Page 3038 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 11 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE: I think it is time for some clarification of this issue, and I am glad that Mr Wood has raised the question. First of all, I am not certain that the Attorney-General did make the comment that has been attributed to him in the question, but it has come up a couple of times. I acknowledge that, irrespective of what the Attorney-General has said, on one occasion in answer to a question from the media as to whether or not the Government would consider funding such appeals, I said that it was not unusual for governments to do so. That has been interpreted as a statement on my part that I would fund an appeal, and I think that needs to be clarified.
It is not unusual for governments to fund such appeals, but there are processes through which appellants have to go. The normal method is that if anybody wants to mount an appeal against a government decision they do so, and if they win they get a court order that says that the government should pay the costs. That is the normal thing. There are circumstances under which a government, having regard for the financial circumstances of an appellant - for example, the appellant may simply not have the resources to mount the challenge - might well fund it in the interests of justice.
In this particular case I would have to be convinced that the people who were arguing against school closures and who wanted the Government to fund their appeal could not afford to fund it themselves. I would not regard this as a circumstance under which on an unqualified basis I could say to those people, "Make a request and we will give you the money". That is not the way it works. Mr Wood knows that that is not the way it works. If there is any expectation that any appellant can come to the Government under any circumstances and say, "I am going to appeal against your decision and I want you to pay the costs up front", quite frankly, that is being quite unrealistic and I submit that no government would do it.
MR WOOD: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. On the basis of what you have said, Chief Minister, is it not then fair that you should suggest to your Minister for Education that he refrain from comments which suggest that such an action would not be successful?
MR KAINE: I am quite happy to suggest to my colleague that he should be careful in what he says. I am happy to do that right here and now. Please watch your public statements, Minister.
ACT Government Service
MR STEVENSON: My question is to the Chief Minister. Is the Chief Minister still using the figure of 17,000 staff in the ACT Government Service which was advised to him in November 1989 in answer to a question in this house? The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .