Page 1171 - Week 03 - Thursday, 31 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
So at this stage I left the matter of a date open ended and I have just said it needs to be delivered as soon as practicable in 2012. If you consider some of the time lines—we will get to the debate on the amendment shortly—it really is a matter for PAC in this regard to do their work. Of course, once we get the review we of course go into December and January, which may be hard for potential witnesses or potential submitters of submissions on the government’s report and the government’s review. So I think there needs to be some flexibility, but we will get to that in a minute, I have no doubt.
I am very conscious of the need for this to be done. I am very conscious of the need for this to be done properly. That is why I inserted the review clause back in 2008, to make sure that we do, if necessary, get the sort of amendments that are required to make sure that first and foremost people who need rehabilitation and medical treatment get that as quickly as possible and that we then have a path forward and, if compensation is required, that appropriate compensation be delivered quickly and equitably. I commend my motion to the Assembly.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (11.32): The Greens will be supporting Mr Smyth’s motion. However, I move the following amendment to it:
Omit paragraph (2), substitute:
“(2) the Standing Committee on Public Accounts report to the Assembly by the first sitting week in March 2012.”.
The proposed CTP changes have certainly proved to be controversial. I have probably received more constituent representations about this issue than any other issue in my time in the Assembly. Whilst it may be that many of these have come about because of an effective public campaign being run by some lawyers, the sheer number of letters and emails from people who have been, or who have family members who have been, injured in road accidents and whose sincere expression of concern is that they might not have received fair compensation if the proposed changes had been in place is one reason why we should take the time to consider the scheme very carefully and fully understand the current situation and the effect of the proposed changes.
While the fundamental premise that the more that is paid into the scheme in premiums the more that can be paid out in compensation and vice versa is very simple, the way that compensation payments are determined and the mechanics of the scheme are complex and there are myriad different ways the scheme could be amended.
It is probably fair to say that the main policy issues presented by the bill are fairly clear and there are perhaps only two or three key issues that need to be resolved in the bill. However, the implications of those changes are difficult to articulate with any certainty and it is undeniable that there are many alternatives to the government’s proposals that would also address the stated motivations for the reforms.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video