Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - I am just going to make a short contribution and I must say at this stage that I am not quite sure where I should go. I would like to listen to any other contribution that can be made to give me a greater and a stronger position to adopt in this.

When you look at this we know that without government support, unfortunately, it is not going to go too far and that is the sad situation but then, Mr President, should that deter us and stop us from debating this matter. I do not think it should; I think we need to debate this matter and we need to take a position on the way we see it with all the evidence that is produced to us and make our determination in accordance with that.

Mr Thomas was quite strong in relation to some of the statements he made to us and I will speak a little on those in a moment. It surprises me, and I accept what Mr Thomas told me, that he would not have heard about this until Tuesday of this week because it has been about now for some time and it is not as though it has simply just popped up on Tuesday. I am just surprised that that is the case, particularly when he plays quite a role in this and particularly when he had quite a strong position to adopt in this matter.

Many of the building practitioners out there, Mr President, felt they were given a very raw deal throughout this registration process and we heard a lot of them talking about it, a lot came out in arms at the time and a lot went public in relation to what they believed was a fairly ordinary position as far as they were concerned. They were saying very clearly that they were not getting value for money. The charges at the time were too great for what they were getting back from that.

It really does seem to me that the TCC have a lot more questions that need answering. I do not think they have all been answered. If further answers were given and further information was provided I think that the building practitioners in this State would probably be more comforted by it because they still raise this issue. They have not forgotten it and I do not think they are likely to forget it until there is some closure for them if this bill is supported. Unfortunately I do not think it is likely that that will happen and then I do not know whether we can ever get a reasonable conclusion for them.

I would have liked to have listened to other people, Mr President, a person of your qualifications, in relation to this bill to get your view on it because I think that that would be enlightening. It is a pity the member for Nelson was not here to give us his view on it as well with the background that you both have.

Mr Parkinson - I think it's a pity, too, because he was opposed to the bill.

Mr DEAN - I know your qualifications, too, Leader.

Mr Parkinson - I am saying that I think it's a pity, too, because he was vehemently opposed to this bill and said so.

Mr DEAN - Just on the TCC, they have moved away from this matter financially, as I understand it, and on the information I have been given are in a much better position financially than they were before. As I have said, the level of service has been questioned by many people and many people who are very close to the building practitioners and closer to them than I am.

I think it is incumbent on us or the natural processes of law to conduct an inquiry, cause an inquiry with a view to at least providing some conclusion for the building practitioners involved. I think something needs to be done and Mr Thomas said that there are the opportunities out there for further action to be taken and he mentioned the Supreme Court. He mentioned other methods and he mentioned the Ombudsman and he said there were other opportunities out there but, unfortunately, I do not think that is going to occur. It is all very well to mention them but I do not think that is likely to take place. That is why the member for Huon has brought the matter to this place.

Mr Parkinson - The stakeholders are the builders; if they wanted something to happen they could take action.

Mr DEAN - If you are talking about the building practitioners, I guess they would say that they had already lost financially from it and to take a further action in the Supreme Court would probably cost a them a considerable amount of money and they might not be successful.

Mr Parkinson - They would look at the commercial reality of whether it was worthwhile.

Mr DEAN - They certainly would, but that was brought to our attention.

Mr Parkinson - This bill wants the taxpayer to bear the cost of a third investigation. That is where it is going.

Mr DEAN - That is an issue that I had not addressed. I suppose that could well be the case and hopefully the member for Huon might address that in his answer to the debate because I do not think that the people out there ought to make any further contributions to this issue. But then I do not think that should necessarily prevent a conclusion to this matter and I do not think that should be a reason for preventing us from debating and proceeding further with this bill.

Mr Martin - If you use that argument there are a lot of things we would not pass in this Chamber.

Mr DEAN - You are absolutely right. We know very well, and the member for Montgomery has touched on it, that currently people are very cynical about government activities and government transactions. They have that strong belief that there is some support given to the big end of town. Perhaps if the Government looked at this and gave it support they might well restore some of the faith of those people out there who currently have that attitude. The public would see that here is the Government standing up and coming out in the open - 'They want this matter looked at and they are supporting a bill that will do exactly that.' Perhaps it would help them to restore some of that integrity.

The judgment that I need to make is whether it is the right thing to do. Is it the fair thing? Is it right for Parliament to take over a judicial role, as Mr Thomas said. He told us that the Parliament ought not assume or interfere with the judicial system. He was fairly strong in his comments on that and I have taken that on board. I accept that as being the right position perhaps, that the Parliament ought not interfere in what is set up for the law to take care of and to be involved in.

He also said that this would set a precedent and that the nation would stand up and look at this - I think he even went further than that and said 'the world'.

Ms Forrest - He did, globally.

Mr DEAN - Globally. We should have tested him a little more on that.

Ms Forrest - You could suggest that Tasmania was a leader if the world were to look to us as an example.

Mr DEAN - I am not so sure about that. I really cannot accept that that would be the situation; this is a one-off situation and the member for Huon -

Mr Parkinson - The point he was making was that it set a precedent in a sense; that these things are incorporated in regulatory procedures, which are already set in place and are uniform around the country.

Mr DEAN - You are absolutely right - that was the comment.

Mr Martin - It was a precedent the last time the Government supported it.

Mr Parkinson - Well, I opposed it, so there is no inconsistency there.

Mr DEAN - That was where I was going to conclude. I just wonder what has changed between then and now. Perhaps we might hear why the Government have changed their position on this. I am not quite sure why that would have happened between now and then other than the fact that the trial has concluded and we have the position that everybody is aware of.

Mr Parkinson - I addressed that - corporate liquidation.

Mr DEAN - Okay. As I said, I would like to listen to some further debate in relation to this matter because I am really undecided. I am not certain what position I should adopt in this situation. I want to support the practitioners, the builders, because they still raise it; they have not forgotten it. I would not want to be seen to be letting them down but I need to be seen, in my opinion, satisfying myself that I am doing the right thing.