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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3156 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I would think that it would perhaps be that particular aspect of the Neave report to which the AMA-with not a touch of self-interest-would have objected, including issues about the development of the standard of care and the basis on which negligence will be measured. Will it be measured by a coterie of doctors who will get together and decide for themselves if one of their colleagues has been negligent, or will we continue to do what we and every other common law nation or jurisdiction in the world has done, and leave those issues to the courts? The AMA has a position: they would like to decide for themselves whether or not one of their colleagues has been negligent.

There are some among us who think it would perhaps be best to leave those particular issues to the courts, and that certainly is my attitude to that. The AMA is agreeing, as they would. Professor Neave has concluded that it reflects a fair balance between the role the courts play as independent decision makers and the role of medical experts who give evidence.

The Ipp report proposes a radical restatement of the law of negligence. The Neave report proposes a series of more measured reforms, including a number of useful suggestions to improve the provision of information on common procedures. The Neave report does not favour the general imposition of any thresholds for recovery of lost earnings or other economic losses. However, it does propose a number of targeted reforms designed for specific purposes.

Both reports also recommend the shortening of the limitation period in an attempt to balance the need for certainty against the need to protect children and people with a mental incapacity from losing their right to sue, because some other person's father acted on their behalf. The reports are consistent regarding the issue of limitation periods. I think each of those reports suggests that the limitation period be reduced to three years. That is a significant change in the law as it stands, and an issue on which we should consult further, and about which we must think seriously.

The Neave report also proposes a number of practical measures to reduce the need to litigate, and encourage an early finalisation of disputes, including alternatives to litigation, the use of various forms of alternative dispute resolution, and the use of pretrial procedures to settle cases before they get to court. These recommendations will significantly reduce the need for litigation. They are consistent with the reforms proposed by the government in the Civil Law (Wrongs) Bill.

The proposals in both reports will be carefully considered by the ACT government as part of the second stage of the ACT reform process. I reject the comments made by Dr Pryor in the article to which the Leader of the Opposition refers. The ACT government has been involved at the national forefront of the consideration of issues related to medical indemnity insurance and public liability insurance.

Indeed, as I think all members would acknowledge, Dr Gregory, the head of the department of health in the ACT, has been instrumental in the work that AHMAC officers have done, and that AHMAC itself has done, in creating a measured response to the insurance problems facing the medical profession. In fact, the ACT has led the way. That has been acknowledged by all of my ministerial colleagues around Australia. It is acknowledged nationally that Dr Gregory has been fundamental to the reforms and the work that has been done in relation to medical indemnity insurance.

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