Page 4751 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to be the ultimate learned court of the then empire, apart from strict Privy Council appeals, and Australian law followed English law. It is interesting that a New South Wales Labor Government in 1945 amended the law to do away with this injustice.
We certainly were mindful of some of the broader concerns Mr Humphries raised; and Mr Stefaniak also passed comment upon them. It is the floodgates argument that insurance companies often raise. It was certainly said, in the public consultation stage of the Law Reform Committee inquiry, that this would lead to vast expense; it would lead to problems for insurance companies. But at the hearings they were not able to substantiate that; nor have they been able to substantiate it in subsequent negotiation. I certainly can say to Mr Stefaniak that the concerns he raised have been noted. The view of the Law Reform Committee - a view the Government and, I note, the Liberal Party shares - is that the evidence really is not there. The concern has been raised but not substantiated. The Government will keep an eye on this, and if it is a problem it is likely to move.
I am pleased that there is general support for these proposals. It is a credit to the Community Law Reform Committee that these proposals have had such widespread support. Their report on loss of consortium in particular has received attention well beyond the borders of this Territory. It has received notice in the media across Australia. There has been some degree of incredulity in other States that the action for loss of consortium was still on the statute books in the ACT. It is a satisfying thing to be able tonight finally to consign that action to the dustbin of history.
I think Mr Humphries' suggestion that it would be better to reinstate the tort and apply it for females losing males as well as males losing females really is going in the wrong direction. It is based, as he said, on the loss of sexual congress, a loss of sexual favours, relating back to the idea of the woman as property and that with property went a right to sexual relationships. It really is an idea that is totally foreign and alien to modern thinking. It lies in the Middle Ages whence it came and should no longer have a place in the law of this Territory. I am pleased that from tonight, on the indication of the speeches of members, it will no longer have that place. I wish the Bill a speedy passage.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .