Page 1870 - Week 05 - Thursday, 16 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (4.58), by leave: I move amendments Nos 84 and 85 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 1901]. These amendments would ensure that insurers contact injured persons through their legal representatives if written notice has been received from the injured person. There is a clear power imbalance between the injured person and the insurer. These amendments will help protect individuals from undue pressure and will also protect them against an infringement of their legal rights. If these amendments get up, it will be because Labor or the Greens have supported what the Liberals have done. If they are rejected, it will be because Ms Le Couteur and Mr Rattenbury have supported the government against these amendments.
MR BARR (Kurrajong—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Social Inclusion and Equality, Minister for Tourism and Special Events and Minister for Trade, Industry and Investment) (4.59): The government will not be supporting these amendments. We are aware of the concern that the Leader of the Opposition has raised. However, the purpose of this clause is to ensure that an injured person receives timely information on their defined benefits treatment and care and income replacement.
The guidelines proposed for this clause will provide for the circumstances in which an insurer can contact an injured person. It is envisaged that if an injured person indicates they have legal representation then communications from injured persons would be copied to the representative, but the injured person would be the primary contact. Passing information through a legal representative is both time consuming and unnecessary. The guidelines will cover the concern that Mr Coe has outlined and provide a sensible, common-sense way to address this issue.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.00): The Greens do not support these amendments. The Liberal amendments propose that an insurer can only contact the injured person through the injured person’s lawyer, if the person has a lawyer. The guidelines already set out situations where an insurer is allowed to contact an injured person. The purpose is that an injured person can receive timely information on their matter relating to their treatment and care and income replacement. It seems totally over the top to restrict contact to occurring through lawyers. Potentially it just looks like something that is going to make communication slower and less efficient for everybody. It does not seem like a win for many people.
I note that one impact of this amendment would be that more time is spent by lawyers working on these matters. Therefore, I assume that there will be more legal fees incurred. This is not going to be a good outcome for injured people but presumably will be a good outcome for lawyers. Consistent with some of the previous Liberal amendments, this change appears to be designed to benefit lawyers, at the expense of injured people. The guidelines related to this clause, as Mr Barr said, will provide for the circumstances in which an insurer can contact an injured person. The concern here appears to be that an insurer might influence an injured person to accept an offer or settlement. I am not sure why the Liberal Party is not in favour of more direct communication.
Amendments negatived.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video