Page 4787 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Bill before the house does not create liability for fire workers. It has nothing to do with their personal liability. It has to do with the confidence of our Government in itself and our law reform processes. I very much welcome this Bill. I will be extremely satisfied when it passes through this chamber.
MR CONNOLLY (11.01): In his remarks this morning the Attorney-General began with a quite erudite explanation of the general principles of Crown liability and immunity. Unfortunately, towards the end, it degenerated into a diatribe against the Opposition. I will try to keep my remarks at the higher level where the Attorney began.
I want to say, at the outset, that the Opposition does not take issue with the general remarks that the Attorney made when he said that there is a general tendency in Australia to move away from the old proposition that the Crown, in general, is not liable in tort for a loss suffered by a citizen; that laws generally do not bind the Crown. The Attorney referred to the work of the Law Reform Commission done up to 1988. He could also have referred to the recent High Court decision in Mabo's case that effectively reversed the law on statutory provisions binding the Crown. Previously it had been held that the Crown is generally not bound. The High Court now says that the Crown is generally to be bound.
He could have referred to the work being done in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General on this whole issue of Crown liability. The Attorney is correct in saying that the general trend is towards increasing the liability of the Crown and statutory authorities, and so it should be. He is correct in noting that local government is now increasingly bound by the ordinary law of negligence. He referred to the increasing tendencies for advice given by local government authorities to give rise to liability. We do not cavil with the general proposition that the Crown ought to be in the same position as the citizen in respect of loss or damage done to another; but we say that there are questions of public policy which may, in individual cases, lead to the conclusion that in this case the Crown ought not to assume the burden of liability.
Mr Collaery spoke only to broad generalities. I hope that in the remainder of the morning's debate Government speakers will address the specifics. The specific question is: why ought the Australian Capital Territory assume for itself a liability that no other State or Territory in Australia has assumed, and a liability that has not been assumed in respect of urban fire services?
In her remarks Mrs Grassby outlined the law in the other States or Territories and outlined the law in respect of urban fire services. She quoted section 15 of the Fire Brigade Act 1957. Now that Mrs Grassby's amendments have been circulated, members will note that the provision that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .