Page 3902 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 9 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I note that in the original Bill a six-month transitional period was applied for persons who wished to recover from the Territory money which had been collected under what might have been an invalid Act, an invalid revenue Act of some kind. I note, however, that there was no equivalent transitional period applied for those individuals who are affected by a change in the law that applied new limitation periods and whose cause of action might be abruptly lost to them because of this change in the law.
The result, Madam Speaker, is that some in our community have been severely disadvantaged by that change in the law. I am aware of two cases, both involving women who were injured in car accidents in Queensland. They have begun cases in the ACT Supreme Court and now have facing them at least the very real prospect, if not the reality, of their capacity to sue in the court being terminated by this change in the law. Their right to sue has disappeared because new limitation periods have sprung up and taken their legal counsel unawares. There is a general problem with the limitation regime set forward in this legislation. It effectively requires that lawyers in this Territory and elsewhere become experts on limitation periods all around the country. Where a cause of action arises, it has to be examined as to whether the limitation period that applies in that place is different from the one that applies in this jurisdiction; but that is an issue for another day.
This Bill has the effect of postponing the operation of the Act for six months in that respect, from its passage in late November last year until the end of May of this year. It affects at least two people in the ACT. I believe, Madam Speaker, that the number affected might be more, but there are at least two such people. Concerns have been expressed about those cases by such bodies as the Law Society of the ACT and the ACT bench. His Honour Justice Higgins of the Supreme Court, in one of those cases recently, commented on a matter to do with that limitation period and referred to the fact that a transitional period was provided for in respect of those who wished to sue the Government for recovery of money under an invalid law. He went on to say in that judgment:
It is unfortunate that litigants in the position of the present plaintiff were not extended the benefit of a similar transitional arrangement.
It is the intention of this legislation, Madam Speaker, to provide that transitional arrangement. This law does not affect cases already decided. It may, I admit, make our laws inconsistent with those of other States for a brief period, and this is part of a national scheme; but I believe that that will occur for only a brief period - a period already ended, in fact - and I am not aware of any serious consequences that would flow from that inconsistency with other jurisdictions.
I indicate, in putting this Bill forward, that I am open to persuasion to withdraw or change our position on this matter. It has been done at great speed. I am willing to listen to the Attorney's views as to why this legislation should not go forward. If there are good reasons why it should not, I am happy to consider those. In the meantime, I put it forward, Madam Speaker, in the hope that the matter can be dealt with before the expiry of the Assembly next month.
Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .