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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 2041 ..

MR SMYTH

Moving on to the Legal Practitioners Amendment Bill: I think sending the signal that litigious is not a good way to start is a good thing, and that is the purpose of the bill. I was never sure whether people would support the offer of "just try it-no win, no pay". Where is the advertising from a law firm that says, "We'll support you in your rehabilitation and, if it doesn't work, then we'll support you in your court case"? We don't see that sort of offer, do we? What we are seeing is the offer that "we'll support you in a court case to get a large lump sum so we can take a percentage".

So I think it is unfair to say that there is no purpose to the Legal Practitioners Amendment Bill. I think there is a very important purpose to it, and it is about sending messages about what we want to see happen. What I want to see is a firm that will advertise, "We'll support you with rehabilitation and if the rehabilitation is not successful then we'll support you in your search for compensation."

The Chief Minister asked, "Why would you limit people's rights?"Well, my bill actually provides for immediate payment in respect of those who are catastrophically injured. Why would you make them wait 24, 25 years? Why would you place a burden on a family to look after a child that has been catastrophically damaged in childbirth, for instance? Why would you make them wait 25 years? Why wouldn't you settle it earlier? Why wouldn't you put in appropriate adaptations to a house? Why wouldn't you put systems in place so that the family-the other children and the parents, whatever the combination might be-doesn't have to carry the burden of an injured child for 25 years? That defies logic.

We had a tirade from the Chief Minister in question time. I put myself in the place of the family: get them assistance early; get them compensation early; get them rehabilitation to achieve the maximum for that child early; modify the house early; take the burden off the family early; assist the other siblings in the family early; don't make everybody pay; make sure everybody gets what they need to have a better life, the best life that they can. My bill allows for that. It allows for early payment for those who cannot find rehabilitation; early and immediate payment for those judged to have catastrophic injury. I cannot see the logic of why you would not do it.

Mr Speaker, the Chief Minister also said, "Why would you trash the rights of those catastrophically injured?"I pose the question: why would you make them wait up to 25 years to see what the outcome is? If they are catastrophically injured, they need all the assistance they can get from the moment the injury is incurred, not in 25 years time. Is it a measure of the Labor government's charitable view of the world to wait 25 years-25 years of litigation, 25 years of courts, 25 years of reports, 25 years of doctors visits, 25 years of personal agony, 25 years of sacrifice, 25 years of denying your husband or your wife or your partner or your siblings or your offspring a better life? It is beyond the ken of ordinary people that you would say that that is a better system, because it is not. Early intervention works.

There is grim irony for the Chief Minister-and I hope you are listening, Chief Minister, because I dearly love quoting your words back to you. Yesterday the Chief Minister tabled the government's response to the report by Dr Anthony Dare on assistance for victims of crime. And what does the government suggest we do for victims of crime? It suggests exactly what I am suggesting in my bill. At page 11, paragraph 5.12-and

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