Page 4786 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I believe that the Opposition might be advantaged by looking at that issue before the matter comes before the Assembly again, because the Bill will be passed today. I would like to think that, rather than scaremongering, they will retreat a little bit from their position and be a little more circumspect when we bring the matter back on. As Mr Connolly well knows, the cases looked at by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission covered various forums, including the High Court of Australia, where the courts have worked very, very hard to try to restrict the shield of the Crown. I see that Mr Connolly is slightly amused.
Mr Connolly: What is the leading authority, Bernard? Name us the leading authority last year.
MR COLLAERY: The leading authority, for example, is quoted in the New South Wales Law Reform Commission report. I am not going to bore the house, but the authority is the Board of Fire Commissioners, New South Wales v. Ardouin. It is in 1961 Commonwealth Law Reports, volume 109, page 105. That is where the High Court looked at this issue dealing with the supposed negligent driving of a fire engine on the way to the scene of a fire. There is useful comment there where the court sought to limit the immunity provisions in that Act which worked, in that case, against a person who was riding a motorcycle that came into collision with the fire engine.
I do not think we want to turn this into a legal debate. I am simply suggesting to the Opposition that they look through their law before they come back here with their populist views. I also believe the Labor Party should embrace some of the law reform movements that are going around this country. The volunteer fire fighting people and their brigades were once a very strong social knot in the community. They are a very important grouping.
Mrs Grassby quotes a gentleman who she said was a senior scientist from the CSIRO. I do not doubt his qualifications and I do not know why she quoted them. If she was suggesting that he was giving an objective summation of events, I draw attention to the fact that he is also involved with the issue. Clearly he has a conflict, in that sense, with objective scientific principles, none of which I heard expounded. It was also suggested by Mrs Grassby that the Government's drafting instructions should be released. My colleague, Mr Duby, will address that consultation issue.
As to the fire manual, I draw to the attention of the house the Alliance Government's environment policy entitled Caring for the Environment. It is a document that is described by the Conservation Council as the most progressive in this country, particularly paragraph 2.12 where we talk about bringing in fire management plans, and the rest. Surely, a manual is adjunctive to that. This manual was supported by the Opposition. This morning they now, clearly, seem to query an element of that. I suggest that there is also an inconsistency in your arguments.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .