Page 2552 - Week 07 - Thursday, 18 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Therefore, this bill will relieve NRMA of the responsibility of being saddled with accepting a default insurer position on unregistered vehicle permits where such responsibilities are best assumed by the Nominal Defendant.
As I indicated earlier, we expect competition to enter the market in the second half of this year once information systems currently being set up become operational on 1 July 2009. I am advised that a number of the major insurers already operating in other jurisdictions have expressed a strong interest in entering the ACT CTP market. In fact, one of these insurers has already presented its credentials to the CTP regulator in pursuit of an ACT CTP licence.
A clear objective of this government, and a cornerstone of the new scheme, is to focus on establishing an efficient system that allows those injured in a motor accident timely rehabilitation and improved health outcomes. One aspect of this was to place restrictions on the fees payable to lawyers under the new CTP scheme, in particular, under parts 4.8 and 4.9 of the CTP legislation. Part 4.8 of the CTP legislation deals with cases that are settled prior to litigation under the final mandatory offer procedures; part 4.9.of the CTP legislation deals will cases that are decided through litigation in the courts. Under the legislation, minor injury cases—where damages other than pain and suffering are settled at $50,000 or below—are subject to legal fee restrictions, as are court-awarded damages of the same magnitude.
It was the intention of the new CTP legislation which came into effect on 1 October 2008 to deal with both settlements and damages up to this level in a similar manner. Since then, it has become evident that a drafting inconsistency may exist in part 4.8 of the legislation that leaves open the issue of lawyers’ costs in relation to settlements reached at $30,000 or less. In fact, the provisions may be interpreted such that lawyers have free rein over the fees they charge in a personal injury case where final mandatory offers are of the zero dollars to $30,000 range. This is clearly contrary to the objectives of the new CTP scheme, which concentrate on encouraging accident victims and obliging insurers to focus on return to health strategies for motor accident victims as opposed to lump sum damages.
This amendment will make provision for the treatment of lawyers’ fees in relation to settlements in the amount of $30,000 or less under part 4.8 similar to damages under part 4.9 by making fees in this category zero. As a result, there will be a clear and consistent message in the new CTP legislation with regard to legal fees.
As members of the Assembly would be aware, the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal was only recently established. This tribunal consolidated the previous jurisdictions of different tribunals into one body to improve efficiency and ultimately provide better access to justice in the territory.
Under part 5.4 of the CTP legislation, the CTP regulator could previously apply to the jurisdiction of the Consumer and Trader Tribunal seeking disciplinary action against a CTP insurer. Given that the Consumer and Trader Tribunal has now been consolidated into ACAT, it is appropriate to make corresponding amendments to bring the CTP legislation within the jurisdiction of the ACAT. This amendment bill
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .