Page 4810 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
interpretation. I do not think this matter can be resolved on the floor of this Assembly, but there is a clear intent there to mean a person being a natural person, not the Crown.
Mr Connolly, I think, meant to refer to the Bropho case in Western Australia. The governments around Australia, as Mr Connolly well knows, are looking at the decision of the High Court, which was delivered on 20 June this year, with a great amount of interest because it is a profound decision of the Full Court and it deals very clearly with the question of whether provisions - in that case, in the Aboriginal heritage legislation, which were applied to an intended development of the Swan brewery site in Perth - created some statutory Crown immunity.
The court has held, in effect, that along the way - the vein that I think is agreed to in this chamber - courts will read down where they can. Notice is being served on governments that, if they want to purport to act commercially through statutory authorities, they ought to assume responsibilities that go beyond the ancient and traditional idea that the Crown, the Queen, has to assent to liability; otherwise it is not liable.
Mr Speaker, in the amendment moved by Mrs Grassby, to which she spoke, proposed section 5P states:
Neither the Australian Capital Territory nor any person is liable in any way ...
Mrs Grassby is trying, quite clearly, full on, to give the shield of the Crown to our Government. Our Government has confidence in its servants and sufficient confidence in those volunteers who do this work that we are prepared to be on an equal footing with the common law liability; we stand anyway in those actions.
MR DUBY (Minister for Finance and Urban Services) (12.15): Mr Speaker, at the outset let me congratulate the Labor Party for the way in which it can hold ranks and present a unified front on any issue, and commiserate with Mr Connolly who, as an experienced lawyer, I suppose, is speaking to a brief. A lawyer, I am told, has to act for his client, and it is clear that the client in this case is Mrs Grassby. Undoubtedly, in future days when he is reading through the Hansard he will hang his head in shame and say, "My goodness gracious, when I think back on that, I know the argument was wrong but by gee I put it well". I think that is about the best that we can do.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .