Mr HORNE (1:21 PM) —I rise to support this motion today. I compliment the member for Cunningham on bringing it to this House. The major city in my electorate is Maitland. Of course, everyone who knows Maitland knows that it is synonymous with floods. The 1955 flood in Maitland still stands as a benchmark for flooding for all flood plain areas in Australia.

That is not what this is about. Today's debate is about the rights of Australians and the fact that they have an expectation that their rights should be safeguarded. The rights of Australians should be determined here in the parliament where those things are discussed—not in a courtroom, and certainly not in a courtroom where the victory is going to go to the side that can afford the most. In my experience, that is generally the way it happens. We all know that that is certainly not going to be on the side of the average householder, on the side of the average insurer.

It is amazing how differently one is treated when one goes to an insurance company and asks, `Am I covered for this? Am I covered for that?' They say, `Don't worry about that.' You will be given all the assurances that you can possibly be given that you will be looked after. But we have all dealt with people who have come to us and said, `As a result of the natural disaster we had recently, I certainly don't have the cover that I expected.'

Over recent years in the Hunter we have had quite a lot of abnormal weather events—and not only weather events. If we go back 10 years, we will all recall the Newcastle earthquake. Thousands of Newcastle residents would have been without a home today if it had not been for the Lord Mayor's Appeal in Newcastle that took care of those people who suddenly found that they did not have the insurance cover that they fully expected to have. Insurance companies found the loophole—they probably knew it was there all along—and it was the unwitting householder who had continued to pay premiums religiously only to find that at the time they needed the cover it was not there.

The theme of my participation in this debate is the same as that of every other participant. It is always the small consumer who is losing out. One only has to sit and watch half an hour of television to realise how well the insurance companies are going. As a result of the recent election, I am sure we all have a better idea of what a little bit of television advertising costs. But from the regularity of the ads and the fact that well-known actors can be employed to participate in such advertising we can only hazard a guess at the enormity of the companies' advertising costs. I wonder if it would not be better if some of that cost were spent on providing the service that people expect.

I believe that Australians need to know there is a standard of household cover—that, once you purchase household coverage and insure your home, there are certain expectations that you will get for a certain amount of money. I believe it is the right of this parliament to ensure for Australians that that is so. I believe that a parliamentary inquiry as has been proposed in this motion today is long overdue and is the only just way that we can ensure that people, including us, are going to have the coverage that we expect.

The extensive loss of life and property in any natural disaster is a cost that is always borne by the community. Whether it be in giving to an appeal such as the Lord Mayor's Appeal in Newcastle, whether it be in the fact that we lose workmates, whether we give generously or donate labour and goods to rebuild homes, the cost is borne by all of the community in lost productivity and in other ways. Therefore, this parliament should determine that an inquiry takes place. (Time expired)