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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (19 August) . . Page.. 2872 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

our workers compensation scheme and our third party scheme, yet we refuse to acknowledge it in public liability.

Let me put it in simple terms, Mr Speaker. If I break a leg in a car accident, it gets dealt with in one way. If I break a leg at work, it gets dealt with in a similar way. But if I break a leg tripping over in a shopping centre or through a medical incident, all I can look forward to is a long, bitter and expensive struggle to get compensation. I ask you, Mr Speaker: where is the logic in that?

Third party and workers compensation insurance in this territory are under control. Public liability insurance is a disaster under this government. It is a disaster because people like the Chief Minister seem to believe that a broken leg is something other than a broken leg. As long as the government pursues this ludicrous distinction, we will never deal with public liability. Premiums will continue to go up and doctors will continue to leave the profession but, most importantly, injured people will suffer bad outcomes.

To control public liability, Mr Speaker, it is the opposition's belief that there should be some sort of no-fault scheme in place. Clear examples, examples that work, are the workers compensation system of the territory and the compulsory third party system of the territory. I believe, and the opposition believes, that it is becoming more popular in public discourse and that in a few years we will all be involved in no-fault public liability and medical indemnity schemes. That is the only way that is sustainable into the future.

I would also like to refer to the second last paragraph of the Chief Minister's press release of this evening. In it the Chief Minister seems to be foreshadowing that he will now set up his own medical indemnity scheme, which is curious, Mr Speaker, because when we had the debate about the other form of medical indemnity and public liability cover that was defeated by the Assembly last year, part of the case was that the ACT is too small, that we cannot afford to go it alone, therefore the scheme that the opposition had proposed could not be voted for.

It now appears that we are actually okay, we can set up our own medical indemnity scheme, simply because the Chief Minister has said so. I would like to know what happened between the end of last year and now, Mr Speaker, that we can suddenly afford our own medical indemnity scheme, something that apparently was beyond us early this year and, indeed, last year.

Mr Speaker, we accept the reforms that have been put on the table. We do have some amendments. We note the concerns raised by others in this place. As long as we tinker with tort law, we are not addressing the needs of care and we are not showing compassion for those people injured in the ACT. Shouldn't that be our first consideration? It should not be about the doctors or the lawyers, about which group will be disadvantaged and which group will be better off, or about who drives a Rolls-Royce and who does not. The duty of care that we have is to show compassion and make good law for those injured in the ACT.

We did so two years ago with workers compensation. Initially, people thought that we could not come up with a scheme in the ACT that would show compassion and be

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