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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3359 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

obligations under which lawyers are meant to proceed, and attaches appropriate financial disincentives to failing to carry them out.

Second, there has been concern that part 10.2 may in some way diminish the capacity of individuals to bring negligence actions, particularly in public interest cases. Ms Tucker went to some length on this. It has been suggested that part 10.2 might have precluded, for instance, the following public interest cases: those about the stolen generation, asbestos, silicone breast implants and tobacco.

I agree that there may be a real concern with regard to the similar and broader provisions recently passed in New South Wales dealing with reasonable prospects of success. However, the proposed ACT provisions do contain an exemption, clause 120, that is not in the New South Wales provisions, for any claims about which the courts consider it is in the interests of justice for the claim to be continued. I know Ms Tucker expressed some cynicism about the courts' interests in such an exemption or exception, or their capacity to read what was in the public interest, but I do not share Ms Tucker's cynicism about our judiciary.

The ACT bill specifically deals with the issue. It also provides a process through which a plaintiff may seek an early resolution of precisely that issue, of what is in the public interest. This section of the bill is, or was meant to be, the start of a concerted effort by the government in relation to the civil system.

As has been acknowledged by Mr Stefaniak and Ms Tucker, these issues might be dealt with in the third phase of the government's reforms in relation to wrongs, and our response to the insurance issues. We will continue the process in the third stage. I will take it up again. I will return to the Assembly with the issues that are currently included in part 10.2. I am hoping that, at that stage, the members of the Assembly will see the wisdom of the government's position, and I will not be relying on Mrs Cross.

Question put:

That clause 119 be agreed to.

Ayes 7 Noes 7

Mr Berry Mr Stanhope Mr Cornwell Mr Stefaniak

Mr Corbell Mr Wood Ms Dundas Ms Tucker

Ms Gallagher Mrs Dunne

Mr Hargreaves Mr Pratt

Ms MacDonald Mr Smyth

Question so resolved in the negative, in accordance with standing order 162.

Clause 119 negatived.

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