Page 4806 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
intention to the contrary. My understanding of that legislation is certainly that "person" binds both bodies natural and bodies corporate, and the Crown and emanations of the Crown.
Mr Jensen: Is that the "et cetera"?
MR CONNOLLY: That is, indeed. Mr Speaker, the position remains that we say that the Government is doing a very dangerous thing. Everyone in Australia, apart from the Government, is out of step with this enthusiastic new reform that it is bringing in. Mr Speaker, we think that this reform is potentially very dangerous. Mr Duby said that I was creating fanciful circumstances; I earnestly wish that they were. We all hope that this thing will never be tested, because we all hope that we do not have a major bushfire in this Territory.
The prudent course, we say, is to adopt the same approach as is adopted in the States and for the urban fire service here. The Government, with its rhetoric, can say that that is conservative, if it likes. We say that it is prudent. We say that what the Government is doing is dangerous, for the two reasons that Mrs Grassby and I have outlined in the debate this morning. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, it will expose the bushfire fighters to this process of litigation, in which their competence will be questioned and in which the lawyers acting for the plaintiffs, the insurance companies, will try to tear down their competence to establish negligence.
Secondly, there is an enormous potential risk for the Territory revenue. As Mrs Grassby noted, this sort of policy may have made sense for the Commonwealth because it always takes the view that it has broad shoulders and it self-insures. The Territory revenue base, as we on both sides of the chamber know and as Mr Kaine is constantly reminding us, is a fragile one. We do not think that we can risk the assumption of the enormous potential liability bill that we face.
Another point that was put in refutation is that presently bodies, even in States where a form of immunity is provided, take out a form of public risk insurance, as would any prudent person. But we should, as far as possible, put ourselves in the same position as applies in New South Wales and other States. I say again, as Mrs Grassby said, that the circumstances that we postulated this morning, in the example of a fire spreading from the ACT into New South Wales, thus creating liability, and a fire spreading from New South Wales into the ACT with no liability, have not been and cannot be answered by the Government, which is a compelling ground for accepting the thoughtful amendments put forward by Mrs Grassby.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .