Page 3655 - Week 08 - Friday, 24 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The ACT government is planning to use this document for a purpose for which it was not intended. Given that it is not appropriate to use this guide in this way, this casts doubts on the approach proposed by the government in dealing with people who have been injured in crashes. I do not want to see this parliament make what could be considered a silly decision.
It was made very clear to the public accounts committee that, when these guides were put together, they were guides for doctors to talk to each other about the degree of impairment that a patient had suffered in an accident. What we have done, perhaps in the absence of a guideline that tells us what the impairment may relate to in terms of financial loss, is adopt something that clearly the American Medical Association says not to. Particularly we should not do this when there are possible alternative approaches.
Again in the public accounts committee it was brought to our attention that there is an English document, Guidelines for the assessment of general damages in personal injury cases. This was actually designed to detail what the compensation should be in terms of personal injury cases. We are using a document that says, “Do not use this document for the purpose,” when we know there are other documents that exist. The Guidelines for the assessment of general damage in personal injury cases was prepared by the Judicial Studies Board in the United Kingdom. Possibly, with appropriate changes to take account of the Australian and ACT context, it could be used here in the ACT. The Guidelines for the assessment of general damage in personal injury cases in England is in its 10th edition. There are 10 editions over 20 years. So it is obviously a very current document. And my understanding is that it is well regarded in English legal circles. As to whether it is appropriate to use here or not, I have not got the time or the skills to go through and work out whether it is applicable here.
But the question is: do we pass a law today that encompasses the use of a document that was expressly written not to be used for this purpose or do we look at something in the future which is probably the better thing to do? And that was the recommendation of the public accounts committee.
An associated issue concerns prescribing a threshold for the determination of non-economic loss. Thresholds create complexity, they are arbitrary and they can create injustice. They should be avoided wherever possible.
I suggest that there are inappropriate or ill-thought-out provisions contained in clause 22 and that it would be premature to agree to this clause without much more careful consideration. There are questions about the discount rate. There are serious issues about the proposed threshold. There is increased bureaucracy involved in the medical assessment process. There will inevitably be increased costs flowing from these proposals for the ACT’s CTP insurance scheme. I propose therefore that clause 22 be omitted.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation) (6.07): The attempt to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video