Page 3650 - Week 08 - Friday, 24 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This is an outcome that the government simply cannot support. We have not gone through this exercise in order to wind back reforms from 2008. Although we will not get out of this process the reforms that we want, we certainly do not wish to be party to an exercise that unwinds the reforms that have already taken place.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (5.47): The Greens will agree to Mr Smyth’s amendment No 1. We think that this is an unnecessary requirement that slows down the compulsory conference provisions and adds costs to that process. We want people to have the compulsory conference as quickly as is reasonably possible, while ensuring that parties can actually settle their claims at that conference, and that they do have all the information before them.
In supporting this provision, we do believe that it is necessary to have a provision allowing courts to penalise parties who do not properly fulfil their obligations to fully disclose the information they intend to rely on.
Proposed new clause 14A agreed to.
Clause 15.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (5.48): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 3684].
The amendment concerns non-economic loss. Section 141(5) requires a mandatory final offer from a respondent to specify how much of an offer comprises recognition for non-economic loss—that is, general damages. In this section and in two associated sections—155(5) and 156(7)—damages are defined to exclude any provision for pain and suffering or, in the latest approach, non-economic loss. Apparently this exclusion applies only in the ACT, and it unfairly discriminates against a number of groups of people: children, mothers and disabled people who are not in the workforce, the elderly, and any other people who are injured and who are not in the paid workforce. My amendment will remove the discrimination against these people.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (5.49): We will not be supporting Mr Smyth’s amendment No 2, nor we will be supporting amendments Nos 3 and 4. All deal with the issue of deemed settlements. I can certainly see the argument that if the offers are sufficiently close, it makes sense to deem them, include them and be done with the matter. There certainly is logic to that proposition.
The concern the government has raised is that this type of provision could potentially encourage parties to inflate their claims slightly, knowing that, so long as they are within a band, they will get a settlement. This argument could equally apply to both sides, and perhaps that negates the concern. Equally, given that the offers have to be quite close, common sense would suggest that the parties will settle at the figure instead of going to court anyway. The Greens are certainly open to this type of arrangement and will be happy to revisit it at a later stage. But, on balance, for the reasons I have explained, we will not be supporting the amendments today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video