Page 940 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Equally, the bill does not allow the scheme participants to sue for damages with respect to such services, and linked to that is that it is noted that there is no recourse for legal representation for scheme participants and that there is an awful lot of power vested in the commissioner and the review panels. In the bill as proposed, if you have an issue, you go before a panel. If you are not happy with their determination or their decision, you then go to a review panel. If you are not happy with that, it would appear that it is bad luck, unless of course there is a point of law and the AD(JR) becomes involved.
I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that to have the commission make the original decision and a panel appointed by the commission make the final decision means that the commission really does have a lot of power vested in it. It would not be unreasonable, for instance, for somebody to take it to ACAT. It is a well-known process in the ACT. It seems to be working reasonably well. Why could they not be an appeal body in this case? Establishing an avenue for reviews to be heard through ACAT seems reasonable.
This bill is, in effect, expecting catastrophically injured individuals to be representing themselves, because the bill does not allow for the payment of legal expenses. So if I go into the scheme and I have a falling out with the scheme, I am upset with the decision of the scheme or I do not like one of the determinations, virtually I, the patient, cannot now appeal what is going on. And if I were able to do that, the commissioner is excluded from paying legal fees. If there is a case to be made, people need the assistance if they are not in a position to pay.
I have some amendments to assist that. I am sure members in this chamber can understand that somebody with a brain injury or recovering from a permanent injury will perhaps not be fully capable to represent themselves and will need the assistance of legal counsel. As I have said, family and friends who have been called on to provide care would not be in the right state to perhaps provide representational assistance, not to mention that many of them would not be properly skilled to give such advice.
The last bit of the bill relies heavily on guidelines issued by the commissioner as notifiable instruments. I think there is a valid point to be made that the reliance on variable guidelines as opposed to legislation can render long-term treatment and support somewhat uncertain, and dramatic changes could occur without this place being consulted. We would certainly see them but we would not have the opportunity. So I think the move to change notifiable instruments to disallowable instruments in this case is warranted.
I look forward to the determination of the cost of the additional premium that will go onto the registration fee. We were told it is expected to be approximately $34. That is interesting, given that we do not have an agreement with New South Wales. How would we know? I would hope that long term what we see is the setting up of the lifetime care and support service will actually dampen the volatility of premiums and perhaps, one would hope, lower CTP premiums would result.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video