Territory Stories

Debates Day 2 - Wednesday 23 November 1994



Debates Day 2 - Wednesday 23 November 1994

Other title

Parliamentary Record 6


Debates for 7th Assembly 1994 - 1997; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 7th Assembly 1994 - 1997




Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory





Publisher name

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Place of publication


File type



Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory



Parent handle


Citation address


Page content

DEBATES - Wednesday 23 November 1994 M r POOLE: The Cain government introduced the same provision. We have cases coming out o f the woodwork now that happened 13 years ago. It is a nonsense and we will not be supporting the amendment. Motion agreed to; bill read a second time. In committee: Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2: Mr EDE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 18.1. There are a couple o f elements to this. First, there is the amendment itself. For the benefit o f members, it is to insert after subclause (3): (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3), the board may consider a claim where it considers it is in the interests o f justice to do so. As I said in my second-reading speech, this situation may never arise. All we are providing is the ability for the board to deal with a claim if it comes to a situation where otherwise there would be a gross miscarriage of justice and people would be hurt. What a terrible amendment this is! I can feel the ground shake! MACA will collapse! Justice might be seen to prevail! The minister says that there is no way that the government will support an amendment such as this. The minister says that no claim may be made after 3 years because it is impossible to process such a claim, but would he like to tell us about section 33 o f the principal act. W hat is the effect o f that section and what will be the effect o f this amendment on section 33 o f the principal act? Section 33 o f the principal act states: In the exercise o f its powers under this act, the board may, where it considers the circumstances o f a particular case warrant such action because a special hardship is likely to be suffered by any person, determine the time limits imposed by this act on the payment o f benefits under part 3... may be extended and the benefits may be paid accordingly. Does this amendment eliminate that provision? Do you know anything? Is anyone home? M r Poole: I am listening to you rant and rave. We will not accept the amendment. M r EDE: Does it change this? Does this still apply? The minister is saying that he is unable to apply that provision and acknowledge special hardship. We ask for such a provision in relation to injustice. The minister sits there, shakes his head and refuses to think about it any further. Why will the government not provide the board with the ability to accept a claim where it believes it would be a gross miscarriage o f justice not to do so? W hat will be the effect o f this amendment on section 33? 1840