Page 2132 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 9 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
within the jurisdiction of another Crown. In the ACT there is legislation that allows someone to sue the ACT Crown within the ACT. Similarly, there is Western Australian legislation that allows a person to sue the Western Australian Crown in Western Australia. However, there is no legislation that allows someone from the ACT to sue the Western Australian Crown in the ACT. This poses a problem for which constitutional lawyers can give no certain ready answers. What is more, increasingly we are seeing Crown agencies such as banks, insurance companies and travel bureaus operating outside their home jurisdiction. It has therefore become important that the question of suing the Crown, in any of its capacities and in any jurisdiction, be clarified.
The Solicitors-General of Australia have developed a model Bill that I believe provides a solution to this question. It was their intention that the model Bill would replace all existing laws on the topic of suing the Crown throughout the States and Territories. The Crown Proceedings Bill now before this Assembly is based on that model Bill. This Bill represents another fine example of the commitment this Government has given to working with other governments where this is in the national interest to achieve uniform laws. In many respects the Crown Proceedings Bill is similar to the Crown Suits Act 1989 which it will replace. There are a number of clauses in the Crown Proceedings Bill that are essentially the same as the Crown Suits Act of 1989. However, in one very important respect it is different. The Bill will enable people to bring legal proceedings in the ACT not only against the ACT Crown but also against the Crown in right of other States and the Northern Territory.
The Bill provides that the Crown is to be in the same position as an ordinary person, as nearly as possible, and it sets out the mechanism for enforcing judgments against the Crown in right of any State or the Northern Territory. In this it is a step forward for easier access to remedies against governments and greater equity in bringing proceedings against governments. An important change in the Bill is that it will recognise the right of the Attorneys-General of other States and the Northern Territory to intervene on behalf of their governments in certain legal proceedings in the ACT. Without this Bill it would not be clear whether other Attorneys-General would have this right.
The model Bill contained a choice of two options for serving subpoenas on Ministers. Presently there is no set procedure in the ACT. The option chosen by the Government allows subpoenas to be served on the Chief Solicitor, who will then serve the relevant Minister. The alternative position would have required an applicant to seek leave of the court before obtaining a subpoena against the Crown. This would have placed the Crown in a favourable position compared to an ordinary citizen, and is therefore not pursued. As I have previously stated in this Assembly, the Government is committed to placing the Crown, which, of course, represents the Government, in the same position as an ordinary citizen to the extent that this is possible. There are also a number of technical changes in the Bill which are aimed at bringing the ACT into line with other jurisdictions. For example, clauses 6 and 9 of the Bill seek to ensure that existing rules regarding Crown immunities are not affected. The processes for enforcing judgments against the Crown are set out in clause 13. This Bill represents a welcome development in constitutional law, and I commend it to the Assembly. I now present the explanatory memorandum for this Bill.
Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .