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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3070 ..

MRS CROSS (continuing):

Mr Speaker, there is a need to allow the courts discretion to extend the time available for plaintiffs when there is a situation that is out of control, or out of the control of the plaintiff. It is plainly unfair and unjust if they cannot proceed. There are classic examples of this occurring. Unfortunately, there are some in the legal profession who are not brilliant, and some of these individuals do cause problems. Fortunately, those in the chamber this evening are not part of that group.

The lack of action by lawyers, or the illness of lawyers, can lead to the plaintiff's being unable to lodge a suit through no fault of their own. If your lawyer is not dealing with your case as a matter of priority, you may find that your time has run out and your compensation will not get a hearing.

This amendment simply tidies up a very confused subsection. There is the possibility that people would fall between the two systems unless we change part A to a definite time, such as 1 July 2006. This allows those who had an incident in 1998, for example, a further year to lodge, and it allows those who now have an incident up to 2006, which is their entitlement under the new regime.

Without this amendment there will be people who are unable to apply for compensation as of 1 July this year simply because of the words "whichever of the following periods ends first". This amendment solves that problem.

MS TUCKER (5.45): The Greens will support this amendment. It is sloppy and unfair to retrospectively chop people's rights to apply for compensation, and it is particularly unfair to do so without warning. It would be easy to draft the bill so that did not occur. We saw this sort of approach from Gary Humphries, I have to say, when the Liberals were in government-the compensation legislation for the victims of crime comes to mind. I am sorry to see that approach in this one.

MS DUNDAS (5.45): I also will be supporting this amendment. I do accept the principle of limitation periods for actions, but I think the way that it is put forward to us in the government's original bill is quite harsh and makes no provision for extending the deadline.

After an accident, some people do suffer quite serious psychological impacts, and the effort of recovering from serious physical injuries can be all-consuming. Without a sufficient level of mental robustness, the idea of launching a court action can be quite daunting. I believe that this amendment makes it fairer for people. They have more time to consider their actions and the courts are then able to see justice done to all the people who have suffered injury caused by the wrongdoing of another.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (5.46): The government opposes the amendment, Mr Speaker. The government has-and I must say, reluctantly-removed the court's discretion, and it did it deliberately to allow claims out of time in relation to adults. The bill was designed deliberately to force adults to commence actions at an early stage or to lose the right to commence action. It should be noted, however, that the government is not removing the protections enjoyed under statute by those who have a serious mental disability. Time does not run while a person has such a disability.

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