Page 300 - Week 01 - Thursday, 13 February 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is very hard to see winners in this arrangement. Projected premium reductions have had to be revised down significantly. Tenders for significant elements of the scheme were being released only days before commencement, and we still do not have all the required regulations in place.
It supposedly has been the Chief Minister’s life’s work in the Assembly to get this done. He said in his presentation speech on the original legislation that this was one of the reasons he got into politics, that this was one of the most significant things he had done. Yet we have these fundamental problems with the principle and with the letter of the law. We already know that the government made it harder for not-at-fault victims to receive compensation. Only time will tell what other defects will be uncovered.
I thank the Law Society again for drawing the Assembly’s attention to this matter. I very much hope that there are not further significant problems with the legislation that is before us.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (4.58): This bill proposes a minor technical change to the motor accidents insurance act. The Greens supported the passage of that new act last year and moved or organised several amendments to improve it and make it fairer.
We recognise that the new act expanded the availability of compulsory third-party insurance to cover drivers who are technically at fault. This means that a person who is injured due to a momentary lapse of attention or because they hit an animal will be able to receive support and treatment for these injuries through the CTP scheme. This is a very important improvement to the CTP scheme, as previously those people were not covered. The scheme now provides much fairer access across our community.
One of the many amendments in the motor accidents insurance act was the addition of a power for a regulation to prescribe the legal costs and fees payable by applicants and insurers in relation to applications for defined benefits. Basically what that means, I understand, in English is that a regulation could set lawyers’ fees for CTP matters. The intent is to help get a fair outcome for injured people and to ensure that more money goes to them instead of to lawyers. One of the ideas is that injured people should not have to pay excessive amounts for legal services. My memory is that the Liberal Party was not very enthusiastic about that part of the bill. They were not enthusiastic about all of it, of course. I wondered whether this was around supporting higher fees for the legal profession. I simply do not know.
The reformed CTP scheme has just commenced operation. I understand that the legal profession has suggested that the wording of the legislation means that they cannot charge any fees at all in a CTP matter unless a regulation has been made. I know that that was not the intent of the legislation but, as Mr Coe says, it is probably not the best thing to do to try to argue with the Law Society about how you interpret legislation. It is certainly way beyond my pay grade.
So I support the amendment proposed by the government to clarify that legal fees are only restricted if a regulation about fees is actually enacted. It is a simple clarification. On behalf of the Greens, I support it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video