Page 1414 - Week 04 - Thursday, 4 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The jury first met on 14 and 15 October and 28 and 29 October 2017. Over these four days, plus many hours in between, the jury heard evidence from injured people and past CTP claimants as well as medical, legal and insurance experts. They analysed research and submissions provided by these experts and considered the feedback provided by the Canberra community, which informed their discussions and debate.
Community feedback had been gathered through a broad consultation prior to the commencement of the jury process. Through this consultation the government received around 1,435 pieces of feedback, including 725 survey responses, 328 pieces of feedback on individual CTP priorities, 263 online quiz responses and 119 comments and submissions. All of this community feedback was provided to jury members to inform their deliberations. In the first stage of deliberation the jury was tasked with answering the question: “What should be the objectives of an improved CTP scheme to best balance the interests of all road users?” The jury’s report for this first stage of their work notes:
The Jury process was contentious at times with jurors representing a wide variety of values and perspectives.
In spite of this, the jury was able to develop six overarching objectives which broadly reflected the perspective of this diverse jury. The priorities that were identified by the jurors and that underpin the CTP model being implemented in this bill were (1) early access to medical treatment, economic support and rehabilitation services; (2) equitable cover for all people injured in a motor vehicle accident; (3) a value-for-money and efficient system; (4) promote broader knowledge of the scheme and safer driver practices; (5) implement a support system to better navigate the claims process; and (6) a system that strengthens integrity and reduces fraudulent behaviour.
These objectives were provided to the stakeholder reference group, which included insurers but also the legal profession, a healthcare consumer representative, a rehabilitation researcher and representatives of the ACT government. An expert scheme designer with input from the reference group then worked to develop four models in line with the jury’s priorities. The four models were released publicly on your say for community members to review.
Members of the jury met again on 24 and 25 March 2018. At this meeting the scheme designer presented the four models. The jurors were able to ask questions of reference group members in attendance on the day and they voted on which model best met the objectives they had previously set. The model selected by the jury included the following elements: up to five years treatment care and income benefits for anyone injured in a motor vehicle accident, regardless of who was at fault; quality-of-life benefits which provide compensation for non-financial loss, available for all people who meet injury thresholds; and access to common law for anyone whose injury was caused by someone else’s negligence and who is more seriously injured.
I had the opportunity to observe the jury deliberating on a couple of occasions, including on the final weekend of the citizens jury, when they met to select a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video