Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

CIVIL LIABILITY BILL 2002 (No. 75)

Second Reading

Mrs JACKSON (Denison - Minister for Justice and Industrial Relations- 2R) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

Over the past few years, public liability insurance has become more expensive and difficult to purchase, particularly for community groups and small businesses. The reasons behind the problems in insurance markets are complex and there is no simple solution that will fix these problems.

The Government has taken a carefully planned strategic approach to this issue, taking into account the particular circumstances in Tasmania and work that is being undertaken at a national level that is being considered by Commonwealth, State and Territory ministers. The Government has already acted to assist those organisations most affected by the problems in the public liability insurance market through a range of direct measures. These include the abolition of stamp duty on public liability insurance policies and working with the Local Government Association of Tasmania to put in place an education program on risk management for community groups.

The Government has also established a hotline to assist community organisations that are having difficulty accessing affordable cover and has made available $1 million assistance to assist those community organisations having trouble meeting premium increases.

The second phase of the Government's strategy is to introduce legislative measures that will assist in reducing cost pressures in the public liability insurance market and also ensure that Tasmanian civil liability laws are aligned with community expectations.

The Civil Liability Bill 2002 contains four such measures. The third phase of the strategy is to consider further legislative measures to reduce the cost of public liability insurance. These measures are being considered in conjunction with the Commonwealth and the other States and Territories and they will be effective only if a uniform approach is adopted by all jurisdictions.

The Government will only introduce additional measures if it is satisfied, after extensive consultation with key stakeholders and the community, that they will be of benefit and the rights of individuals are not significantly reduced.

Mr Speaker, I would like to turn now to the Civil Liability Bill 2002 before the House today which contains four measures aimed at addressing shortcomings in the current law relating to the awarding of damages to persons injured through the negligence of others.

The first measure in the bill provides that damages be reduced in those cases where the use of alcohol or drugs by the injured person contributed to the injury suffered by that person. The bill provides that a person is to be presumed to be contributorily negligent if they were intoxicated at the time of the incident to the extent that their capacity to exercise due care and skill was impaired, unless the court is satisfied that the person's intoxication did not contribute in any way to the injury. This provision places the onus on individuals to take greater responsibility for their own wellbeing. However, it does not mean that people will automatically have their award of damages reduced if they are injured whilst intoxicated. Damages are to be reduced only in those situations in which an individual's intoxication contributes to his or her injury.

Furthermore, if an individual's intoxication is not self-induced, there is no presumption of contributory negligence. Where an individual is found by the court to be intoxicated and the intoxication contributed to that person's injuries, damages are to be reduced by the extent to which the individual's intoxication is determined to have contributed to their injury. The court is to decide on the extent to which damages are reduced, with a minimum of 25 per cent applying. I foreshadow that I will be moving amendments to these provisions in the bill to give the court the discretion to reduce damages by less than 25 per cent if the court determines that is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

The second measure included in the bill is the prohibition of damages being awarded where an injured person is, on the balance of probabilities, engaged in conduct that constitutes a serious offence and that conduct contributes materially to the risk of injury suffered by that person.

Mr Speaker, this aligns with community expectations that people should not be compensated if they are injured principally because they are engaged in criminal activity. This provision in the bill will ensure that damages cannot be made if this is the case. The bill does not require that criminal proceedings are taken against the injured party, or that they are prosecuted for the activity that they are involved in at the time of injury, for damages to be prohibited. It will be up to the court to decide whether they had been engaged in conduct that constitutes a serious offence. I foreshadow that I will also be moving amendments to these provisions in the bill to alter the definition of 'serious offence', and to clarify the damages that are recoverable where the criminal suffers an injury which is disproportionate to the offence.

The third measure in the bill provides that an apology by a person is not to be construed as an admission of liability. Mr Speaker, this provision does not diminish the liability of any person or organisation that has caused the injury or death of another person through negligence. The purpose of this provision is to facilitate a system of open disclosure, particularly in medical negligence cases. The Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council has established a project to develop a system of open disclosure in medical negligence cases.

Research has identified that many people who are injured as a result of medical negligence are simply seeking an apology and an explanation of what happened, rather than monetary compensation. However, doctors are instructed not to apologise or provide information to patients because of insurance implications. This adversarial approach automatically leads to litigation. Litigation could be avoided if doctors apologised and were open about what happened.

The final measure included in this bill is to ensure that courts have the power to order structured settlements as an alternative to lump sum awards for damages. At present, it is not possible for our civil courts to make a final award of damages for personal injury except in the form of a lump sum. Until now, there has been no need to change this situation because the tax disadvantages of receiving the settlement as a periodic payment would have made structured settlements unattractive to plaintiffs. However, the Commonwealth Government has now introduced the Taxation Laws Amendment (Structured Settlements) Bill 2002. I would be interested to know when they are going to pass this legislation because it was introduced about six months ago, so if this is such an urgent issue, I would have thought the Commonwealth Government might have moved more quickly on this, but anyway, that is outside my realm of responsibility. However, this bill will provide a tax exemption for structured settlements, which meet certain eligibility criteria. This may mean that such settlements become more attractive to personal injury litigants in the future. The States and Territories have therefore agreed with the Commonwealth to legislate to remove barriers to such settlements. That is the purpose of this part of the bill.

This bill permits the courts, with the consent of the parties, to award personal injury damages in the form of a structured settlement. In essence, the defendant, instead of paying a lump sum to the injured party, purchases an annuity from an insurance company. The annuity pays the injured party a set amount at regular intervals, either for life, or up to a set date. The Commonwealth bill sets out in detail the criteria which the annuity must meet in order to be tax-exempt.

Mr Speaker, as I mentioned at the outset, the problems in insurance markets are complex and there is no simple solution. This bill is the first stage of the proposed legislative measures aimed at addressing these problems. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GUTWEIN (Bass) - Firstly I must say that I am pleased at long last to see a bill before the House on this particular matter. I think it is worthwhile pointing out to the House that it was as far back as November last year, almost 12 months ago, that the Liberal Opposition at that time actually suggested a joint select committee on this particular matter to move the issue of public liability forward in this State and never got the opportunity to do that. I think that was supported by the Greens as well at that time.

Public liability is obviously an enormous problem in this State. Whilst I looked at the measures that are in the bill, and I must admit I do broadly support them but obviously will be wanting to discuss a couple of matters there especially the amendments in more detail during the committee stage. I think it is worthwhile pointing out that in the past 12 months in Tasmania unfortunately there has been, in our estimation, around $10 million in extra premiums that have been paid as a result of the lateness in this bill coming forward. The majority of the other States and Territories have moved much quicker than we have in Tasmania and whilst I recognise the need to ensure that we have some uniformity of law in this country in respect of public liability, there are certainly some matters included in this particular bill that could have been brought before the House much sooner.

The other issues that I want to put on the record today in respect to public liability are that whilst the Government has taken a number of measures and some of them, certainly the $1 million fund has been a worthwhile initiative but again that has been a bandaid solution - you have to get yourself into trouble before you can access that.

The other one is the master plan concept that the Local Government Association of Victoria has brought forward and that the State Government has entered into. A couple of issues there: one is that that unfortunately is prohibitive for most organisations because of the cost of premiums associated with it and also it is prohibitive in the sense that there are a large number of organisations that cannot access it.

As I say, I broadly support the bill. The Liberal Opposition 12 months ago were talking about issues whereby if somebody was intoxicated that should be taken into account. Also, if someone was engaged in a serious offence or if that conduct contributed materially to the risk of a death, injury or a damage that should be taken into account as well.

I think most people in Tasmania recognise that in those two key areas - if you are intoxicated or you are committing an offence - at the end of the day it is very fair and reasonable to have your own rights limited. To my mind that is a reasonable thing to bring forward. I note that the medical fraternity are keen to see that included but, again, in respect of the overall reduction of premiums, it is going to have, in my opinion, very little benefit.

Finally, in relation to structured settlements, I take on board the minister's comments and I will seek out reasons why that has not gone through in the Federal Parliament. I thought structured settlements had. I thought there was another issue in respect to the Trade Practices Act that had gone through and I thought structured settlements were -

Mrs Jackson - I was informed that it hasn't.

Mr GUTWEIN - I will check that out. My understanding was that that was the first one that they sorted out and prior to the end of June there were matters to do with the Trade Practices Act.

Mrs Jackson - It was debated last week in the Senate.

Mr GUTWEIN - Okay, I stand corrected. But certainly structured settlements will be one way that we can assist insurance companies.

As I say, broadly speaking I support the bill. I am concerned that it has taken so long for the bill to come before this House, other States have moved much quicker. The issue has been, I think - not on the horizon - it has been a part of our community now for a long period of time, it is about time that the bill was here and I, as I say, will discuss some of the issues further in the committee stage but broadly speaking I support the bill.

Mr McKIM (Franklin) - Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an important issue to deal with, the Greens recognise that and this bill is a start to dealing with this incredibly important community issue. We would like to place on the record our disappointment that a tripartisan approach has not been adopted by the Government. As Mr Gutwein said, the Liberal Party did suggest a committee on this matter which the Greens did in fact support. It was not taken up by the Government, no alternative tripartite approach has been suggested by the Government and I would have thought if any issue in the Tasmanian community to date demanded a tripartisan approach it is this issue and we are very disappointed that the opportunity to pursue this issue in that manner has not been taken.

In relation to the bill, we do support this bill broadly although we have some very real concerns about a particular section of it that I would be interested in discussing in committee and in fact we did have concerns about two parts of it but they have been addressed in relation to clause 5 by the amendments that I just saw for the first time 10 minutes ago. Those amendments would appear, at first glance at least, to take care of our concerns in relation to clause 5, but we do nevertheless have some serious concerns about Part 3 and, as I said, I would be interested in pursuing those in the committee stage.

Can I just say that I am happy regarding the apology section, Part 4. I think that is a long overdue measure. Like Mr Gutwein, I am not quite sure what effect it will have on premiums but I just regard it as a matter of common courtesy that you should be able to apologise to someone for doing something without necessarily having that taken as an admission of liability.

I would also like to express a concern that the intent of this bill, in our opinion, would be to shift cost from the private sector to the Commonwealth Government in relation to people who are injured and are no longer covered by any payout and they would then be forced, I assume, onto some kind of government pension or benefit. To me, that is an issue which would shift costs onto the long-suffering taxpayer who seems to be bearing responsibility for more and more in relation to a range of issues.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we broadly support the bill. We will have concerns and I would like to raise some concerns at the committee stage, if I might.

Mr WILL HODGMAN (Franklin - Deputy Leader of the Opposition ) - Mr Deputy Speaker, in support of the amendments and given that it has been flagged that we may well end up in committee, I will just make some brief observations in respect of what is before us.

Certainly, any effort to reduce the problems we currently experience in terms of increased insurance premiums is welcome and without going into the debilitating effect that increased insurance policies and premiums are having on our community, this is perhaps one small step to redressing that particular problem and it is one which I would urge that the House endorse.

I would just like to flag some matters that have concerned me in relation to this legislation which may be more properly dealt with by reply or in committee. Firstly, in respect of the provision concerning the presumption of contributory negligence, it appears to me at first glance that an automatic presumption of 25 per cent, which is a significant figure to be attributed by way of contributory negligence, is quite considerable and could lead to a situation whereby somebody who is in reality only 1 per cent contributorily negligent is then automatically lifted to a relatively high figure of 25 per cent and that could obviously lead to situations which are arguably unfair.

In relation to the effect of drugs and intoxicating liquor and the results that can flow from that, I would also like to pose a scenario whereby somebody is prescribed a particular drug or medicine without being properly advised by a doctor in relation to the effect of that drug or medicine and it may be, I would submit, more appropriate to require a person in that particular situation to show or not show, as the case may be, that he was aware of the effect that that particular drug -

Mrs Jackson - That's been changed in the amendments.

Mr McKim - Have you seen the amendments?

Mr WILL HODGMAN - No, I have not. I will not proceed on that line. I take great pleasure and joy in identifying an obvious problem so -

Mr McKim - We had the same concerns but it appears that they have been dealt with.

Mr WILL HODGMAN - I will proceed with my notes and if anything has been rectified I would be grateful -

Member - Fifteen love.

Mr WILL HODGMAN - Yes.

One other matter relates to the section concerning recovery by criminals and I certainly agree with the intent of this legislation. I do believe that there is concern within the community that people perpetrating criminal activities are often benefited by the system and unfairly so, leading to perverse and unreasonable results and judgments by courts.

I would like to pose another scenario whereby - and I do not think there would be too much argument - that many summary offences within our legislation carry sentences of imprisonment of up to six months.

Mrs Jackson - We're changing that to 'greater than six months'. You're on the ball.

Mr WILL HODGMAN - Well, I am on the ball, and so are you, it would appear. We are on the same wavelength too, importantly, because obviously in that situation where somebody is, say, trespassing to retrieve a cricket ball or something of a fairly trivial nature, it could technically be -

Mr McKim - It depends if it goes onto the veranda or not now, I reckon - because that is a building and its 12 months and then you're gone. I reckon you've got some problems there.

Mr WILL HODGMAN - Well, it certainly goes some way - and we may have this debate in a moment - to alleviating that obvious problem.

I will just briefly make some comments in relation to the issue of an apology and, again, I do wish to preface my remarks by saying that clearly it is appropriate that the intent of this provision succeed because from legal practice, in many situations where I have represented people involved in motor vehicle accidents or the like where they have spontaneously and without a great deal of thought issued an apology, it has rendered the entire hearing or trial process to some degree ludicrous. Often as a legal practitioner it was incumbent on me to try to unscramble the mess that was a consequence of a simple, innocent and unwitting apology which in no way should be construed as an admission of fault. If somebody, for example, says that they were driving in a manner which caused them, to some degree without great fault, to cause an accident, they should not necessarily be held to be liable simply by way of an apology.

I will pause at that point and defer to anyone else who wishes to speak to this legislation and we may have further debate in the committee stage.

Mr MORRIS (Lyons) - Mr Deputy Speaker, whilst we will support the bulk of this bill there are indeed a few problems, particularly with the second section that we will be dealing with. What I want to talk about in particular is that this really is just fiddling around the edges with the whole thing. I have no faith whatsoever that the insurance industry is actually going to reduce the costs of public liability insurance with what we are doing. I think what they will be doing instead is laughing and saying, 'Thank you very much for increased profits'. I have spent some considerable time studying this and will continue to do so, simply because I do not believe that we are getting anywhere near a proper resolution of this fairly messy matter.

There are a few issues that concern me in particular at the moment. I will start with the $1 million that has been put up by the Government to cover community groups and the like for the gap between what their insurance costs were and what they are now. Unfortunately I do not believe that the cost of that public liability insurance will come down one cent. All that has happened is that the Government will have deferred for a year or perhaps two the inevitable collapse of many community groups, unless we can do something a lot more substantial or they can be guaranteed an ongoing subsidy that will make up the gap as such that they cannot afford. I think in the case of the Don River Railway the gap was about $100 000 a year that needed to be found. Certainly the railway societies around the State will probably be one of the first to go unless we can get a more permanent fix.

I would also like to highlight now the situation where two or more businesses can actually be taking out separate public liability insurance to effectively cover for potential liable accidents or situations within the same area. Where a business owns a total property it carries public liability for that property. If it then chooses to sublet or rent out a part of that property - as in a shopping centre, that owns the whole place - but then lets out part of that, then the business that operates within there also has to carry a public liability and/or product liability for covering for essentially the same area. They really have no choice in the current situation.

One of the areas that I think we need to look more closely at - and I realise that this is almost inevitably a national situation - is seeing what we can learn or whether there are things that we can gain from the New Zealand model of the no-fault public liability insurance system that they have there, which from all reports seems to run reasonably smoothly. Even though there have been some revamps of that system every few years, it does seem to work fairly smoothly and in fact they have no such thing as public liability insurance as we know it. In fact, the lawyers have taken it right out of the system which in our case would be an incredible saving within this country.

The other thing is that lump-sum payments are the exception rather than the rule and the guiding principle is to get people back on their feet as quickly as possible and to provide them with the support that they need to do that rather than to actually say, 'Oh dear, you've been hurt - let's compensate you'. It is very much focused about getting them back and functioning as well as possible, as quickly as possible, and support by way of a substitution for a wage or income support is provided on an as-needs basis - on a weekly or a fortnightly basis - rather than as a lump sum.

What concerns me significantly about a part of this bill, as the member for Franklin, Mr McKim, mentioned earlier, is that this will lead to inevitable cost shifting where lump-sum payments are struck down because of any contributory factor. That means that if the person is not given compensation sufficient to be able to survive on then they will indeed have to fall back on the social security system which they will presumably qualify for, so that the Federal Government will then have to pick up the full tab for carrying on, even though in the first instance the person who was sued was insured to cover for this type of thing. So there does appear as if there is going to be significant cost-shifting involved, even though that is not likely to show up for a long time.

I am not sure quite how the Federal Government is feeling about that situation. There is no doubt that structured settlements are indeed the way of the future and lump-sum payments should perhaps only be a last resort. There are several problems with providing lump-sum payments. One is that people who receive the lump-sum payments do not get any training on how to look after those. They are absolutely at the mercy of their own financial capabilities or the mercy of the capabilities of a financial adviser who may well be entrusted with that money. As we have seen with superannuation schemes in the past year or two, there are no guarantees that that money will stay even the same amount of money or increase. In fact money can be lost, there is nothing you can do about it, and that means that a lump-sum payment which might seem extremely generous and appropriate at the time would indeed become less and possibly even exhaust and you would then have to fall back on the social security system and again, the Federal Government would be obliged to pick up the tab.

Whilst I do not have the solutions at this point in time, what I would like to say is that whilst this bill is trying to prop up the existing system instead of taking a fairly radical and different approach, it is largely well and good with the exception of the second part. We really are not making much difference and I would certainly like to hear if the Government is keeping a measure of what impact is being had on the reduction in public liability insurance premium costs because, to the best of my knowledge, they are still rising and rising fast. The lifting of the stamp duty does not seem to have made any difference, except perhaps to the profits of the insurance companies.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN (Denison) - Mr Deputy Speaker, as Her Majesty's shadow attorney-general for the State of Tasmania, I say to the House that I hope this works, I really hope it works. I have grave doubts, but people who know more about this aspect of the law are telling me that in their opinion it will work. I must say I was most impressed recently to hear an address from the Federal minister, Senator Helen Coonan who came here to Hobart and spoke on this subject in the presence of a number of parliamentarians, including our shadow treasurer for the State of Tasmania, Mr Peter Gutwein, MHA, myself, the Leader, the Deputy Leader and the State Treasurer, the honourable David Crean, MLC.

There is a genuine attempt, it seems to me, by the Commonwealth and the States and Territories to tackle this extraordinary problem which has arisen in the area of public liability insurance. I do not know, Mr Deputy Speaker, how this thing has happened; it is trite to say it is because of 11 September or HIH. I cannot believe some of the premium increases that have been arbitrarily determined. I know of a flower show where the premium skyrocketed into thousands; a choir of middle-aged ladies and gentlemen are confronted with insurance premium they just cannot possibly meet. Anzac Day marches have been called into question; Bothwell picnic races where I have been the master of ceremonies for years and years did not go ahead this year and may go ahead next year. Then there are country shows. The Hamilton Show is still going, but just. I do the broadcast there and maybe I might be the problem, I do not know. The Bream Creek Show, of which I was patron, went ahead, but they were very fortunate in that the Mayor of Sorell, Carmel Torenius, confirmed to me that because it was carried out at the showgrounds at Bream Creek on land owned by the Sorell Council, some arrangement had been made. I am aware of other arrangements where the Lions Club nationally have a scheme whereby others can become involved. I think Ian Downie and others have done that in relation to the Bothwell picnic race meeting which has raised, to my knowledge, well over $100 000 - probably closer to $200 000 - for charity in the Bothwell area, mainly in the provision of medical and health and community services.

Secondly, I have to say that in the overall scheme of things, awards of damages in Tasmania are much lower than the awards in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, particularly where they have jury trials which, in most cases in Tasmania, are now not available. I find it almost unbelievable that awards of millions and millions of dollars are paid ultimately by you and me to plaintiffs in New South Wales in circumstances which, on the face of it, did not warrant either a determination of negligence or indeed an award of that amount. I have to say, that I found it incredible that a young criminal who became involved in an altercation in the private residence of the manager of a licensed premises from which that young criminal had been refused entry earlier in the evening, gets $50 000 and his mother gets $20 000 for nervous shock. Dear, oh dear, why were they not both given a gold medal, Mr Deputy Speaker?

My colleague Mr Gutwein has knowledge of the insurance industry which is very substantial. As a candidate he put out a brilliant paper on the problems of public liability insurance which he made available to the Liberal Party of Australia, Tasmanian division, to the Parliamentary Liberal Party and to the Government. Copies were within the hands of the Premier, who in fact commented publicly that he had seen the work that had been put together. The joint select committee might well have addressed the problem much more quickly and might well have prevented substantial increases in premiums which have just rolled on and on whilst remedial action has moved very slowly.

I do have reservations about parts of the bill but, in the interest of dealing with the problem, I will go along with the bill. It seems to me with respect that the presumption of contributory negligence, including the amendments which are coming forward, is no more than what the law is today. Persons adversely affected by alcohol - that is, under the influence of intoxicating liquor to such an extent as to be incapable of taking proper care of themselves and exercising due care and control - will face a reduction, but it has to be a contributing factor. For example, an intoxicated person parks his vehicle quite properly on the side of the road and goes to sleep. The person is intoxicated and the vehicle is properly and lawfully parked and he is sound asleep. Another person who has not had any alcohol at all comes along at 150 kmh loses control and crashes into the parked vehicle. No judge would find in that situation that, because the person in the vehicle was intoxicated, that was a contributing factor and the Attorney was kind enough in her second reading speech to make that point. It is has to be a contributing factor. So with some misgivings about any statutory minimum in relation to contributory negligence, I will support, or rather not oppose this provision.

Secondly, where death, injury or damage comes about at a time when the person was engaged in conduct that constitutes a serious offence, that is a matter for judicial determination and that will be taken not lightly because effectively, it again states the law. This is not going to mean, as one of my friends in the law said, what happens if somebody just goes trespassing through a property or something minor which did not constitute a serious offence, that plea will not run there. But where the person is engaged in an aggravated burglary, that is a burglary where he or she enters premises at night with intent to rob, steal, assault, rape or commit any crime, it is monstrous if that person, falling down a stairway where one of the stairs is deficient, can then turn around and sue. No person should be entitled to claim damages arising out of criminal activity on which they have been engaged.

For the record, can I say that this has been a firm policy of the Liberal Party for many years. Might I also say that it is our firm view - and I believe it to be the law in any event - that, with the amendments to the Criminal Code in relation to self defence, an elderly person in his or her residence seeing a person coming towards him or her in the darkened passage at 2 o'clock in the morning is entitled to take such action as he or she believes is reasonable in the circumstances to protect herself or himself. If that means - and sometimes it has - that the elderly person has grabbed a firearm and the invader has been shot, then the situation I know in one State is they simply will not prosecute that elderly person. I happen to believe that is correct and the law in this State in relation to self defence is exactly as I have stated it: that where the person is in genuine fear, he or she is entitled to use such force as he or she considers reasonable in the circumstances to defend himself or herself.

I often get constituents say to me: 'What rights have my elderly parents in their 80s to defend themselves?' and I tell them exactly what the law is. But you will not get the Commissioner of Police or the DPP or the Crown Law to say categorically, 'Well, you can shoot somebody if they are in your house and you think they are going to kill you and you defend yourself, but ultimately it is up to a jury'. But if in that case the person fell down the stairs and broke his leg and then said, 'Oh, I'm going to sue', that is absolutely outrageous and that provision in the bill has my strong support to prevent it happening.

The provision in relation to apology is long overdue; I agree completely with what is proposed there. On the provision for structured settlements, bearing in mind it gives the court a power which it does not at the moment have, I am not quite certain that that is right because I would have thought, with respect to consent judgment between the parties, providing for a payment in that manner may well have stood up but let us put it beyond doubt, Attorney. I think also that that can be supported.

The Attorney has foreshadowed that more will come and it seems to me with respect obvious that that must be so. If the position is that insurance companies are able to define premium rates as being different as between one locality and another, which is what they do, will somebody in the insurance world tell me why they cannot take into account that in Tasmania the records show that the risk of a major payout in this State is much less than it is in some other States. Let me be quite direct: an award of damages of $200 000 or $300 000 here in Tasmania may be exactly the same as a case in Sydney where the award will be $3 million.

So why don't the insurance companies take into account the claims record in the State of Tasmania? I listened carefully, as I conclude, to the Premier saying last year in the House, 'Look, we are a very small part of the overall pool and maybe we have to be involved with a larger State like Victoria or even nationally before we will get some sort of attention' but I am actually going the other way and saying, 'Why isn't it that the insurance companies which are able to delineate between one suburb between another?'. I did not realise this until quite recently that if you live in a particular part of the city and someone else lives in a different section, and you live there and it is in a different section, there will be different premiums. So if they can do it in relation to parts of a city, why can't they do it in relation to a State of the Commonwealth?

Mrs Jackson - I don't know; you tell me.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - I am going to pursue it with my friend - and he is my friend - Mr Brian Aherne, for whom I have a great and high regard, as did my late father. But having said that, I would like to pursue that down the track because I think that Tasmanian premiums are subsidising very substantial, extravagant and excessive awards in other parts of the Commonwealth. That is unjust, that is inequitable and completely contrary to the Federal system under which we are very privileged to live, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mrs JACKSON (Denison - Minister for Justice and Industrial Relations) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to comment on anybody's contribution at this stage, but we will go into Committee.

Bill read the second time.