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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3339 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

providing protection for good samaritans and volunteers, including bushfire volunteers, from liability.

Other new methods include: establishing new presumptions in regard to contributory negligence; replacing the common law rules regarding the standard of care an occupier of premises must show to people entering the premises in relation to any dangers to them; imposing restrictions on legal costs and small personal injury claims; preventing lawyers from prosecuting a civil claim where there are no reasonable prospects of success; establishing a regime for a neutral evaluation of cases, with a view to quicker and cheaper resolution of disputes; and abolishing civil juries, which have not been used in the ACT for some time.

The government's approach might be contrasted with the scheme proposed by the opposition, which may simply exacerbate the existing insurance problems in the ACT, impose new insurance costs on ACT business and community organisations, and establish a right of action for a whole range of activities that are presently not compensable through the current common law systems.

I foreshadow that the government will present government amendments to the Civil Law (Wrongs) Bill 2002 at the detail stage. The government amendments are the result of consultation with various stakeholders, including the AMA, community associations, the Law Society, the Bar Association, and the Plaintiff Lawyers Association. Lawyers from those organisations represent both plaintiffs and defendants.

The government's measures create a sensible legal framework for the reform effort that now must be considered nationally and in the ACT following the release of the reports of the Ipp and Neave committees. These committees have not spoken with the same voice. While some of their recommendations are similar, others are radically different. Only by taking this first step can the ACT move to a coherent debate about the different paths that are now opening ahead of us.

There has been strong support for the approach the government has taken by a range of disparate groups within the insurance reform debate. However, there has been vigorous debate about some of the measures in the bill. In particular, some legal practitioners have sought a number of amendments to provisions in the bill that are designed to limit costs in small proceedings and impose new requirements concerning cases that have no reasonable prospects of success.

In relation to costs, the government does not propose to allow parties to contract out of the proposed scheme. The legislation already gives the court a discretion to increase the amount of costs because of the complexity of a matter or the behaviour of a party to the claim. We should not amend it to allow costs to routinely exceed a reasonable amount without scrutiny. However, the government is prepared to focus the provisions more precisely on the area where this is perceived to be a problem-claims under $50,000. I foreshadow that I will be moving amendments to this effect.

In relation to the issue of reasonable prospects of success set out in part 10 (2), an ill-considered case serves no special purpose. It is not good enough to come into court and argue nonsensical propositions. The bill penalises lawyers who use a scatter gun or undisciplined approach to a case, often to the ultimate cost of other parties, the court and

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