Page 3354 - Week 08 - Thursday, 23 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
permanent impairment of at least 15 per cent, they will lose their access to claiming damages for non-economic loss. Hence, where any of these people require ongoing treatment of any sort, they will have to fund the cost of that treatment from their own resources. That obviously has a direct and adverse impact on their cost of living as well as the nature of their lives for the rest of their lives. And then, depending on the nature of their injuries, these people could have to rely increasingly on government programs for support.
Second, for those people who do not receive damages for economic loss, the basis of determining the quantum of these damages will reduce the amount of damages that would otherwise have been determined. Again, to the extent that the damages do not permit these people either to be rehabilitated or to live a reasonably fulfilling life, these people will have to find the necessary funds from their own resources. This is clearly a direct and adverse impact on their cost of living. Moreover, as people have more serious injuries, presumably the prospect of them having to rely on government programs is also increased.
It is simply not correct, therefore, to suggest that this bill will lead to lower CTP insurance premiums—indeed, on the form of this government’s promises, one can expect that they will not, and we have not seen a decrease in premiums over the last four years—or that it will not be neutral with respect to cost-of-living pressures. While it is easy to see the reality of CTP insurance premiums in the context of cost of living, it is much harder to quantify the cost-of-living outcomes for people who have been injured. These people must not be ignored or overlooked in our consideration of this important matter.
In addition to the cost imposts on these two groups of people, there are other avoidable costs. It is easy to make the existing process more efficient and cost-effective—I will outline the detail of this in the detail stage—thus reducing unnecessary costs on the CTP regime. On balance, therefore, we are not persuaded that the bill we are debating today in its current form is appropriate, given the recent history of reform to CTP insurance in the ACT and given the consequences for all injured parties, including those people who are injured in motor vehicle crashes.
I will be proposing a number of amendments to the bill to make the operation of the CTP insurance regime more efficient and effective. My amendments will make the CTP insurance regime more flexible, more cost-effective for claimants and more certain in terms of outcomes for all parties. I need to comment on my first amendment. This will remove the requirement for a certificate of readiness to be available that says a party is ready for trial. This amendment will remove unnecessary cost imposts on matters which are being dealt with in conferences. At present, the act requires a certificate to be available. It is very unlikely, however, that at that point all matters will be discovered and agreed. Hence, it is simply not possible for a certificate to be available. What this means is that parties have to go to court to get an exemption from the requirement, and we all know that every time you go to court, somebody pays. My understanding is that this cost will be in excess of $5,000 to achieve a position which should not have been required in the first place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video