- Home
- Parliamentary Business
- Senators and Members
- News & Events
- About Parliament
- Visit Parliament
Permalink
Prev
Next
Return to results list (1 results)




- Title
JOINT HOUSE DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC LIABILITY CLAIM
- Database
Senate Hansard
- Date
17-12-1992
- Source
Senate
- Parl No.
36
- Electorate
VIC
- Interjector
Senator Bolkus
- Page
5507
- Party
LP
- Presenter
- Status
- Question No.
- Questioner
- Responder
- Speaker
Senator ALSTON
- Stage
- Type
- Context
Miscellaneous
- System Id
chamber/hansards/1992-12-17/0355
Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Table Of Contents

Previous Fragment Next Fragment
-
Hansard
- Start of Business
- PETITIONS
-
STATUTORY BODIES
- Membership
-
NOTICES OF MOTION
- Days and Hours of Sitting
- Dr Bob Brown
- Grain Production in South Australia
- Victoria: Schools
- Australian Broadcasting Authority
- Hospitals
- Regulations and Ordinances Committee
- Unemployment: Graduates
- Compulsory Unionism
- Days and Hours of Sitting
- Australian Institute of Criminology
- Government Documents
- Sex Discrimination
- Government Documents
- Mr Mordechai Vanunu
- ORDER OF BUSINESS
-
NOTICES OF MOTION
-
Standing Committee on Industry, Technology and Commerce
- Withdrawal
-
Standing Committee on Industry, Technology and Commerce
- TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
-
COMMITTEES
- Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology
- BURMA
-
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 1992
- First Reading
- Second Reading
-
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (RESOLUTION OF BOYCOTTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1992
- First Reading
- Second Reading
-
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT BILL 1992
- First Reading
- Second Reading
-
COMMITTEES
- Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts
- SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
- LEAVE OF ABSENCE
- BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
-
COMMITTEES
-
Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration
- Report
- Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs
-
Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration
- CUSTOMS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1992 CUSTOMS LEGISLATION (ANTI-DUMPING AMENDMENTS) BILL 1992 CUSTOMS TARIFF (ANTI-DUMPING) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1992 CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1992
- CORPORATE LAW REFORM BILL 1992
- SEAFARERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION BILL 1992 SEAFARERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1992 SEAFARERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION LEVY BILL 1992 SEAFARERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1992
-
MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
- South Australian Liberal Party
- South Australia
- Toxic Chemicals
- Foreign Investment in Australia
- Public Service (Abolition of Compulsory Retirement Age) Amendment Bill 1992
- Food Labelling
-
Privatisation of Government Bodies
- Tasmanian Oyster Industry
- Mr Michael Pratt
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
- DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
-
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
-
FAI Insurance: Westpac Bank
(Senator COLSTON, Senator TATE) -
Racism
(Senator BOURNE, Senator TATE) -
Textiles Industry
(Senator LOOSLEY, Senator BUTTON) -
Air Traffic Control Contract
(Senator MacGIBBON, Senator COLLINS) -
Wages of Women
(Senator REYNOLDS, Senator COOK) -
Prime Minister: Companies
(Senator MICHAEL BAUME, Senator BUTTON) -
Sexual Harassment
(Senator WALSH, Senator TATE) -
Hospitals
(Senator PATTERSON, Senator TATE) -
Unemployment
(Senator LEES, Senator COOK) -
Wool Tax Rebate
(Senator BOSWELL, Senator COOK) -
Indonesia: Earthquake
(Senator HARRADINE, Senator GARETH EVANS) -
Defence
(Senator DURACK, Senator ROBERT RAY) -
Exports to China
(Senator FAULKNER, Senator GARETH EVANS) -
Joint House Department: Public Liability Claim
(Senator HERRON) -
Motor Vehicle Industry Executives
(Senator MAGUIRE, Senator BUTTON) -
Tax on Services
(Senator BUTTON) -
Nuclear Reactors
(Senator BUTTON) -
Taxation Determinations
(Senator BUTTON) -
Pigs
(Senator GARETH EVANS) -
Ambassador to the OECD
(Senator GARETH EVANS) -
Public Service: Union Activities
(Senator COOK) -
Unemployment
(Senator COOK) -
Med-Network Systems Pty Ltd
(Senator TATE) - Joint House Department: Public Liability Claim
- Joint House Department: Public Liability Claim
- Joint House Department: Public Liability Claim
- Joint House Department: Public Liability Claim
- Joint House Department: Public Liability Claim
- Joint House Department: Public Liability Claim
- Joint House Department: Public Liability Claim
- Joint House Department: Public Liability Claim
- Joint House Department: Public Liability Claim
- Joint House Department: Public Liability Claim
-
FAI Insurance: Westpac Bank
-
MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
- Procedural Text
- Motion of Precedence
- Motion of Censure
-
PETITIONS
- National Flag
- Procedural Text
-
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
- Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories: Grants
- SOMALIA
-
COMMITTEES
-
Superannuation
- Report: Government Response
- Reports: Government Responses
-
Superannuation
- NEW ZEALAND FINANCE AND EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE
-
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
-
Australian Sports Drug Agency
- Annual Report
- Department of Tourism
- Tobacco Research and Development Council
- Australian Sports Drug Agency
-
Private Health Insurance Administration Council
- Report
-
Australian Sports Drug Agency
-
DOCUMENTS
-
Auditor-General's Reports 1992-93
- No. 17: Health Insurance Commission
- No. 18: Department of Social Security
- Report No. 19: Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs
- Report No. 20: Department of Employment, Education and Training
- Report No. 21: Department of Employment, Education and Training
- Report No. 22: Department of Defence
-
Auditor-General's Reports 1992-93
- ORDER OF BUSINESS
-
COMMITTEES
- Privileges
- ORDER OF BUSINESS
-
COMMITTEES
-
Privileges
- 36th and 37th Reports
-
Privileges
- BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
- TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (CAR PARKING) BILL 1992
- SEAFARERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION BILL 1992 SEAFARERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1992 SEAFARERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION LEVY BILL 1992 SEAFARERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1992
- MIGRATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1992
- ADJOURNMENT
-
MIGRATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1992
- Second Reading
-
In Committee
- Senator HARRADINE
- Senator TATE
- Senator HARRADINE
- Senator TATE
- Senator CHAMARETTE
- Senator TATE
- Senator TEAGUE
- Senator HARRADINE
- Senator TATE
- Senator HARRADINE
- Senator TATE
- Senator HARRADINE
- Senator TATE
- Senator SPINDLER
- Senator TATE
- Senator SPINDLER
- Senator TATE
- Senator COULTER
- Senator TATE
- Senator COULTER
- Senator TATE
- Senator SPINDLER
- Senator TATE
- Senator CHAMARETTE
- Senator TATE
- Senator CHAMARETTE
- Senator TATE
- Senator HARRADINE
- Senator TATE
- Senator HARRADINE
- Senator TATE
- Senator HARRADINE
- Senator CHAMARETTE
- Senator TATE
- Senator SPINDLER
- Senator TEAGUE
- Senator TATE
- Third Reading
- TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (CAR PARKING) BILL 1992
- TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 5) 1992
- CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1992
- BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
-
RURAL ADJUSTMENT BILL 1992 STATES GRANTS (RURAL ADJUSTMENT) AMENDMENT BILL 1992 FARM HOUSEHOLD SUPPORT BILL 1992 INCOME EQUALISATION DEPOSITS LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1992
-
In Committee
- Senator LEES
- Senator TAMBLING
- Senator COOK
- Senator LEES
- Senator COOK
- Senator LEES
- Senator COOK
- Senator LEES
- Senator COOK
- Senator LEES
- Senator COOK
- Senator LEES
- Senator COOK
- Senator LEES
- Senator COOK
- Senator LEES
- Senator TAMBLING
- Senator COOK
- Senator LEES
- Senator TAMBLING
- Senator LEES
- Senator TAMBLING
- Senator COOK
- Senator LEES
- Senator TAMBLING
- Senator COOK
- Senator LEES
- Senator TAMBLING
- Senator COOK
- Third Reading
-
In Committee
- NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1992
- BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
-
NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY ADMINISTRATION BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (COARSE GRAINS) LEVY BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (CATTLE TRANSACTION) LEVY BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (LIVESTOCK SLAUGHTER) LEVY BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (MEAT CHICKEN) LEVY BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (LAYING CHICKEN) LEVY BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (DAIRY PRODUCE) LEVY BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (HONEY) LEVY BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (HONEY EXPORT) LEVY BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS) LEVY BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS EXPORT) LEVY BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (OILSEEDS) LEVY BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (DRIED FRUITS) LEVY BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (WHEAT) LEVY BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (GRAIN LEGUMES) LEVY BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (GAME ANIMALS) LEVY BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (AQUATIC ANIMAL EXPORT) LEVY BILL 1992 NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (HORSE SLAUGHTER) LEVY BILL 1992
- Second Reading
- In Committee
- Third Reading
- AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY CHEMICALS (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1992 AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY CHEMICALS AMENDMENT BILL 1992
- COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES' REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION AMENDMENT BILL 1992
- BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
- STATUTORY BODIES
- JOINT HOUSE DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC LIABILITY CLAIM
- ADJOURNMENT
- DOCUMENTS
-
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
-
Newstart Program
(Senator Reynolds, Senator Cook) -
Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories: Grants
(Senator Short, Senator Collins) -
Mr Brown: Ms Murray
(Senator Alston, Senator Cook) -
Piparwar Coal Project
(Senator Bourne, Senator Gareth Evans) -
Defence: Joint Facilities
(Senator Chamarette, Senator Robert Ray) -
Aborigines: Yarrabah and Palm Island
(Senator O'Chee, Senator Collins) -
Australian International Development Assistance Bureau
(Senator Brownhill, Senator Gareth Evans) -
Local Government Development Program
(Senator Brownhill, Senator Tate) -
Ms Coral Bayley-Jones
(Senator Tierney, Senator Cook) -
Sudan
(Senator Chamarette, Senator Gareth Evans) -
Racial Discrimination
(Senator Chamarette, Senator Gareth Evans) -
Genetically Acquired Abnormalities: Register
(Senator Campbell, Senator Tate) -
Wildlife Protection: Controlled Specimens
(Senator Bell, Senator Collins) -
Australian Film Industry
(Senator Calvert, Senator Collins) -
Artificial Limbs
(Senator Newman, Senator Tate) -
Industrial Relations: Conscientious Objection
(Senator O'Chee, Senator Cook) -
Taxation: CER Review
(Senator Watson, Senator Gareth Evans) -
Cocos (Keeling) Islands: Administrator
(Senator Tambling, Senator Collins) -
Cocos (Keeling) Islands: Administrator
(Senator Tambling, Senator Collins) -
Anyinginyi Congress
(Senator Sowada, Senator Collins) -
Cyprus
(Senator Bourne, Senator Gareth Evans) -
Burma: Trade
(Senator Chamarette, Senator Gareth Evans)
-
Newstart Program
Content Window
Thursday, 17 December 1992
Page: 5507
Page: 5507
Senator ALSTON (4.43 a.m.)
—I think we are all anxious to avoid prejudging this matter. Quite clearly it is a matter of public interest and concern because public moneys are involved. As Senator Hill has just pointed out, in considering whether concerns were conveyed to a staff member of Mr McLeay, it is also very important to know whether those concerns were then relayed by the staff member to Mr McLeay himself because that would materially affect his knowledge, his awareness of the condition of the bike, and the circumstances under which it should be ridden. It would therefore be a material circumstance to be taken into account in assessing the way in which any settlement might be negotiated.
Once again, as Senator Cooney would be aware, the plaintiff has to prove his case. If there are evidentiary deficiencies or suggestions that somehow he was aware that there were problems with the bike in question, then that obviously must affect the prospects of success or even the chances of a reduction for contributory negligence. That would then be reflected in any offer made.
I stress that the only material that has been made available is the file provided by the Joint House Department. The Speaker has made it clear that he regards himself as having nothing to hide and he wants all the documents made publicly available. Therefore, we are awaiting further material from the Australian Government Solicitor.
If one simply looks at the material that is contained in the file kept by the Joint House Department, all that one finds in relation to the measure of damages is a single medical report and a single legal opinion. The medical report is one from an orthopaedic surgeon who examined the plaintiff on a couple of occasions prior to an operation conducted by a neurosurgeon. We do not know whether the orthopaedic surgeon examined him subsequently, but certainly there is no medical report to that effect. There is certainly no opinion from the neurosurgeon.
Those are critical matters in making any sensible judgment as to the extent of any injury or any continuing disability and certainly any residual consequences from the operation. One would clearly need to be in possession of a series of medical reports, not only from the plaintiff but, of course, independent medical assessments made by doctors commissioned on behalf of the defendant. None of those medical reports are available.
If one then looks at the legal opinion, one finds that that does not even refer to a medical report. It simply makes some very scanty references to the plaintiff's alleged state of health and then proceeds to suggest that somehow this claim is worth $30,000 to $50,000. As we know, the matter was settled for approximately $50,000 for general damages, plus medical expenses, plus legal costs. It was settled right at the top of the range.
The material also indicates that at all times the defendant was bending over backwards to settle the matter as quickly as possible. There was never any serious attempt to investigate the question of liability and there was certainly no attempt to negotiate in the normal sense, which means making a lower offer than one ultimately expects to be able to resolve the matter for. The Department simply took a figure, offered it, and then paid it into court, and Mr McLeay took it.
If one reads the final correspondence, one finds the absolutely laughable proposition that, because Mr McLeay had asked for $100,000 and the Department got out of it for $50,000, it got a very good settlement. One might as well say that if McLeay had asked for half a million and we only gave him $200,000 we would have done even better because we would have got more than a 50 per cent discount. Quite clearly, there is very scant material available to justify anything like a $50,000 payout for general damages. After all, as Senator Herron, who knows a lot more about this than I do, would confirm, on the face of it the medical evidence suggests that there was only a very limited disability in terms of limitation of movement of the arm. Mr McLeay chose not to pursue physiotherapy on more than four occasions. Quite clearly, that exercise would have assisted his cause.
Senator Bolkus
—Not always.
Senator ALSTON
—Not always, but what one usually does is try to see how it goes. If it does not do any good, that supports one's case. But when one does not even bother, it suggests that somehow one is not really serious about remedying the matter.
Another thing I find quite extraordinary is that this accident happened on Anzac Day. Mr McLeay went to see his general practitioner, a Dr Rosemary Crowley, on the same day, was referred to the specialist and saw the specialist the following day, by which time he had been to see his solicitor, who had written a letter to the gymnasium section of this House, asking them to hold on to the bike as evidence. In other words, Mr McLeay was incredibly speedy in pursuing his legal rights but not so speedy in pursuing any attempt to resolve his medical condition to the extent that he had a capacity to do that by undertaking physiotherapy.
He claims that he cannot play tennis and he was not able to pursue his intention to take up golf. Do honourable senators like that one? In other words, it was not as if he was a champion sportsman cut down in mid-stride. All that he was denied was the opportunity to take up golf. One might as well say he was denied the opportunity to pursue a career as a league footballer or anything else that he turned his mind to. That is another matter. He lost his seat and he has got another one which has about a 4 or 5 per cent safety margin, so he is not doing too badly. To a certain extent that would affect the question of future economic loss and, of course, they were trotting out arguments about whether he would be able to resume his position as an organiser, as though that is some sort of honourable profession. I would have thought his chances were limited as a Telecom technician. But that was not pursued. This matter was resolved on the basis of general damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. All I can say is if I had been acting for the plaintiff, on that medical evidence I would have grabbed $10,000. Indeed, there are people in this place who would not have even made a claim.
The important thing is that we need a lot more material and I think the public does too in order to be in any way satisfied or persuaded that this claim was worth anything like $50,000. In those circumstances it is a matter of very real concern to us that the President did not become involved. Quite clearly, the Speaker is not able to effectively give instructions to the Crown Solicitor or the Government Solicitor and therefore he should not only have stood aside but someone else should have been in there conducting the matter on his behalf.
As Senator Crichton-Browne pointed out earlier today, it puts the head of the Department, Mr Bolton, in a very invidious position. It is almost impossible for him to make a sensible judgment. Certainly, if he was so minded to make an offer on the low side, or to try to pursue genuine compromise, he would be exposed to enormous indirect pressure. That is why I think we need to know more about why the President, who presumably was aware at a fairly early stage that Mr McLeay had been injured, and that he was bringing proceedings, did not then intervene to ensure that the matter was conducted very much at arms length. By that I mean in such a way that someone was able to give sensible instructions. As it turned out, Mr Bolton simply handed it over, washed his hands of the matter, and I suppose one can understand that. It was then left on the implied basis that they would get out of this as quickly and as expensively as possible. That is not in the public interest.
Senator Bolkus interjecting—
Senator ALSTON
—I do not know. In the case of Senator Bolkus, I suppose it is money. He would have settled for a lot less. All I can say is that there is a lot further to go before any public concerns are assuaged. I trust that we will be provided with much more material in the very near future, so that proper judgments can be made on the matter.