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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3077 ..

MS TUCKER (6.16): I agree with the principle that Ms Dundas is standing up for and obviously I have an amendment as well that tries to ameliorate the consequences. I understand what the government is doing in this very difficult situation. If Ms Dundas were successful in opposing this new clause the consequence would be that insurance companies would argue that every incident relating to birth and, indeed, after birth would be a potential negligence case for 18 years, and that it is likely doctors and anaesthetists would be required to pay substantial insurance premiums for 18 years after they retire. So if we were successful in knocking off this provision we would almost certainly be discouraging most paediatricians and anaesthetists from practising in the ACT.

Part of the problem rests with the Commonwealth government for only allowing medical indemnity insurance policies on a claims-notified basis. Previously some policies described as claims-made policies would give practitioners coverage for all incidents relating to their activities, even if the claims emerged at a later date. Unfortunately, as that form of policy is no longer available, some control over statute of limitations, even as applied to children, is important in this climate. It is for that reason that I think we cannot really oppose this clause. But I urge Ms Dundas and the Assembly to support my amendment to the Limitation Act, which will more broadly give to plaintiffs the right to pursue a case in exceptional circumstances.

MR SPEAKER: Ms Tucker, did I hear you say that you had an amendment to this clause?

MS TUCKER: No. My next amendment deals with this issue.

MR STEFANIAK (6.17): The opposition will be supporting the government. I note that the Attorney has had some detailed discussions with the medicos. One of the biggest problems which doctors have mentioned to us is the old situation of being liable for claims 24 years after the event. That in itself was given to me as one of a number of reasons why doctors have just thrown up their hands and left practice. It does cause a real dilemma. This is all about striking a balance. I do not think anyone is going to be particularly happy. I note the Attorney has worked this out with the doctors and, again, we have to be consistent with other states in all this.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clause 60.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (6.18): I move amendment No 8 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 3089].

Mr Speaker, amendment No 8 amends clause 60 of the bill. Clause 60 will add sections 36 (5) and 36 (6) to the Limitation Act 1985. Section 36 (5) provides that section 36 does not apply in relation to a cause of action to which section 16B applies. Section 16B applies to a cause of action for claims for damages for personal injury other than causes of action covered by section 16A.

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