Page 2196 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

SECONDLY, IT WAS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS SHOULD BE BOUND BY OUR LEGISLATION.

FINALLY, HAVING ESTABLISHED THE ANSWERS TO THOSE TWO QUESTIONS, HOW SHOULD THE GOVERNMENTS POLICY BE IMPLEMENTED IN LEGISLATION.

IN ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION THE GOVERNMENT DECIDED THAT THE CROWN SHOULD BE BOUND UNDER A.C.T. LEGISLATION UNLESS THERE IS GOOD REASON FOR TT NOT BEING BOUND.

THE GOVERNMENT BELIEVES THAT TT SHOULD BE A "MODEL CTTIZEN" - WILLING TO ABIDE BY THE LAWS TT MAKES FOR THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY. THE CROWN AND ITS SERVANTS AND AGENTS SHOULD NOT GAIN AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER OTHERS BY NOT BEING BOUND BY LEGISLATION. WHERE GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITIES, TERRTTbRY OWNED CORPORATIONS, OR OTHER RELATIVELY INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE INVOLVED IN THE PROVISION OF COMMERCIAL SERVICES, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE VERY GOOD REASON TO GIVE THEM IMMUNITY FROM THE LAW WHETHER OR NOT THEY COMPETE WITH PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. THE PUBLIC SHOULD NOT BE DENIED REDRESS AGAINST SUCH BODIES.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT AS A GENERAL RULE BODIES SUCH AS TERRITORY OWNED CORPORATIONS HAVE THE SAME STATUS FOR MOST PURPOSES AS PRIVATE CITIZENS AND SO EXCEPTIONAL REASONS WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR GRANTING SUCH BODIES AN I1VJMUN1FY OR PRIVILEGE OF THE CROWN.

2196

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .