Page 3413 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This matter was raised with me in consultation with Mr Rattenbury. I think that the suggestion that he and his staff at the time made was a good one, and I commend the amendment to the chamber.
Amendment agreed to.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (6.29): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 3418].
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (6.29): The government supports this amendment to the Law Officer Amendment Bill 2008. Mr Rattenbury’s amendment would bring the bill more into line with the commonwealth Judiciary Act 1903, which forbids raising the issue of compliance with a legal service direction in any proceedings, except on behalf of the commonwealth.
The Chief Solicitor has advised me that, unamended, the Law Officer Amendment Bill did not give a cause of action for breaches of the model litigant guidelines. So this latest amendment would expressly prohibit anyone other than the Attorney-General enforcing compliance with the guidelines, foreclosing any doubt that breaches of the model litigant guidelines could give rise to a cause of action against the territory.
The prohibition on raising noncompliance with the guidelines in proceedings would only extend to instituting separate proceedings to enforce compliance. Parties to an existing proceeding would still be able to complain in court about the conduct of other parties in those proceedings, including the territory. Courts would still be able to consider failure to behave as a model litigant in exercising discretion, for example, to award costs or in deciding whether to adjourn proceedings.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (6.30): The Canberra Liberals will support Mr Rattenbury’s amendment, which is taken from the federal act. This amendment would make it incumbent upon the Attorney-General to enforce the model litigant guidelines, either in the attorney’s own right or by application to a court or tribunal. It otherwise excludes such enforcement being raised in a court or tribunal proceedings except by or on behalf of the territory.
The amendment also serves to raise similar provisions already in the guidelines into law. The important thing is that, in doing this, it does not stop a court commenting on the behaviour of the territory in legal matters, nor does it stop an aggrieved person challenging in a civil matter the behaviour of the territory at a separate proceeding. I did have some initial reservations but, on reflection, I think that Mr Rattenbury’s amendment is a good one and I am happy to support it.
Amendment agreed to.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (6.32): I move amendment No 3 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 3418].
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .