Page 3360 - Week 08 - Thursday, 23 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is important to put on the record that, despite some fairly ordinary and outrageous claims from some in this debate, the government’s bill in no way reduces access to compensation for future medical care, rehabilitation, home care or loss of income. All people injured through the negligence of others in motor accidents will retain their existing right to have compensation assessed and awarded for these categories of damages. The bill does not in any way alter or detract from those rights. Rather, it facilitates access to them. And, of course, it provides a direct pathway to judicial review in connection with impairment assessment disputes, preserving a right to contest access to non-economic loss and to obtain a court decision with respect to it.
The issue of human rights has been raised in relation to the impact of a number of these reforms. I have provided information in the government response to the scrutiny of bills committee; however, I think it is worth spending a moment touching on some of the issues here this morning.
With regard to the impairment threshold, it is important to recognise that the threshold criteria only apply to non-economic loss. I reiterate that a claimant’s right to ask a court to assess their claim for all other heads of damages is not removed. This includes all costs and expenses incurred by the claimant. Indeed, claimants have the right to seek a judicial review of a medical assessment with respect to the threshold. Implementing a threshold is a key component of improving the CTP scheme. It ensures the most severely injured persons are still able to claim pain and suffering in respect of the significant and ongoing, but unquantifiable in monetary terms, impact their injury it will have on themselves, their families and their carers for the rest of their lives.
The government recognises the costs of appropriate treatment and rehabilitation. If a person is injured in a motor vehicle accident, it can be sudden, and indeed can be expensive. That is why the government proposes to enhance the focus on early treatment and rehabilitation already in the CTP law by encouraging persons with minor injuries to promptly seek treatment, with less concern for the amount of their damages claim. The current CTP scheme too firmly emphasises maximising lump sum payments using the court system process. This can be prolonged and acts to the detriment of early treatment and rehabilitation. Instead, the bill encourages early rehabilitation and the speedy resolution of CTP claims.
Members will be aware of the government’s response to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts report on the bill. The government has accepted the committee’s finding in relation to the 28-day time frame to give notice of an injury, and this has been dealt with by way of an amendment to the bill.
Finally, I would like to turn briefly to the 2008 CTP reforms, the claim made by some that they have had no impact. Our recent review indicates there have been benefits from the legislative changes introduced in 2008. There is some increased focus on treatment and there has been some downward pressure on premiums. However, the review was really only able to look at less complex cases, as more complex cases were still in the process of settling. Nevertheless, as the government has previously made clear, it is unlikely that the 2008 legislation would continue to place significant
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video