Page 1539 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 14 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
injured people and the requirements placed on insurers to deal fairly with them in administering the scheme.
I can foreshadow that the government will not be supporting the majority of amendments proposed by the opposition. They would fundamentally alter the core features of the model chosen by the citizens jury on CTP and run counter to the objectives of offering fairer and faster access to support, as well as directing a larger share of the scheme’s resources to those who are more seriously injured.
If the Liberals’ amendments were passed today, indicative costings show that this would add at least $100 to $140 to premiums for an annual motor accident insurance policy. This means that premiums would be at least 25 per cent higher under the Liberals’ plans than they will be under the legislation as it stands. That would make premiums higher than they are today under the current scheme, putting even more cost of living pressure on households.
When the government commenced this reform process, we were clear that premiums would not rise as a result of it. This was a clear commitment that we made, and we have designed a scheme that expands the number of Canberrans who are covered by 40 per cent. There is a 40 per cent expansion in the number of Canberrans covered by this scheme, whilst at the same time actually reducing premiums.
The new scheme laid out in this bill will deliver better outcomes for Canberrans by offering everyone—I repeat, everyone—who needs treatment, care and income replacement benefits for up to five years to support their recovery, as well as preserving the ability of people who are more seriously injured to make a claim for further support through common law.
This is a good reform, a reform that we are delivering in an affordable way for Canberrans. Madam Speaker, this is likely to be a very lengthy debate, so I will shut up now and we will get on with the detail stage. I commend this legislation to the Assembly.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (10.48): Madam Speaker, on the entirety of this legislation, rather than on clause 1 specifically, firstly I think it is important that I reiterate that we did oppose this legislation in principle; so it is unreasonable for Mr Barr to try to concoct this argument that we are trying to push up premiums by $140 when actually our preferred option is not to go ahead with this at all.
However, if the government is going to go ahead with this, with the Greens’ support, then we are at least trying to make this fair. It is unfortunate that we have to move all these amendments in an attempt to fundamentally alter the core features of this bill, as the Chief Minister put it. We are trying to fundamentally alter the core features of this bill, and the ball is in the Greens’ court as to whether you want to fundamentally alter the core features of this bill. If not, you are siding with the government in eroding the benefits that so many people currently require after they are in a motor vehicle accident.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video