Jackie Kelly (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I find it extraordinary that the previous speaker could find anything that Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells said as extreme or extraordinary. She is a very valuable, conservative member of our party. Compare a speech by a member of parliament at a school opening with what is happening at my local hospital, the Nepean Hospital. Your Rights at Work pamphlets are plastered all over the fence along the main drag into Penrith and as you enter the hospital, and Your Rights at Work pamphlets are plastered over every notice board as you enter every lift at the hospital. There is a weekly barbecue with a free sausage sizzle for all the nurses so that they can come down and be indoctrinated by the unionists with absolute twaddle about a misguided campaign. I find the previous two speakers’ efforts extraordinary at the very least. The only people waging a misguided and over-the-top campaign in this matter are the unions and those opposite who are standing up for them.

Mr Speaker, I rise tonight because, as you will recall, last night I brought to your attention the plight of a Mr Pearce who is a TPI pensioner. He was involved in the collision of the Voyager and HMAS Melbourne in 1964. He went through, inter alia, a lengthy process with solicitors who I feel were ambulance chasing rather than really giving him profound advice. He was presented with a letter, and I was quoting from that letter when I ran out of time in last night’s adjournment debate. The letter said:

We estimate that the total legal costs payable to the Defendant—

which is the Commonwealth in this matter—

will be between $150,000 and $275,000 ... once we receive the Defendant’s account we recommend you provide us with $2,500 to pay the cost assessor to object to the terms of the account.

So they were already putting in delaying mechanisms. In fact the letter said:

This may be an effective delaying mechanism.

The letter continued:

... because you are a TPI pensioner it may be that the Defendant—

the Commonwealth—

will be prepared to await execution of the costs order until you and your wife are deceased.

This is a legal opinion that he is ostensibly paying for saying: ‘Hang on a minute. If you can string it out, you might be dead before the Commonwealth legally and legitimately pursues you for costs in a matter that is 37 years old and that you never had a hope in Hades of winning.’ The letter continued:

Unfortunately, we do not know what they will decide to do and in the circumstances we suggest you stay quiet and hope for the best. It is best not to remind them of the situation.

This is an honest person who has honestly dealt with these solicitors. He has honestly said, ‘But I don’t think I can afford any further costs; let’s stop now,’ and he has been told to go on. He is in receipt of a TPI and now he is left with an outstanding account of close to $300,000. He is now wondering whether he will have to sell his house. In fact it has been suggested by the solicitors to Mr Pearce that he could sign over his share of the matrimonial home to the solicitors to pay their costs and disbursements—forget about paying the Commonwealth.

Mr Pearce informed me also that Hollows Lawyers have contacted a number of veterans who served on HMAS Melbourne at the time of the collision, and in fact there are more veterans who are in this same financial predicament. I would like to see action taken and state legislation introduced to stop this ambulance chasing by lawyers who use undue influence in acquiring work. They have not explained fully or in plain language the moneys that will be paid by a client in a no win, no pay arrangement. No win, no pay does not mean that you will never have to pay anything—it never has—yet there is a popular culture out there, brought about by American television shows and whatnot, that somehow in the Australian legal system this could possibly be the case.

We need to make lawyers accountable for their actions. One of the big bars that they have is the prohibition of finding negligence in lawyers, because it means retrying a case. If the law societies and the bar associations are now more rigorous in weeding out negligent lawyers then parliament must surely take action to protect our valuable veterans. At the moment, each year our universities are training as many lawyers as are currently practising. (Time expired)

See this speech in context