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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4396 ..

The amendment in this bill will shift that arrangement to one of proportionate liability in instances of economic claims. In other words, the claimant will be able to claim only a proportion of the compensation for economic loss or property damage consistent with the finding of the court as to the proportion of liability. If it is half the fault of the car manufacturer and half the fault of the garage, you can get only 50 per cent of your property damage back from the manufacturer. If the garage has gone broke, the process for apportioning the liability will not be significantly more complex than it is at the moment, as under existing law the court nominally allocates liability in its process. The case law that has built up over the past 50 years or so will provide the guidance when we shift to proportionate liability.

The biggest impact of these amendments will be on large commercial claims for economic loss, where businesses and their insurers presently spend considerable resources in countersuing each other after the initial joint and several case has been settled. The key points to bear in mind are as follows.

First, the introduction of proportionate responsibility does not apply to personal injury; nor does it apply to consumer claims. Second, personal injury claimants do not fail to get the compensation and support that they need because one of the parties has no resources or insurance. Third, in regard to consumer claims, it is worth noting that Queensland tried to protect mum and dad investors by putting a threshold on the application of proportionate liability, but that system failed. I understand they are now looking at following the ACT’s lead of using consumer claims, as defined in our Fair Trading Act, as the exemption.

The Greens have problems with the professional standards indemnity limitation scheme. I would like to say at the outset that we have no problem with professional standards and would expect that all professions have a code of conduct, and that their associations have disciplinary procedures, risk management strategies and education programs. However, I do not understand why we would absolve them or their insurers from liability under the laws of negligence, contract or misleading conduct.

Indeed, we should probably be appalled that it is considered standard practice across Australia to trade off economic liability against these practices. It reflects a view of society that is skewed by the dominance of corporate ideology, where ethics can be seen, in this case, as a tradable commodity. It is also undoubtedly the case that limiting the professional indemnity exposure of this scheme will result in some people or businesses not receiving adequate compensation for economic loss. For small businesses and for consumers, that could result in the loss of their house or their life savings.

We also know that we do not know what difference this will make. We are not sure that premiums will go down. Evidence is that they do not these days. In the context of the big world market, it is hard to see how this scheme will make a difference to the ACT and to Australia’s attractiveness to the underwriting business. I will be opposing this section of the bill in the detail stage.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (8.36): Mr Speaker, this bill was presented to the Assembly on 24 June 2004. As members will recall, the bill will amend the Civil Law

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