11671 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Wednesday 20 October 2004 ______ Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 10.00 a.m. Mr Speaker offered the Prayer. SPECIAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY (JAMES HARDIE RECORDS) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 19 October. Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.00 a.m.]: Before I commence, I thank Davina Langton from the Premier's office and Leigh Sanderson from the Cabinet Office for the briefing they gave me at short notice yesterday afternoon. This bill was announced by the Premier's press release on 19 October. Notice was given that would normally only allow for the bill to be introduced the following day; however, standing orders were suspended to allow the bill to be introduced by the Premier that very afternoon. After the Premier finished speaking, the debate was adjourned by me, and later in the afternoon standing orders were again suspended so the matter could be debated this morning and the bill pass through all stages. It has also been indicated that the Government intends to introduce this legislation into the Legislative Council today if possible. One is entitled to ask why the great hurry? What organisation is so urgently awaiting the passage of this bill that the bill must in effect be rushed through Parliament in an urgent sitting? There is no answer to that question. The whole process has taken some time. The Government announced an inquiry back in February and the inquiry completed its deliberations in September. The understanding is that any action taken will have to be taken by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission [ASIC]. This bill facilitates in its own terms the work of ASIC, yet it is all being done in an enormous hurry. One is entitled to ask, “Why the hurry?” As I said, there is no answer to that question. The story behind this bill is the story behind the hurry this morning. The story is as significant as the bill itself. The history of asbestos and the terrible injuries it inflicts on its victims are well known. Also well known is the fact that before the company involved in this matter, the company under investigation in this inquiry, the company the subject of this bill, relocated its operations to the Netherlands it briefed the Premier’s chief of staff and the chief of staff of the Minister for Industrial Relations about its intentions. Both chiefs of staff duly reported back to their principals on the briefing. Notes disclosed to the special commission of inquiry, as prepared by Mr Stephen Loosely, a former general secretary of the New South Wales branch of the ALP, reveal that the Premier's chief of staff, Graeme Wedderburn, stated, "Carr okay, Carr okay." The relocation to the Netherlands has Carr's okay. In relation to the Minister for Industrial Relations we have the words, "Support from Della." So, Carr is okay and Della supports the relocation of James Hardie to the Netherlands, and the whole program of operations, including the establishment of the foundation that James Hardie instituted. On 23 June I asked the Premier why he had not made further inquiries. The Premier's reply was that corporations are a matter for the Federal Government not for the New South Wales Government, and the State Government lacks a corporations power and that all the State Government had was the same briefing that was about to be given to the Stock Exchange. Of course, the State Government has a responsibility to protect the citizens of its State. A State government aware of any potential problem to victims of whatever nature and standing surely has a moral if not a legal duty to take whatever reasonable measures are available to it to protect those victims. The Premier's chief of staff, the industrial relations Minister's chief of staff and their two principals, the Premier and the Minister for Industrial Relations, made no further inquiry about the implications of James Hardie's announcement and did not seek at that time any further information. They made no attempt to examine actuarial papers, they made no attempt to satisfy themselves through any independent process whether James Hardie was correct or entitled to take the action it did and whether the foundation would have the funds 11672 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 20 October 2004 necessary to meet all potential and outstanding claims. The Premier and the Minister for Industrial Relations stand accused of dereliction of their duty. It is no wonder that the Premier is so anxious to flick pass this whole sad and sorry matter to the Federal Government which is what this legislation is designed to facilitate. The establishment of the special commission of inquiry followed a complaint by the foundation, supported by some victims, that there would be a potential shortfall in the capacity of the foundation to meet liabilities for asbestosis and mesothelioma illnesses as they arose. That is a potential shortfall. The inquiry, once established, found that there was a potential shortfall. The emphasis is on the word "potential". To date not a single person, not a single victim, has lost a single dollar because of James Hardie's action or because of the foundation's lack of money. The foundation still has millions of dollars to meet claims. What is at stake is whether it can meet all potential claims. It is appropriate that the Government, where it is able to do so, takes action to ensure that what happens in the future—where it is known in the present—is safeguarded. That is the normal responsibility of government. But it contrasts vividly with the failure of this Government to take action of a similar nature in relation to Camden and Campbelltown hospitals. In those two hospitals some 32 people have died, yet there is no special commission of inquiry into their operations. The only limited inquiry is that conducted by the former president of the Bar Association. The Government's hypocrisy in its approach to James Hardie is revealed fully in its preparedness to establish a special inquiry and introduce special legislation against a potential liability when it is not prepared to not take the same action for an actual liability. Let us be clear: tragically, people have died in Camden, Campbelltown and Liverpool hospitals because of the State Government's rush to open those hospitals for electoral purposes when they were inadequately staffed. So far as James Hardie is concerned no-one has lost one dollar. The Government is not prepared to take action on behalf of the relatives of people who have died in our hospitals, yet it is prepared to take action on behalf of people who potentially may not recover their full entitlement. We do not deny them their entitlement. No-one denies asbestosis and mesothelioma victims their due entitlements—they are tragic and terrible illnesses. I am contrasting the hypocrisy of the Government's preparedness to take action against a potential liability when it will not take action against its own liability. On 23 June the Premier made the point again and again that the Government had no power over corporations. But it has full power over its hospital system. Why action in one instance and inaction in another? The answer is simple and it speaks volumes for this Government and all Labor governments: if you have a trade union you will be looked after. If you are a victim of asbestosis or mesothelioma and you are supported by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union or the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union you have a support base. But if you are the relative of someone who died in Camden, Campbelltown or Liverpool hospitals you have no union to take up your case and you are ignored. It is a tragedy of the operation of government that the families of victims who suffer because of the Government's incompetency and maladministration of health do not attract the same level of concern and attention as the victims of asbestosis and mesothelioma. The cynicism and the hypocrisy of the Premier, aided and abetted by the Government and the whole system the Government represents, are appalling. What does the bill achieve for the Government? It achieves what the Government has always wanted: the capacity to wash its hands, like Pontius Pilate, and pass off the whole tragic and sorry affair to Canberra. Yet the Government hides behind a pious smokescreen in front of the cameras when the Premier speaks about facilitating claims because it is simply passing the buck to Canberra. If the Government were sincere about compensating victims of asbestosis and mesothelioma why would it not conduct, as the Opposition has requested, a full State audit of its potential liability? Historically the biggest users of asbestos in this State were the old Commission for Railways, the Electricity Commission in its power stations and the Housing Commission in the construction of thousands of houses. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been exposed to asbestos cladding on trains and in railway workshops, and thousands of other workers have been exposed by the Electricity Commission's constant and heavy use of asbestos. When asked this question in the context of the debate about asbestos the Treasurer's reply has been that the State is able to meet its liabilities. What we do not know, because the Treasurer and the Government refuse to tell us, is whether the State can meet its potential liabilities. The same concern arises for the capacity of James Hardie and the foundation to meet their potential liabilities. The commissioner found the potential liabilities of James Hardie and its subsidiaries to be more than $1 billion.