Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
In a budget estimates hearing that also canvassed bail reforms and Legal Aid funding, the NSW Attorney-General said there was “no chance” he would attend the upcoming inquiry into professional indemnity insurance.
Appearing before the NSW budget estimates on Monday (31 August), Attorney-General Michael Daley was adamant he would not attend a select committee hearing aimed at dissecting his decision to maintain Lawcover’s monopoly over solicitors’ professional indemnity (PI) insurance.
Lawcover is a wholly owned but independent subsidiary of the Law Society of NSW, which has caused some concern from advocacy group PI Choice.
Asked by Libertarian Party MP John Ruddick why not, Daley said: “The way your place is conducting itself at the moment and the inquiry into the Director of Public Prosecutions is one of the reasons why no one in their right mind would come before your bloody house the way it is presently.”
Over the sounds of outrage, Daley added it was “just out of control”.
In what was allegedly a targeted attack on a District Court judge, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Sally Dowling, was accused of authorising the leak of sensitive information to radio station, 2GB. Daley and premier NSW legal bodies have consistently come to Dowling’s defence.
The alleged leak was brought up several more times during Monday’s budget estimates, which Daley dismissed as a “witch hunt of the highest order” that went “well past bordering on” an abuse of process.
Once the committee had silenced again, Ruddick took the Attorney-General to a quote from Bret Walker SC, who advised that the current PI insurance scheme “gives no support whatsoever to consideration by the Attorney-General on the question of whether Lawcover should be maintained as a monopoly, with its obvious anti-competitive policy implications”.
Having been told by Daley at the last estimates hearing that it was “not entirely consistent” with advice he had been given, Ruddick applied for production of documents under the Standing Order 52.
“We went through those documents … very carefully, and we saw no evidence that you’ve been given any advice on this, but you said you have had advice. So, I’m assuming that advice was informal,” Ruddick said.
Daley only responded to say he has the power to maintain the monopoly and pointed to the NSW Court of Appeal’s decision in The Law Society of NSW v Attorney General of NSW; ABC Insurance v The Law Society of NSW.
In a statement, a spokesperson with PI Choice told Lawyers Weekly: “Professional indemnity insurance is a compulsory requirement for legal practitioners, and this inquiry provides an important opportunity to examine whether the current arrangements to continue to deliver the best outcomes for solicitors, consumers and the broader community.”
NSW solicitors have been encouraged to make submissions.
Daley questioned on Legal Aid, bail, ‘secret’ reports
Due to the growing and unsustainable demand for justice under the current budget, the Legal Aid NSW board approved amendments to the simplified means test from 1 July 2026, reducing eligibility by 22 per cent for couples with children and 42 per cent for single applicants.
Liberal member of the Legislative Council, Jacqui Munro, asked Daley whether he feared this would greatly impact access to justice.
“There’s always been a cut-off point and means testing and financial assistance by Legal Aid, that’s always been the case,” Daley said.
Daley added that Legal Aid has received “more funding this year” than it did in last year’s budget, and eligibility was determined “by the Legal Aid board, not by me”.
Daley also faced tense questioning about his review into private rehabilitation centres after an admission by Connect Global founder, pastor Ross Pene, who had passed off drug tests as “negative” and provided glowing reviews despite there being traces of illicit substances.
Munro said that despite his department receiving the report in February 2025, Daley kept it “secret” until its quiet release in March this year. The report found private centres were unregulated and had limited oversight.
Daley took issue with the characterisation of it being secretive.
When pressed on whether there would be legislative change before the end of the parliamentary term, Daley said it was a “matter for government”.
“You have said there will be a bail framework with respect to residential rehabilitation in the near future. When is the near future?” Munro asked.
“There’s no timeline,” Daley repeated.
Questioned again on what he meant by “near future”, Daley initially told Munro to “look it up in the dictionary”, before responding with: “It means it’s not something we’re going to put off for the long term.”
Munro also drilled down on the Law Reform Commission’s review of serious road crime offences, questioning Daley on why there had not been an update since a commitment she claimed he made in February last year.
Daley said the government was “still considering the report” and refused to divulge his views on the report before it reached cabinet.
“I’ve told you we’re considering it, I’ve told you we have met with victim-survivors, I’ve told you I’m having discussions with them about this issue, and you can be as disappointed as you like,” Daley said.
On questions from Greens member of the Legislative Council, Sue Higginson, about whether the government intended to raise the age of criminal responsibility, Daley said there was “no appetite whatsoever”.
Daley also responded to Higginson’s questions on why legal costs for Indigenous land claim appeals were met by his department, rather than that of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, “which is responsible for administering and defending” the decisions.
In addition to explaining it was a “historic practice” that was “largely driven” by Treasury, Daley said he would come back to the committee with how much was paid from his department for land claim appeals.
