Page: 17878
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. What is the latest information on the Government's response to James Hardie?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Last December the New South Wales Government entered into a non-binding heads of agreement with James Hardie, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Unions New South Wales and Mr Bernie Banton, who was representing asbestos victims. Those heads of agreement form the basis for negotiating a legally binding agreement to ensure that James Hardie victims have access to compensation in the decades ahead. In June Parliament passed the James Hardie Former Subsidiaries (Special Provisions) Act, which was designed to maintain the status quo of James Hardie's former asbestos subsidiaries while the Government concluded negotiations with James Hardie.
When the Attorney General introduced the bill he said that the Government expected the final agreement with James Hardie to be reached in late July or early August. I am sorry to report to the House that final agreement has not yet been reached with James Hardie. The Government remains greatly disappointed by the delay, prolonging the uncertainty for James Hardie asbestos victims. Thankfully, to date no victim has gone uncompensated. I am advised that sufficient assets remain in the former James Hardie subsidiaries to continue meeting expected claims into 2006. However, it is bitterly disappointing for victims to know that compensation for future victims remains in doubt. They will not only face terrible health consequences of asbestos disease but also leave their families financially insecure.
The Government remains committed to securing a final, binding funding agreement with James Hardie. The Government has deliberately shown self-restraint in not taking issue with the various erroneous statements that James Hardie has made in recent times. However, it is now important to correct the record, at least in general terms. James Hardie has publicly alleged that the Government negotiators have delayed negotiations by introducing new issues in draft nine of the agreement. That is simply not true. In two letters I wrote to James Hardie I asked it to identify those so-called new issues, but to date James Hardie has not identified any so-called new issues. The Government's sole, consistent focus has been to secure effective protection for the Victims Compensation Fund instead of the inadequate provisions that James Hardie has proposed.
As I have made clear in my letters to the chairman of James Hardie, the Government is particularly concerned with three key aspects of James Hardie's position. First, James Hardie is seeking to exclude from compensation some asbestos victims who are clearly covered by the heads of agreement. Second, James Hardie is seeking to water down measures to ensure changes to its corporate structure will not reduce or eliminate its obligation to asbestos victims. Third, James Hardie is opposed to the Government's measures to prevent the firm and its creditors from using Dutch or United States of America law to reduce or eliminate James Hardie's obligations to asbestos victims. They want to do this while at the same time protecting James Hardie shareholders.
At the end of last week, five weeks after the Government provided draft nine of the agreement, James Hardie finally responded to the latest draft. I am disappointed that it waited so long, but the response does provide some progress on those three issues. For example, James Hardie has now accepted that all victims covered by the heads of agreement will be included in the final compensation agreement. That is progress on one key issue, but there is no progress on the other two. The Government will not back away from ensuring that there is adequate protection against restructuring and will not back away from ensuring adequate protection to the compensation fund from restructuring or protection against Dutch or United States law that James Hardie may wish to choose in the future.
James Hardie's current position is unacceptable to the Government, but it provides the basis for final negotiations. Whilst we have made progress on one issue, that is, ensuring that all asbestos victims are covered, there are two outstanding crucial issues that must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Government and asbestos victims before we move to conclude a final agreement. This matter has gone on long enough. James Hardie has delayed long enough. There has been progress on resolving the first of the three outstanding issues and it is now time that James Hardie, its negotiators and lawyers make final satisfactory progress on the two outstanding issues; that is, protecting the compensation fund, protection against future restructuring, protection against the possible use of Dutch and United States law to water down the obligations of James Hardie or to reach into the compensation fund.
It is time these negotiations were finalised and it is time that James Hardie signed on the dotted line for its full responsibility to the victims of asbestos. The Government will not back away until justice is received for the James Hardie asbestos victims, and the Government will work hard to ensure that the final agreement is reached.