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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1795 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

to the Bender family action, whether counsel has been briefed and, if so, who? Will the government, like Totalcare, vigorously defend the action?

MR HUMPHRIES: Let me say first of all that, as far as Totalcare's involvement is concerned, Totalcare is a territory-owned corporation that has the right to deal with issues relating to its own liability in this matter as it sees fit. I do not believe it is appropriate to intervene in that and to tell it what it should and should not do in defending matters that might be brought against it in the court.

I understand that the ACT is a party to the proceedings, that is, they have joined Totalcare as a party in proceedings commenced on behalf of the Bender family, claiming damages against the territory. The ACT will be briefing counsel. I do not believe anyone has been briefed as yet to appear for the ACT, but if that is not so I will advise the Assembly later. Other details about the matter are best left to the courts to resolve. This matter, as Mr Stanhope is well aware, is sub judice. Under that convention those things remain a matter for the courts, rather than becoming a matter for the parliament. Beyond the information I have provided, that is where it should be let lie.

Mr Moore: I would take a point of order. I was waiting until the Attorney-General finished, but Mr Stanhope would be aware of standing order 117(e), which says:

It was done as an aside, so I did not take the point of order to interrupt, but I do draw your attention to it.

Mr Stanhope: On that point of order, and on the Attorney's suggestion that this matter is sub judice and should not be raised or discussed in this parliament: the sub judice rule does not apply to prevent any member of this place from asking a question such as whether or not the ACT government is being sued. The sub judice rule does not apply in that way, as the Attorney knows.

MR HUMPHRIES: Could I make a further submission? The point of order was not about sub judice; it was about the committee proceedings.

MR STANHOPE: The point of order is quite simply spurious. My supplementary question to the Attorney is: have any other parties affected by the hospital implosion instituted action against the ACT government as a result of the implosion?

MR HUMPHRIES: Not that I am aware.

MS TUCKER: My question is to the Treasurer. The recent decision to site the supervised injecting place at Queen Elizabeth II-

Mr Moore: The former QEII Hospital.

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