Page 3470 - Week 11 - Thursday, 19 September 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON: As you can imagine, I was tempted to say no, but we will get this fixed up. The core issue here is that of standing. Standing, or locus standi, is the requirement of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to the law or action to support that party’s participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes: firstly, that the party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and that the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief; secondly, if the party is not directly affected by the harm that it has some reasonable relation to their situation and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief; and, thirdly, the parties are granted automatic standing by act of law.
This is a very long-established tradition and it is designed to prevent extensive vexatious litigation or to prevent the courts from being used for campaigns that ought by right to be pursued through the legislature. A person or organisation with a mere emotional or intellectual concern or belief affected by the administrative action does not have standing to seek reviews—from Ogle v Strickland in 1987.
The High Court has specifically moved against open standing, from the Australian Conservation Foundation Inc. v the Commonwealth (1980). I think the fact that it was the Australian Conservation Foundation might give some inkling to the Greens party motivation in this case, perhaps. In cases which do not concern constitutional validity, a person who has no special interest in the subject matter of the action over and above that enjoyed by the public generally has no locus standi to sue. I quote:
The assertion of public rights and the prevention of public wrongs by means of those remedies is the responsibility of the Attorney-General, who may proceed either ex officio or on the relation of a private individual. A private citizen who has no special interest is incapable of bringing proceedings for that purpose, unless, of course, he is permitted by statute to do so.
Further, Stephen J:
If the present state of the law in Australia is to be changed, it is pre-eminently a case for legislation, preceded by careful consideration and report, so that any need for relaxation in the requirements for locus standi may be fully explored and the limits of desirable relaxation precisely defined.
Standing exists to prevent excessive, vexatious and nuisance cases. The Attorney-General has outlined some of these issues in his speech also. I think that this is a precedent in law, and certainly in other jurisdictions. The opposition will not be supporting this bill, and it does not support what Mr Rattenbury is trying to achieve.
However, I foreshadow that it would appear that the government will be moving amendments that will significantly improve this legislation. We are certainly of the view that if that is the way it is going to end up it will make this legislation more workable. Again, it highlights my point that if a piece of legislation is going to be brought into this place by the Greens-Labor coalition it is best to deal with it in the cabinet to get the right legislation before it comes into this place so that we do not have such a long, drawn-out and protracted debate that, it would seem, only serves as an opportunity for grandstanding by the Greens member in this place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video