Standing Committee on Law and Justice

Debate resumed from 8 November 2007.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [2.32 p.m.]: I am pleased to commence debate on the thirty-fourth report of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice entitled "Review of the Exercise of the Functions of the Motor Accidents Authority and the Motor Accidents Council—Eighth Report", which was tabled in this House on 8 November 2007. First, I thank my fellow committee members for their assistance in producing this bipartisan report. The 10 recommendations in the report were adopted unanimously, as was the report. The Standing Committee on Law and Justice has been nominated by the Legislative Council to conduct the ongoing review of the Motor Accidents Authority and the Motor Accidents Council, required by section 210 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. Provision for parliamentary oversight of the Motor Accidents Authority and the Motor Accidents Council was introduced as part of the 1999 reforms to the New South Wales Motor Accidents Scheme.

This is the eighth time that the committee has conducted the review. Following the commencement of the Fifty-fourth Parliament, the re-establishment of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice saw two new membersnamely, the Hon. John Ajaka and Ms Sylvia Halejoin the committee and participate in their first review of the Motor Accidents Authority and the Motor Accidents Council. The newly constituted committee received a private briefing from the Motor Accidents Authority prior to its commencement of the review, which greatly enhanced its understanding of the Motor Accidents Authority and its functions. In its seventh report the committee foreshadowed its intention to focus on particular aspects of the functions of the Motor Accidents Authority in future reviews. In that report the committee acknowledged that seven years after the introduction of the 1999 reforms the operation of the scheme had largely stabilised, and while there remained scope for improvement in the administration of the scheme further changes to the scheme were likely to be incremental rather than substantial.

At its first meeting in the Fifty-fourth Parliament the committee determined that the eighth review would focus on the Medical Assessment Service and issues related to the medical dispute resolution process for motor accident claimants. In addition to focusing on the Medical Assessment Service, the committee also examined a number of other issues that were raised during the review. The committee received submissions from interested stakeholders and, as in previous years, heard oral evidence from the Motor Accidents Authority and the Motor Accidents Council, the Insurance Council of Australia and the New South Wales Bar Association. This year the committee also heard oral evidence from the Law Society of New South Wales, and from three medical assessors with the Medical Assessment Service. The committee again engaged in a detailed question on notice process with the Motor Accidents Authority in advance of the public hearing.

As in previous reviews, the committee examined the Motor Accidents Authority's overall assessment of scheme performance for 2005-06 against the four indicators of affordability, effectiveness, fairness and efficiency. Of course, the election meant that this time around we were somewhat late in our assessment of the annual report. With the introduction of the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme, the Motor Accidents Authority will report on a new basis in future annual reports. The committee found that in the last year of its current reporting structure the scheme continued to perform well when assessed against its performance indicators. During the previous review the Motor Accidents Authority advised that it was working on incorporating health outcomes for injured road users into its assessment of scheme performance.

During this review the committee heard evidence of the work that the Motor Accidents Authority was undertaking with stakeholders to develop a meaningful measure of health outcomes as a criterion of effectiveness of the scheme. The committee reiterates its support for the introduction of that as a scheme performance indicator. The committee found that the Motor Accidents Authority and the Motor Accidents Council are performing their respective functions under the Act in an appropriate and competent manner. Notably, the downward trend in the price of compulsory third party premiums, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of weekly earnings, continued throughout 2005-06 and decreased even further during the course of this review. It is evident that the Motor Accidents Authority is continually seeking to improve the way the scheme performs within its current legislative framework.

The aim of many of the recommendations made by the committee in this report is to support or enhance initiatives being considered or implemented by the Motor Accidents Authority. The committee was interested to assess the nature of the relationship between the scheme's stakeholders and the Motor Accidents Authority and the Motor Accidents Council. The committee found that the Motor Accidents Authority consults widely, is willing to discuss and explain issues, and has fostered a professional relationship with various stakeholder groups. The committee also found that generally there was a positive view of the value of the Motor Accidents Council as a representative forum in which information can be shared and differing views expressed. The committee heard evidence from the representative of the Bar Association on the Motor Accidents Council regarding what he perceived to be the difficulty in getting the Motor Accidents Council to consider making recommendations regarding the scheme through the board and to the Minister.

As the committee did not have the opportunity to benefit from the views of the chair of the Motor Accidents Council on this matter, it recommended that the chair of the Motor Accidents Council provide a response to the comments of the representative of the Bar Association on the council, as set out in the report, regarding the effectiveness of the Motor Accidents Council and, in particular, in relation to its role to provide advice to the Minister. Under the Motor Accidents Scheme, disputes between claimants and insurers with respect to injuries suffered in a motor accident are resolved through the Medical Assessment Service by medical assessors who are medical practitioners independent of both the claimant and the insurer. The quality and timeliness of the medical assessments carried out by the Medical Assessment Service are critical to the successful operation of the Motor Accidents Scheme.

All the Participants in the review acknowledged improvements in recent times to the general Medical Assessment Service process. From its review the committee found that the performance of the Medical Assessment Service continued to improve, including in relation to the timeliness of finalising matters. The average overall lifecycle of a Medical Assessment Service dispute reduced by 17 per cent from the last reporting period, and statutory time frames for the progress of assessments were being met in a significant majority of matters. Under the scheme, for an applicant to be eligible for compensation for non-economic loss, he or she must exceed the threshold of 10 per cent whole person impairment, which is referred to as WPI. A significant proportion of the work of the Medical Assessment Service concerns disputes about WPI. In the reporting period, WPI disputes comprised 80 per cent of Medical Assessment Service assessments and in 80 per cent of those assessments the outcome was not in favour of the claimant, which is similar to previous years.

The 10 per cent WPI threshold was the most debated issue during this year's review, as has been the case in previous reviews. The committee took the view at the outset that as the threshold is a matter of policy for the Government the committee has focused on the operation of the Medical Assessment Service in relation to the threshold rather than the threshold itself. The Committee heard from both the Law Society and the Bar Association of their concern with respect to inconsistencies in the assessment of whole person impairment between medical assessors, including on review. Both organisations believed there was a greater need for consistency among medical assessment service assessors as well as ongoing training and review of their performance.

The Motor Accidents Authority concurred that consistency is a fundamentally important measure of the medical assessment service process. The committee was advised that the medical assessment service was focusing a significant amount of development, training and resources on ensuring as much consistency and accuracy in assessments as possible. The committee noted the advice of the Motor Accidents Authority about the range of factors that may be relevant to differences among assessments and the quality control measures in place. Nonetheless, the committee was of the view that the issue warrants further investigation and therefore recommended that the Motor Accidents Authority undertake a review of whole person impairment assessments to establish the extent of inconsistencies and identify, if necessary, additional quality control mechanisms to improve consistency.

The medical assessment service has approximately 200 medical assessors located across New South Wales as well as in other States. The appointment and reappointment process for medical assessors was underway at the time of the committee's public hearing. The committee heard evidence of the strict selection criteria in place for appointment as a medical assessor and of the comprehensive initial and ongoing training provided. Medical practitioners who are appointed as medical assessors are still able to undertake work directly for insurers or claimants. All scheme stakeholders acknowledge the benefits in this. Also acknowledged is the potential for conflicts of interest to arise if this private work is not monitored to some extent.

There is a requirement that medical assessors do no more than 20 per cent of their work for one particular party within the scheme. The committee noted that this requirement still permits a medical assessor to undertake work for more than one insurer, and that depending on the number of insurers for which work is undertaken, this could mean that an assessor could undertake a considerable amount of work for insurers as opposed to claimants. In evidence the Motor Accidents Authority acknowledged that further work could be undertaken to ensure that the best preventative measures are in place in relation to conflicts of interest. The committee therefore recommended that the Motor Accidents Authority review its procedures and rules in relation to medical assessors and conflicts of interest to ensure that the most appropriate monitoring systems and rules to prevent conflicts of interest are in place.

While the life cycle of the average medical assessment service assessment now is at an almost optimum level, concern was expressed to the committee that some medical dispute assessments, particularly when subject to further assessments and reviews, can remain within the medical assessment service system for years rather than months. The Bar Association presented some case examples to the committee illustrating this. The committee was mindful that the issue is complicated in how to address assessments that incur long delays due to the involvement of further assessments and reviews, as there are many factors that relate directly or indirectly to the length of a dispute and that should be considered.

From the evidence presented the committee was unable to conclude whether there are any common features to those assessments or matters that take a long time to finalise within the medical assessment service process. To that end the committee recommended that the Motor Accidents Authority conduct a study of medical assessment service assessments and matters that have taken 10 months or more to finalise and report back to the committee about the status of delays with the medical assessment service and any current or future planned initiatives aimed at reducing delays. While compulsory third party premiums have continued to fall, the committee heard that with the implementation of the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme premiums for motorcycles, particularly larger ones, assessments will increase over the next five years.

In the interests of promoting greater understanding of the scheme's premium setting process, the committee recommended that the Motor Accidents Authority approach the Motorcycle Council of New South Wales to arrange a meeting to discuss issues of interest and concern relating to motorcycle premiums and report back to the committee on the outcomes of this meeting. The issue of insurer profitability was comprehensively examined in the committee's seventh report. The profit realised by insurers is derived from the profit margin component of a premium filing and from the difference between the amount allowed in a premium filing for the paying out of all claims and the actual amount that is ultimately paid out.

Some review participants have argued that insurers have accrued excessive profits from the Motor Accidents Scheme. As indicated in the seventh report, the primary reason for the increase in insurer profits was the drop in claim frequency. This year the committee again heard argument that the current scheme discourages claimants from making claims and that this is leading to the drop in claims and increase in insurer profits. In its seventh review the committee recommended that the Motor Accidents Authority prepare a report on this issue. The Motor Accidents Authority commissioned a report to examine the fall in the frequency of motor accident claims and identify the types of injuries associated with the decline in the propensity to make a claim. It is anticipated that this report will be completed at the end of this year. The committee is of the view that the issue of having a clear understanding of the reasons for the fall in claim frequency and propensity to claim will not likely be resolved until consideration of this report.

The committee was advised that as part of the proposed scheme changes aimed at earlier resolution of medical disputes consideration was being given to introducing penalties for insurers who clearly breach their responsibilities. The committee heard evidence from the General Manager of the Motor Accidents Authority that he believed there was scope for penalties for insurers in circumstances where a whole person impairment assessment of over 10 per cent should clearly not be in dispute. The general manager advised that occasionally insurers were sending claimants for medical assessment who were, based on their injuries, obviously over the 10 per cent threshold. The committee believes that penalties should exist for such circumstances to act as an incentive for insurers to resolve such disputes expeditiously. To this end, the committee has recommended that the Minister seek an amendment to the Motor Accidents Compensation Act to incorporate such a penalty.

During the review the Insurance Council of Australia advised the committee of the system in place in Queensland whereby accredited insurers have online access to police accident reports. This allows insurers in Queensland to determine liability more rapidly than is the case in New South Wales. The Insurance Council of Australia advised that it can take up to six weeks for insurers to obtain police accident reports in New South Wales. On the face of it, if privacy and security concerns could be addressed as they have been in Queensland, a system whereby insurers could more quickly access information they routinely require in relation to traffic incidents has obvious merit.

Whether it is feasible to implement a similar system that would allow insurers access to the New South Wales Police Force electronic database relating to traffic incidents would require investigation on a number of levels. The committee was of the view that in the first instance the proposal would significantly reduce the amount of time it takes insurers to determine liabilities deserving of investigation. To that end, the committee recommended the Motor Accidents Authority should work with the New South Wales Police Force to investigate and report on the feasibility of implementing a similar system.

While this review focused on the operation of the medical assessment service, a number of other issues were raised with the committee, some of which have been raised and examined in previous reviews. They included the amount of legal and other costs recoverable by claimants under the scheme, the limits set for accident notification forms and the right to appeal for claims assessment and resolution service assessment. I shall refer to those further in reply to the debate. However, on this particular component of the debate I believe it was a worthwhile decision of the committee to focus on one area of the motor accidents scheme during this annual review. The committee will continue with this process and during the next review will focus on the claims assessment and resolution service within the Motor Accidents Authority.

I very much reiterate my thanks to my fellow committee members for their bipartisan approach to producing this unanimous report. I thank also all those who participated in this year's review, particularly participants who took questions on notice from the committee and provided information that greatly assisted the committee in its examination of various matters. Once again, I voice my thanks to the Motor Accidents Authority for its positive and professional approach to its involvement in this ongoing review. I very much thank the secretariat. One member of the committee is not quite sure that the review of this particular process year after year is not a bit like paint drying, but the secretariat certainly does a wonderful job in looking closely at this particular issue year after year. I thank Ms Rachel Callinan, Mr John Young and Mr Sam Griffiths of the committee for their assistance in the conduct of the review and production of the report. I will miss Rachel a lot when she is absent for a while.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [2.47 p.m.]: I speak on the report of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice entitled "Review of the Exercise of the Functions of the Motor Accidents Authority and the Motor Accidents CouncilEighth Report". I thank the Chair, the Hon. Christine Robertson, other committee members and the secretariat for the guidance they showed me as a new member of the committee. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to be part of the committee. I have been involved in motor vehicle accident compensation law in one form or another for almost 30 years, firstly, as a legal clerk and then as a practising solicitor for more than 25 years. I have first-hand experience of the effects of the various legislative changes passed by this Parliament over that period, particularly during the 12-year term of this Government.

I should indicate at the outset that my concern is that the change in the system for fair compensation appears to have gone too far. This has resulted in many claimants, those injured in motor vehicle accidents, not receiving what can be considered fair and reasonable compensation. Sadly, I believe the current system fails to take into account that claimants are seeking only fair compensation for something that was not their fault or responsibility. The dilemma with this area of law, this entitlement for compensation, is the two competing interests. First, there is the interest of those who pay their third party insurance premiumsnamely, all of us who own a motor vehicle in New South Wales. Of course, we should not forget that the insurance companies that collect these premiums also have an interest in ensuring profits—one may argue very substantial profits.

This must be compared or weighed up against the second competing interest—the right of an individual to receive fair compensation for injury suffered as a result of negligence or the acts of another person, in particular when there has been no fault on the part of the claimant. Why should any injured person be told that they will not receive fair compensation because their third party insurance premium may go up? Do we really believe that those who are injured and those who are suffering really accept that they should not receive fair compensation because of a third party premium?

When we looked at past events and saw the verdicts that had been awarded some argued that it was too much. Premiums started to increase. Amendments to the legislation were enacted. As I previously stated, the question today is: Have we gone too far? When we look at insurance premiums, we are talking about hundreds of dollars per year, between $300 and $350 per year. When the premium does not go up, or increases by a small amount—say, $10 to $15—or even goes down by a small amount, such as $10 or $15, everyone seems to want to pat themselves on the back. Have we become so obsessed with reducing or maintaining premiums by a few dollars that we have allowed our innocent injured to suffer without fair and reasonable compensation?

It seems strange to me that, as car owners, we are prepared to pay thousands of dollars each year to insure our motor vehicles against property damage, which is damage that usually amounts to tens of thousands of dollars at worst, yet we seem obsessed with wanting to ensure our third party personal injury insurance goes up only a few dollars and remains in the hundreds of dollars whereas the insurance that may be needed due to physical injury could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The review makes 10 very important and worthy recommendations. I strongly urge the Government, the Motor Accidents Authority and the Motor Accidents Council to implement each of the recommendations without delay. I take this opportunity to comment on a number of the recommendations and to read onto the record, from the report, the basis for the recommendations. I acknowledge that my time is limited, so I will be able to deal with only a couple. Recommendation 2 states:

That the Motor Accidents Authority undertake a review of Whole Person Impairment assessments to establish the extent of inconsistencies and to identify, if necessary, additional quality control mechanisms to improve consistency.

Much of the evidence presented to the committee in relation to the Medical Assessments Service focused on a 10 per cent whole person impairment threshold for non-economic loss. The New South Wales Bar Association and the Law Society of New South Wales concurred that approximately 90 per cent of those injured in motor vehicle accidents who prior to the 1999 amendments would have been entitled to compensation for non-economic loss, are now excluded from receiving compensation because they do not satisfy the 10 per cent whole person impairment threshold. The Law Society expressed concern by giving a further example of inequity—the fact that psychiatric injury cannot be added to physical injury in determining the degree of permanent impairment.

Not allowing a combination of the psychiatric and physical injuries to accumulate to give 10 per cent impairment or greater means that claimants are inadequately compensated. From my point of view it is incredible that someone who suffers 8 per cent physical injury and 9 per cent psychiatric injury does not satisfy the 10 per cent threshold. Another criticism raised by the participants is the requirement that assessments of whole person impairment should be determined with reference to the AMA4 guides and the inequity that creates. Mr Slattery of the Bar Association advised the committee that when the guidelines were done in the United States they came with the warning, "Do not use these for assessment of damages and compensation". Sadly, we seem to have neglected that warning. The Law Society's Mr Mockler commented on the AMA4 guides that are supplemented by the new edition of the Motor Accidents Authority Permanent Impairment Guidelines and stated:

Whether it is as good as AMA5 or the Comcare system or a combination or hybrid of all of those is a moot point. Workers' compensation is now using AMA5. I think we are modifying AMA4 and we are looking at AMA5 down the line and they are already working on AMA6. I suppose the question is where does it start and where does it finish.

Both the Bar Association and the Law Society expressed concern about inconsistencies in the assessment of whole person impairment between medical assessors, including on review. It was noted that it is not uncommon for the Medical Assessments Service assessments of whole person impairment, including those where reviews take place, to vary significantly among assessors. The Bar Association also claimed that even assessors acting for the motor accidents authority reach radically different conclusions on identical facts. For example, mild brain injury is assessed on a discretionary basis between 0 and 12 per cent. Clearly, different doctors will come to different views.

If we summarise the relevant concerns raised by those who made submissions we note, first, that we have a 10 per cent of whole person impairment threshold, not a 9 per cent or 8 per cent threshold and so on. We must satisfy 10 per cent. Second, we are not able to combine the percentage of physical injury with the percentage suffered as a result of psychiatric injury. Third, we are currently using AMA4 guidelines that were never really meant to be used for compensation matters. Fourth, we have inconsistency among various assessors over various assessments undertaken. Clearly there is a need for the authority as well as the Government to undertake a review of the whole person impairment scheme. The second recommendation I wish to refer to is recommendation 8, which states:

That the Motor Accidents Authority make the Study of the Impact of the Cost Regulation, conducted with the assistance of the Law Society of NSW a project priority and allocate resources accordingly.

During the public hearing members of the committee asked representatives from the Motor Accidents Authority whether they considered there was a level playing field for claimants and insurers with respect to legal costs. It was put to the Motor Accidents Authority that claimants who were limited to $1,540 in recoverable legal costs could not hope to match the resources of an insurer. I raise this matter because it is a matter of serious concern. There must always be a level playing field. The report states:

The issue was particularly raised in the context of situations where an insurer requests multiple further medical assessments and reviews and the claimant is effectively punished because he or she cannot claim the costs of all of the additional work by his or her legal representative.

This was another matter I raised. The report goes on to state:

Inherent in this discussion was the perception that there was no incentive for insurers to resolve matters equitably and quickly and that indeed in many instances insurers were concerned with 'dragging out' claims.

Mr Bowen conceded that the issue warranted examination. He stated:

But I take your point: those sorts of cases where there are multiple assessments driven by the insurer are not properly compensating the injured person for the legal costs they necessarily incurred as a result of the insurer's behaviour, and that is one aspect that is being looked at by Mr Player's committee.

Interestingly, when asked whether he considered a level playing field existed Mr John Driscoll of the Insurance Council simply pointed out that the insurance industry follows the rules that are set. He stated:

I believe that the government sets the rules and I do not believe it is my position to comment on whether or not the rules are correct, incorrect or otherwise. I believe it is the role of the insurance industry to act, as I believe it does, in a proper, efficient and effective way in administering the rules set by the Government.

There is also the issue of the medical reports. The Law Society of New South Wales also drew attention to the related issue of the cost of medical reports. It states:

The cost of medical reports, many of which are regulated in the Cost Regulation, generally far exceeds the amount that can be recovered under the Regulations ($877.00 plus GST). It is not unusual for the cost of a report from a Qualified Specialist to exceed $1,500.00 This situation is compounded by insurers who do not request reports from treating doctors as required by the Guidelines. Indeed, it is not uncommon for insurers to rely on their own doctors rather than meet the cost of obtaining reports

I find it unusual that an insurance company would take such action. The third recommendation to which I wish to refer in the limited time I have left is recommendation 1, which states:

That the Chair of the Motor Accidents Council provide a response to the comments of the NSW Bar Association's representative on the Council—

[Time expired.]

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [2.57 p.m.]: As a member of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice I believe that its oversight of the functions and activities of the Motor Accidents Authority and the Motor Accidents Council, pursuant to the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, is one of the committee's most important functions. The Motor Accidents Authority is an important statutory body. Its powers are substantial and far reaching. Its deliberations and activities in one way or another have a substantial impact on the great majority of the citizens of the State of New South Wales. The Standing Committee on Law and Justice should take the functions and powers designated to it by the Motor Accidents Compensation Act seriously. As the deputy chairman of the committee I believe that the committee members, who represent all political parties in this Parliament, indeed take their responsibilities seriously in this important matter.

The eighth report of the committee's review of the exercise of the functions of the Motor Accidents Authority and the Motor Accidents Council is the result of substantial investigation and deliberations by the committee. The deliberations included the committee's attending at the offices of the authority for discussions with senior officers of the authority and the holding of a public inquiry at which the committee took evidence from interested stakeholders. I was particularly impressed with submissions received from the Law Society of New South Wales and the New South Wales Bar Association. Their cooperation, involvement and expertise are essential, not only for the proper working of the Motor Accidents Scheme but also because in effect they are the representatives of those who sustain motor accident injuries.

The Government introduced the new Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme to fix deficiencies in the previous scheme. The scheme was meant to get the balance right between the need to ensure, on the one hand, that compulsory third party insurance premiums were brought under control and reduced and, on the other hand, that those who sustain injury in motor accidents are compensated adequately. But the Government has not got the balance right because the substance of the current scheme is that any brake on premiums—as inadequate as it may be—has been achieved only at the cost of ruthlessly slashing compensation for those injured in motor vehicle accidents. In addition, the scheme has produced an unlevel playing field, where those who seek adequate compensation for injuries are at a significant disadvantage in respect of costs and the in practice entitlement to appropriate legal representation.

The submissions received and the public inquiry conducted by the standing committee highlighted, in my view, the fact that the scheme as it presently operates is defective in a number of important areas. Evidence from expert witnesses to the committee confirmed that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of those who would have been entitled to compensation for pain and suffering under the old scheme are now excluded from receiving such compensation because they are not assessed as exceeding the 10 per cent threshold. This is a major injustice because, clearly, injured parties can endure long-term and extensive pain and suffering even though their injuries as presently assessed do not exceed the 10 per cent threshold that entitles them to compensation for such pain and suffering.

As the Law Society of New South Wales and the New South Wales Bar Association pointed out, there is a wide variation in assessments handed down by Medical Assessment Service assessors. In one instance drawn to the attention of the standing committee an assessor classified a disability at 3 per cent on the disability scale while another assessor classified the same injuries at 27 per cent. It was my understanding from the evidence that significant variations between different assessors assessing the same injury are very common. The committee also received submissions that revealed that applicants are disadvantaged when it comes to costs. For example, applicants are faced with escalating legal costs merely in order to deal with further reassessments sought by insurers who have the capacity to resource lengthier proceedings far more easily than applicants.

Another area of concern is the escalating costs incurred by applicants in obtaining medical reports. I do not wish to review the evidence received by the committee or to traverse its recommendations because they speak for themselves; however, I believe the committee's recommendations take on board many of the concerns expressed during the inquiry. It is my hope that the Government will move to deal with those recommendations expeditiously and in a manner that will alleviate the problems faced by applicants in bringing their claims. We must ensure that applicants are not disadvantaged with regard to costs, as they are now.

We must ensure that Medical Assessment Service assessments are more consistent than they are at present. More generally, we must ensure that applicants are able to bring their claims on a level playing field. At present that playing field is far from level. I believe the inquiry has been worthwhile and I believe the recommendations proposed by the standing committee are achievable. It is now up to the Minister to act on those recommendations to implement the improvements and corrections that the present system most certainly needs and to ensure that it operates with justice and equity and for the betterment of the people of the State of New South Wales.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch and set down as an order of the day for a future day.