Page 847 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is not the next sitting week or the next sitting month or the next sitting year; it is three months after the day the review has started. And that has not happened. The act must be reviewed after three years of operation. The act came into effect on 1 October 2008. The three-year period concluded on 1 October 2011. The three-month period—October, November, December—means January is when this should have been delivered to the Assembly.
The review must be presented to the Assembly within three months of the commencement of the review. In the first instance, I think the government simply overlooked the provision for review. I think they got a little bit gung-ho, thought they would do some more legislation to show that they were acting on this issue and did not actually read their act. There is a failure there, and the Treasurer of the day can answer for that if she deigns to come down and join us. But the then Treasurer appears to have rushed ahead proposing further amendment to the third-party regime without considering the need for any review of the previous reform package.
Remember that it was a majority government in 2008. So the government agreed to this amendment; this amendment went ahead with the complete support of all 17 members of the Assembly. It is not like it was something the government opposed and did not see a need for; the government agreed. They were so confident of their 2008 reform package that they agreed they would review it.
Once the government had been reminded about this requirement for review, the then Treasurer sought to fit in that requirement with her imperative to have any further amendments made to the third-party regime before the end of 2011. Members may recall that in March 2011 I proposed that PAC review the government’s further proposed amendments to the third-party regime. Ms Hunter proposed that PAC report by this week in March 2012. Ms Gallagher actually proposed that the reporting date be brought forward to December 2011. Members can go back to the Hansard—Ms Gallagher said it would start on 1 October and it would be quick. “We could probably have the report by November and PAC could knock it off and report in December and the legislation could be passed in December 2011.” But that has not happened. Given the history of this whole matter, it is now possible to see what a nonsense Ms Gallagher’s proposed amendment was. Fortunately, the Assembly did not accept that on the day.
With that brief background, I now turn to the issue of the government failing to comply with the law—in this instance the law being section 275 of the Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008. The former Treasurer was well aware of this section in the debate in March 2011 when she moved an amendment. She said:
I accept the Assembly's desire for further change. I have an amendment, which I have circulated and which I move now. I move:
Omit “March 2012”, substitute “December 2011”.
So this amendment really goes to trying to pull back the reporting back to December … I have asked that Treasury commence the review on 1 October and that they complete it in November …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video