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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3341 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Procedural change should not be undertaken lightly. These amendments are no exception. As I indicated when I presented the bill, it will be necessary to ensure that properly trained persons are available to undertake the types of evaluations proposed in the scheme. I propose not to commence the provisions until the appropriate arrangements have been made and to this end I will also be proposing further amendments to the provision to enable the appointment of persons outside the court to undertake these evaluations. I understand that this is a relatively common practice in other jurisdictions, including New South Wales, and it will certainly aid the introduction of these provisions in this jurisdiction.

To conclude, I thank members for their contribution to this debate. This is a very important piece of legislation. As I indicated, it is in essence the building block for further reforms that the ACT government will undertake, reforms that will be based on our assessment and our response to the Neave and Ipp reports and our determination to pursue vigorously further reforms to the courts and court processes in the ACT.

I have outlined previously in detail the steps, the plans and the time lines that the government has in place in relation to the further amendments that will be undertaken. I can add for the information of members that, as the ACT Health Minister, I will be meeting tomorrow with all other health ministers in Australia and, as you would expect, the leading item on the agenda is the Neave report.

My colleague Ted Quinlan, the Treasurer, will be meeting, I believe, next Tuesday with all other Australian treasurers to discuss the Ipp report and its recommendations. All jurisdictions round Australia are actively considering appropriate responses to both Neave and Ipp. The Neave report has only been available for a matter of less than two weeks. The Ipp report has been available for a little longer than that. Governments around Australia, all jurisdictions, are working together to develop appropriate responses.

It is a hope that I have-I do not know how forlorn it is; a hope that, in my mind, is perhaps becoming somewhat distant-that the Commonwealth will continue to play its part in relation to leading reform and debate about both public liability insurance reform and medical indemnity insurance reform. It is a leadership that I believe the Commonwealth has abrogated and I fear for the future of cooperative responses to these issues in the face of the attitude that the Commonwealth and Commonwealth officials have consistently taken during all of the debates in relation-

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, I think that you are straying a little from the bill before the house.

MR STANHOPE: I am not, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am about to conclude, but I am concerned about our capacity to pursue nationally agreed approaches to both Ipp and Neave which, of course, are the significant next steps in relation to the reform process in the ACT.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

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