Territory Stories

Debates Day 2 - Wednesday 1 May 1991

Details:

Title

Debates Day 2 - Wednesday 1 May 1991

Other title

Parliamentary Record 3

Collection

Debates for 6th Assembly 1990 - 1994; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 6th Assembly 1990 - 1994

Date

1991-05-01

Notes

Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Language

English

Subject

Debates

Publisher name

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Place of publication

Darwin

File type

application/pdf

Use

Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

License

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Parent handle

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/279515

Citation address

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/418775

Page content

DEBATES - Wednesday 1 May 1991 error is identified. I hope that, in the implementation of this legislation, there will be frequent cross-checking of the electronic data and the paper records. I realise one must move with the times and adopt time-saving devices. One must also consider the convenience of a centralised land transaction bureau. No doubt, that will save the government quite a bit of manpower which it has been seeking to do with its ERC. It will also save time in that transactions enacted in other parts of the Territory can be immediately accessed in the central electronic bureau in Darwin. With those few remarks, I support the legislation. I hope that my concerns are not realised or are negligible when this legislation is implemented. Motion agreed to; bills read a second time. In committee: Real Property Amendment Bill (Serial 20): Bill, by leave, taken as a whole. Clause 18: Mr BELL (by leave): Mr Chairman, I move that clause 18 be amended by omitting proposed new section 191E(6). Proposed new section 191E(6) says: (6) The Registrar-General may, in relation to access by a person, provide access in a way to limit the liability of (a) the Registrar-General of the Territory; (b) the Commonwealth: (c) a statutory authority of the Territory or the Commonwealth, a local government body or a prescribed organisation; or (d) an employee of the Territory or the Commonwealth or of a statutory authority, local government body or prescribed organisation referred to in paragraph (c), for an omission from, or misstatement or inaccuracy in, information obtained by provision by the Registrar-General of access referred to in subsection (4) or of a certificate or statement referred to in subsection (5). Mr Chairman, as the Attorney-General will be well aware, there has been considerable concern about liability in relation to the negligent provision of information. That concern has been heightened most recently by the decision in Shaddock and Associates v Parramatta City Council, where a solicitor acting for a landholder sought information from the Parramatta City Council in respect of the zoning requirements of a piece of land and a council employee provided information which was substantially incorrect. Acting on that information, the solicitor advised his client, who suffered a substantial financial loss because of incorrect information about zoning. The end result was a landmark decision in Australia because, previously, the courts had been very reluctant to provide relief for individuals who 872


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this website may contain the names, voices and images of people who have died, as well as other culturally sensitive content. Please be aware that some collection items may use outdated phrases or words which reflect the attitude of the creator at the time, and are now considered offensive.

We use temporary cookies on this site to provide functionality.
By continuing to use this site without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies.