Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3155 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

the medical profession suggests, and again I quote, "a closed mind on the most critical issues at the core of the medical indemnity crisis"?

MR STANHOPE: Thank you for the question. The insurance crisis is a very important subject. Of course, the government had hoped to debate a significant plank in its response to the insurance crisis this morning, but you adjourned the debate. That is, of course, a reflection of your commitment to the issue. On the very day on which we bring major legislation before the parliament to deal with the insurance crisis, you and the crossbench combine to adjourn the debate and actually to prevent its introduction.

I think we need to put this in some context in terms of your commitment to the insurance crisis, and to some significant reform of the law of tort. The major response, and one of the most lauded responses by any government around Australia to the insurance crisis, is the Civil Law (Wrongs) Bill introduced by me to deal very much with the issues that we confront, and that are confronted by every jurisdiction around Australia in relation to not just medical indemnity insurance, but public liability insurance.

I think the Civil Law (Wrongs) Bill is the most major and significant piece of legislation attempted by any government in Australia to deal with tort law reform and negligence law reform. That is widely accepted, so I do not know why you did not want to debate it today, Mr Humphries.

Mr Humphries: I think Mr Stanhope is criticising a decision of the Assembly earlier today, which is in breach of standing orders.

MR SPEAKER: I did not hear him criticise it, but I will have a look at the Hansard in due course.

MR STANHOPE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just posed a rhetorical question: why did they oppose it?

Mr Speaker, in response to some of the specific issues raised by Mr Humphries: as I have announced on a number of occasions, the government has developed a three-stage plan for dealing with the insurance crisis.

The first of those was the Civil Law (Wrongs) Bill. Consideration of two other major reports, by the Ipp committee and the Neave committee, will now be dealt with by the government as the second stage of the process. Stage three of the process that we have set in train will deal in a measured, consistent and vigorous way with other aspects of insurance, and of course that includes the management of civil claims in our courts.

It will be of interest to Mr Humphries and other members of the Assembly if I go into some detail about the reviews. Both the Ipp and the Neave committees have undertaken detailed reviews of the law of tort. Both committees have made a series of recommendations that will have to be carefully considered. Some of the recommendations of Neave and Ipp are inconsistent with each other. Unlike the Ipp report, the Neave report has proceeded on the basis of an empirical assessment of the problems facing the insurance industry. Unlike the Ipp report, the Neave report largely endorses the current approach to the determination of liability in our courts.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .