Page 5009 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 11 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (10.26): Mr Moore is referring to appeal procedures in this provision that are now going to appear, as Mr Connolly well knows, in most pieces of legislation in this country following the decision of the High Court earlier this year in the Bropho case, which Mr Connolly is aware of. In that case the High Court considered the shield of the Crown device, which we debated here some time ago in relation to the Careless Use of Fire Act.
The fact is that modern legislation indicates expressly whether the Crown should be bound by its own law. I would have thought members would compliment the Government for adopting a very express policy of saying that it, and future governments, will be bound by the provisions of this Act. As I interpret Mr Moore, he is saying that he wants to query whether appeal processes will, in fact, be binding on the Crown. I think Mr Moore is concerned as to whether this will let the Government out of its obligations in that regard.
This is simply a machinery clause that now makes it clear, at the beginning of most pieces of legislation in the country - although it may not be in every piece of legislation that this Government introduces. I hasten to say that there may be situations where a commercial entity should, or should not, have access to the shield of the Crown. In this case, clearly, the Chief Minister has determined that, and the Government has determined that, as a matter of policy.
MR JENSEN (10.28): I just take this very brief opportunity, in this detail stage, to respond to a comment made by Mr Moore in relation to the proposal for the private hospital at Lake Ginninderra. Might I remind Mr Moore that the proposal that has been let out for tender is, in fact, in accordance with the plan as it stands at the moment. No amendment will be required to allow that to go ahead if the tenders are accepted.
MR MOORE (10.29): I appreciate the Attorney-General's explanation in terms of binding the Crown, and the fact that the Government has seen fit to bind the Crown. That is an important step. However, my own recent experience, and the experience of others, has indicated to me that it can be a very, very expensive business to bind the Crown.
The reality of the situation is that most people would not be able to afford to test whether something is binding the Crown or not. That would be determined by the fact that the Government has the money and, as a rule, the appellant certainly would not have the money. The simple solution to the matter was to put in a clause that made things appealable through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which is a way of making it accessible.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .