably fatal disease linked to asbestos.Further implications
It is worth noting that much of the anger within the general community that has been directed toward the James Hardie directors occurred because of the company's involvement in the production of asbestos which has caused painful disease and death for a large and growing number of people.Judge Ian Gzell was, however, not passing down bans and fines in relation to the company's having produced a product which injured and killed its producers and users. Rather than this, these fines and bans were imposed because of the company's apparent attempt to sidestep the arrangements it had made to make pay compensation to those injured by its product.
Specifically, the directors were found guilty of having made inaccurate claims about the financial competence of the subsidiary James Hardie had set up to pay the compensation. The directors claimed that in some cases they were unaware of the claims that were being made in documents they had signed. Others claimed they were inadequately informed about the real situation when the signed the misleading statement.
Judge Gzell was convinced by non of these arguments. Some he appeared to consider untruthful and others he found indicative of irresponsible behaviour. Judge Gzell decision appears to redefine the duties of a non-executive company director, making it incumbent upon them to be fully informed about the decisions they endorse.
Though the Hardie case is an extreme one, the extent of the publicity it has attracted may well alter the behaviour of company directors throughout the country. It is likely to raise the standards of accountability appealed to Australian directors.