Page 3357 - Week 08 - Thursday, 23 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
themselves exposed to and ensure their profitability. The reason that they are being proposed here is to make the ACT market more attractive to other insurers. There is no science behind the particular measures that are being proposed; largely, they just reflect what took place in New South Wales. Why do we want to make the discount rate five per cent? Simply because that is what it is in New South Wales—not because there has been any analysis of the fairness of that change; it is because that is what they do in other states.
I would also say that I do not think that this is the only option for reform, and we should not see it as a “take it or leave it”. There is a range of ways that we can control the way the pool of money is divided up to ensure that the scheme is as efficient as possible and that we charge the lowest possible premiums for the best possible cover for the community.
In working out how we achieve that aim, there are a number of factors that need to be considered. The first, which I think we probably all agree on, is that the number one output of the scheme is that it facilitates the best possible health outcomes.
The government has raised the argument that the current scheme creates a perverse incentive not to get better and that the proposed changes will promote better health outcomes. Last year Jon Stanhope wrote an article entitled “The case for compulsory third party insurance reform in the Australian Capital Territory”, which was published in the Canberra Law Review. In that article, he cites two studies which found that the average recovery from whiplash injury was faster under the New South Wales scheme than under the ACT scheme. Conversely, the submission by the Law Society cites different studies that conclude that that is not the case. And I have seen other studies that also disagree with the position advocated by Mr Stanhope.
The difficulty I have with the argument that recovery times are improved is that I cannot see any measure in the bill that will achieve this aim and cannot agree that essentially anticipating that people will do the wrong thing or that they are not motivated to get better should be a reason to reduce the available compensation to everyone.
There is no question that we should be encouraging people to get the health care they need as quickly as possible and to resolve their claims as quickly as possible and get on with their lives as best as is possible. The Greens believe that there are ways of achieving this in a more sophisticated manner than the blunt instrument proposed, which would effectively exclude injured people from compensation for their non-economic loss.
This has been a particularly controversial proposal. Like all members, I have had a very large number of emails and phone calls, probably more than for any other issue over the term of this Assembly. Many of these have been from people who have been injured, arguing vehemently against the changes. Not a single person who has been involved in an accident has supported the changes. I think that this is an important point. Suppose we have the proposed scheme in place and premiums are slightly less. I do not believe that if you asked anyone who had been in an accident if they could go back in time, pay an extra $20 or $30 in their premium and be compensated for the non-economic loss, they would decline that opportunity.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video