Page 1407 - Week 04 - Thursday, 4 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR COE: It is interesting that Mr Barr should say he is not expecting that. That was not what we were told in the briefing. This may well be one of the most important pieces of legislation that we debate this term, and it is a shame that the government is trying to rush it through.
The Canberra Liberals believe that Canberrans should have access to an affordable and comprehensive CTP scheme. We will persist in our efforts to protect the rights of vulnerable Canberrans and hold this Labor-Greens government to account for their bad deal. This bill puts the interests of insurance companies ahead of Canberrans, ahead of innocent motor accident victims. We will not be supporting it.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (4.47): As has been noted by the previous speakers this bill proposes major changes to the compulsory third-party insurance scheme for motor vehicles in the ACT. It has been developed over a long period and been subject to a significant amount of community and stakeholder commentary and input. Unlike all other bills before this Assembly this bill was developed through a deliberative democracy process undertaken by a citizens jury. The ACT Greens have advocated for the citizens jury process. In fact, the Greens-ALP parliamentary agreement requires that the government run these kinds of deliberative democracy processes to better involve the community in decision-making.
The CTP citizens jury consisted of 50 Canberrans, and the jury process was managed by a professional deliberative democracy facilitator. It was an interesting issue for a citizens jury to examine because there are a lot of very technical and financial issues, but there are also some very complex questions about community values about who should pay for things and who should be eligible for compensation.
Some limitations were placed on the jury which meant that it was not as good a process and outcome as possibly it could have been otherwise. For instance, the jury could only consider schemes that are privately underwritten and that did not raise the cost of premiums. I will speak more about that.
The new CTP scheme in this bill seeks to implement basically what the jury asked for, and this a point that opponents of the scheme should look at. Everyday Canberrans spent real time and real effort looking at CTP and weighing it up and they decided on this scheme. We should value this input from our community representatives. I have to say that it was vastly more constructive than the input we got from the unfortunate committee investigation. The combined report only said that there was an investigation. It was a real plus for the jury that they did so well.
The biggest positive of this scheme is that it will cover the drivers who are unable to show that anyone else was at fault in an accident. Someone injured as a result of a momentary lapse of concentration, a coughing fit, or being hit by an animal for example will now be able to receive support and seek treatment for their injuries through the CTP scheme.
Under the existing scheme these people have no means to seek financial support for what can be serious and life-changing injuries. This is a good and important change
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video