Page 4802 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is significant also, I think, that the relevant authorities in those States maintain public liability insurance, despite these immunity provisions. In other words, they are not worth the paper on which they are written. When these amendments are moved, if the Opposition is still going to go ahead with this farce, perhaps Mr Connolly can explain why it is that States maintain major public liability insurance, despite having immunity provisions in their firefighting Acts.
No immunity or indemnity is provided specifically by the Careless Use of Fire Act at present. There is only an implied indemnity in the fact that the Act condones and authorises certain actions. The substantial change to the Act today will be to recognise volunteer firefighters so that their status as persons deriving authority for their actions from the Act is clarified. I think that is most important. The indemnity is therefore essentially a statutory reassurance for something which would be provided as a matter of course administratively otherwise. For this reason the Bill makes no substantial change to the current position with regard to indemnifying firefighters other than to clarify that volunteers will be indemnified. There has been an area of doubt and a cloud over that.
The issue was also raised by Mrs Grassby about inconsistency with State legislation and the Fire Brigade Act 1957 which applies in the ACT. The fact that other States have attempted to provide an immunity for firefighters is not an adequate reason in itself, I believe, to follow the same course of action in the Territory. We are talking about reform. Mark my words, as the Attorney-General said, this is a reform that will spread, I am sure, through the States, where the immunity provisions, which I think are rather iniquitous, will be removed.
Given the attitude of the courts to immunity provisions and the fact that, notwithstanding the immunity provisions that the States have in place, the relevant authorities within those States have still thought it prudent, indeed essential, to have insurance cover, an immunity provision would not seem to be that effective anyway. So I hope that basically that puts to bed the claims made by the Opposition about the dire consequences that are going to flow from this lack of immunity.
I was most intrigued to hear Mr Connolly's expansion into a dire chain of consequences and events. I can suggest only that he has a bright future as an author because he introduced in one fell swoop a number of unlikely scenarios that would be similar to those in Airport 1977, 1978 and 1979 marks I, II and III. They seem to go on and on.
Mr Connolly: The captain of the Titanic said, "We won't hit an iceberg. We're right".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .