Page 4805 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I sent copies of the Bill to every organisation that is involved with bushfires, and I received replies. But the Minister, I understand, is not prepared to listen to any of them. As for him talking about these people being experts in other ways, I think the people who are out there fighting the fires know what it is all about, not the Minister. The only fire that he has ever fought in his life was trying to keep the party together a couple of weeks ago. I have to congratulate him because he managed to put it out. He is very good at fighting fires at home but not so good at fighting bushfires. I think he should be listening to the people who know about fighting the fires.
I would like to get this into Hansard, Mr Speaker: I understand that Mrs Nolan was writing her Christmas cards. The difference between us and the people on the other side of the house is that we are united; we all sign the same Christmas card to save paper and save the trees.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Relevance!
MRS GRASSBY: I do not think that option is open to the Government. We are all united and sign the one Christmas card and save the trees. Other members of my party will be speaking on this matter, so I will sit down and give them a chance to do so.
DR KINLOCH (11.58): In order to save a few forests, I want to say Merry Christmas and a very happy New Year to Ellnor.
MR CONNOLLY (11.58): We were not quick enough to take a point of order on relevance. Mr Speaker, having heard the statements from the Government in response to our attack, which is basically that it is very dangerous to set ourselves up for litigation, we remain unconvinced.
The New South Wales legislative provision is a very clear form of immunity. Mr Duby is correct; as no doubt the Attorney advised, the courts will tend, if possible, to read down an immunity provision. I accept that. Nonetheless, the position in New South Wales is that the legislature has consciously sought an immunity provision. We remain of the view that the position in South Australia is that the legislature has sought to provide an immunity provision. The legislation, it is true, speaks of a person. We go back to the common thread of the debate between the Attorney and me, which is that the courts are increasingly taking the view that - - -
Mr Jensen: What does the definition say, Terry?
MR CONNOLLY: There is no definition provision. I have checked the Interpretation Act of South Australia, Mr Jensen. The courts are increasingly taking the view that a statute will bind the Crown unless there is an express
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .