Page 4784 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
properties when some old-fashioned type fuses had blown from a transformer box onto grassland and commenced a fire which ringed Canberra. Those of us who were here at the time can recall the devastation of it. In fact, I clearly remember them still smelling of fire a few days later in my office. I suggest to the Labor Party that they put their minds to that other element in the community - those who suffer, and who suffer occasionally, not by a chance strike of lightning or an old beer bottle, but by tortious negligence of authority. In that case, I believe ACTEW settled the matter, and justice was done.
I am not reflecting at all on the present ACTEW approach. Around Australia we see private litigants occasionally attempt to sue governments for what, in the private area, is easily provable negligence. We have seen statutory bodies stand behind the shield of the Crown and say, "Yes, we admit the negligence of our servants. But we are immune; we are the Crown - bad luck". You need to be in private practice to know the angst that creates. I will not identify it, but I once ran a case against ACTEW in similar circumstances. That was settled too. It was the same issue.
Today, we are looking at a very serious matter. The matter has taken up the minds of eminent jurists in this country and elsewhere. I think my colleagues opposite, who want to show a particular interest, should look through the literature on the matter. There is a leading text on it entitled Liability of the Crown, second edition, by Peter W. Hogg. The views favouring, what is called, the vicarious liability of the Crown are set out at page 96 of that text. I will not detain the Assembly on it, other than to point out that, in the Bill that my colleague Mr Duby proposes, we are saying that, whilst we will grant immunity to those firefighters for their honest mistakes - if ever they make them, and we are all fallible - we will accept vicarious liability as a Territory for events and damage that may flow from their actions.
As I have noticed in the popular press, that does not suggest that we will take on the cost of bushfires that spread and cause millions of dollars worth of damage. The fact is that we will accept vicarious liability only where those issues of negligence pertain. We are not saying, as Mrs Grassby is suggesting I believe, that we will pay for the cost of any fire.
I believe that the issue has been confused. The New South Wales Law Reform Commission report sets out adequately the views of those who take modern approaches to the law. There have been studies in jurisdictions in England and Canada that have produced similar results. I am very proud of the Alliance Government. This is another area of reform where we are leading the way in this country. The Leader of the Opposition looks up from her Christmas cards and laughs. Let us see what she can contribute to the debate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .