Page 994 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 26 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DUBY (4.24): Mr Speaker, the arguments put for the motion are certainly cogent and strenuous. There is just one question that I would like to raise. I notice that the Careless Use of Fire Act 1936 is currently being reviewed, and I was wondering whether anyone could address me in debate and explain to me why this clause is currently being inserted. I was wondering in particular whether there is currently some legal action involved which would necessitate the sudden inclusion of this clause. That is just a question that crossed my mind. Generally speaking, though, I support the arguments as put by members on both sides of the house and assume that the answer to my question will be in the negative.
MR COLLAERY (4.25): Mr Speaker, the Residents Rally pointed out at the beginning of the sitting this afternoon that the words "Crown" and "Minister" would mean that a farmer down the line, whose property has been lost by a genuine attempt at back-burning by a bushfire assistant, may not have any recourse to litigation to sue. So it has been negotiated on the floor that the words "Crown" and "Minister" be removed. My colleague Mr Kaine indicated that it was not in his original brief anyway and that the law, as I take it, pertaining in Victoria, on which I believe he is drawing, does not include the words "Crown" and "Minister".
Mr Speaker, again, the Assembly is not bound by anything here, and the Bill can come in, in future, and be debated fully. Once again, if we had an adequate committee, we would not have to scurry around on this floor working out really what things mean. Even the lawyers here were discussing the full implications of this during the time we were sitting this afternoon.
The Rally will support the motion of Mr Kaine on the basis that it has been moved in good faith and no attempt is being made to block any legitimate action at the moment by any litigant. The Assembly would look very carefully at any suggestion that any such legislation could ever be retrospective because, Mr Speaker, we all treasure the presence of Mr Berry here and we would hate to see any retrospective action taken against any fireman in relation to any of his past acts.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.27): I add my support very briefly, Mr Speaker, to this motion. As I am a lawyer, people might think that it is not in the interest of my profession for litigation to be curtailed or limited, but speaking with the new hat that I now wear I have to say I find it a positive move, a helpful move, to remove the threat of litigation from people who perform an invaluable role in the community in providing bushfire services, consisting very significantly of volunteers, with the protection of knowing that those people do not face significant prosecution risks as a result of what they do in good faith.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .