Page 2308 - Week 06 - Thursday, 10 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The committee makes 13 recommendations which, in the main, are concerned with the bill but which also cover the Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008 and the wider context in which CTP insurance operates, including the wider public policy context. Submissions to the inquiry and evidence from witnesses at public hearings expressed a range of views concerning the bill. Some evidence was fully supportive of the bill in its current form while other submitters were not opposed to the bill. But a significant number of submitters were not supportive of the bill, and some were highly sceptical that these amendments would achieve the bill’s two main objectives—that of reducing premium costs and facilitating access to early treatment and rehabilitation. In the main these submitters highlighted significant issues regarding limiting access to common-law compensation for non-economic loss together with the infrastructure required to implement the impairment threshold and increase a discount rate.
A common theme from some submitters was that evidence supporting the 2008 reforms to CTP insurance as provided for in the current act was starting to emerge and any amendments prior to permitting these reforms to take effect could be counterproductive. Concern was also expressed by a number of submitters that amendments to the current act were being proposed before a statutory review of its operation have been completed. Such an approach was considered to be premature and contrary to evidence-based public policy.
Another common theme from some submitters was that the bill appears to limit rights under the Human Rights Act 2004. Others did not express a particular view on the bill but provided suggestions for an alternative scheme design which would, hopefully, ensure appropriate compensation for injured people whilst also reining in premium costs.
The committee believes the proposed reforms detailed in the bill are treating symptoms instead of targeting the overarching problem—that is, to reduce the number and severity of motor vehicle crashes in the ACT. If you look at it logically, what is third-party insurance paying for? It is paying for the results of motor vehicle crashes. We can reduce the cost of third-party insurance basically in two ways: we can have less crashes or less significant crashes so that the actual costs are less. That is one way of doing things. The other way is to reduce the compensation paid to the victims of crashes.
This bill, as far as we can see, took the latter approach in terms of reducing compensation to a set of accident victims. The committee felt it would be better, in fact, to target the actual problem—that is, accidents and crashes on our roads. The committee noted that successive governments have implemented a range of transport and road policy initiatives, some of which have been positive for road safety. Road safety in Australia has improved over the last 50 years, you could say. The committee also acknowledged the contribution that NRMA Insurance has made in partnership with the ACT community to enhancement of road safety for the benefit of all road users as part of the NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust. While the committee did not go into this and I am speaking on my own behalf, I agree there is a lot more that we could do in terms of looking at road safety.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video