Page 4788 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
grants immunity to the urban fire service is precisely the provision that the Opposition is proposing should apply to the bush fire brigades. What we are saying is that the bush fire brigades in the ACT ought to stand in precisely the same legal position as does the urban fire service and, in effect - without using precisely the identical language - the legal position as it applies in New South Wales; indeed, as Mrs Grassby said, as it applies in New South Wales, South Australia, and so on.
The provisions vary slightly from State to State, but the general tenor of those provisions is to grant immunity to fire services. Indeed, it is of significance that the other provision that Mrs Grassby quoted, the 1989 South Australian Fire Service Act, again has a very clear form of immunity. I invite the Attorney's attention to the date of that statute. That was a 1989 statute passed by the Government of South Australia.
In this general era that the Attorney correctly points to, an era when governments throughout Australia are focusing on this issue of liability and generally accepting the proposition that the Crown ought to be liable in the same way as the citizen for tortious damage suffered by a citizen, we have governments saying, "No, not in respect of bushfire services". In 1989, in the middle of this era that the Attorney is speaking about, the South Australian Government takes the position that it grants immunity for bushfire services.
Mr Jensen: They have just accepted responsibility for Stirling Council.
Mr Collaery: But not for the Crown.
MR SPEAKER: Order!
MR CONNOLLY: I hear mention of Stirling City Council. There is, of course, longstanding litigation in South Australia and in Victoria in which the Crown, for other reasons, is fighting bushfire damage cases. Where a local council starts a fire in its tip, which I think is the Stirling City Council incident, litigation will apply. Where an electricity authority starts a fire through the negligent provision of insulators, or insulators not up to the appropriate standard, liability can be established. The Crown is properly accepting liability in those cases. There has been litigation going on for many years in both South Australia and Victoria. The tendency around Australia is to say, "We do not want to accept liability for a tortious act committed by a bushfire fighter". The reasons for that are essentially those of public policy.
Governments throughout Australia are saying that in the case of a bushfire they are relying on highly trained volunteers, who, despite being highly trained, are often forced to make snap decisions. The widely used method of fighting a fire by way of a back-burn is an inherently
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .