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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2221 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

I want to ask whether the Minister, today or at a later date, would give a report on the outcome of considerations arising from the Jadric case. Members will recall that this was the case of a person in Canberra who, against the best advice that was given to him - I know it was given frequently and often, and in very understandable terms - did not take steps to see that he would not lose his house. You will recall the case. He did have good advice and he simply ignored it. What happened then was that the house was sold from under him in quite unsatisfactory circumstances. At the time I think the Law Society was going to have a look at it to see whether it was done properly, and I recall that the Minister said he might review the procedures in place in such events.

The law does allow the property of people to be seized and sold when they have not paid their debts to the court. In this case Mr Jadric was quite uncooperative and declined to allow possession of any of his moveable assets. In the end it was the immoveable asset, the house, that was sold. It was the means of selling that caused considerable disquiet. It caused, I think, some review of the actions of those people who were at the point of putting those actions into place. Mr Humphries probably does not have the answer today, but I want to point out that this was an injustice in the end in the way it was done. I would want to hear, and I am sure the community would want to hear, the outcome of that case, to see whether there is any means of recompensing Mr Jadric, if possible - and it has to be possible - and whether procedures have been changed so that such events cannot occur again in the future. We may have times when people simply refuse to take the advice they are offered, but we ought to be able to see that it does not proceed in quite the way it did on that occasion.

The other matter I wish to raise concerns a case that went to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and that tribunal recommended that the Government should fund, perhaps to 75 per cent, the cost of the appeal. This case concerns a Mr Russell, who maintains obviously a quite extensive aviary of birds. I want to say to Mr Humphries that I think I was caught out once or twice because I did not go back and look very carefully at the files and make sure I had the full story in front of me. I would encourage Mr Humphries to do that. Mr Russell appealed on matters concerning a refusal of the conservator to allow him to have certain birds. That was a long and expensive appeal before the AAT.

Some of the points raised in that finding by the AAT make interesting reading. I think Mr Humphries should read that whole finding from the AAT, to get a grasp of what happened. Let me quote one part of it:

... the agency -

the government agency -

did not meet satisfactory standards of administration in the way in which it dealt with the matter ...

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