Page 4785 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mrs Grassby likened liability in this issue to suing a general for losing a battle. Well, apart from the fact that I reckon there might be a few elements in society who would love to sue a few famous generals for losing a few battles, I cannot support that populist view of the issue before us. The issue before us is extremely important. What we are saying to the Opposition is that in this first Bill to come before the Assembly that raises this issue, to my knowledge, we have decided to seek a reform.
I am quite sure my colleague Mr Connolly can look through the statute books and he will find inconsistencies. You will still find immunity provisions on our statute books concerning laws administered by my colleague Ministers and me. It is my hope, as Attorney-General, that we can progressively go through those, and look toward implementing the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of New South Wales.
I am extremely proud of this day, when we can now get up and say to the community, particularly in regard to our statutory authorities that want to act and purport to act on a commercially competitive basis, that they are also prepared to accept the commercial risks that go with it, along with all private litigants. That has been one of the more obnoxious things that have developed in the last 30 years. Governments have moved into essentially competitive activities through their statutory authorities; but, when those statutory authorities, who have said that they want a level commercial playing ground, have been sued, they have occasionally scuttled behind the shield of the Crown.
It is typical of this Labor Party opposite to have run this debate today, because I feel that some of their colleagues interstate, and certainly on the hill, would feel some difficulty about the propositions put forward by the Labor Party in this chamber. The fact is that we are confident of the actions of our fire brigades and volunteer fire workers. We are confident that we are not exposing ourselves to the vast claims that Mrs Grassby suggests. We are happy about the competence of those people; but we are willing to accept the fact that, in the realm of human affairs, people will occasionally make mistakes, and it is right, just and humanitarian to provide compensation to those who lose as a result of those acts.
To summarise on that indemnity versus immunity point, I direct the attention of the Opposition to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission report of 1975. I particularly draw their attention to part 2 of a 1988 report of the Federal Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. That very interesting report is headed "The Liability of Local Authorities - Options for Reform". There are significant recommendations in the report by that Federal department dealing with the operation of statutory protection clauses and immunity provisions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .