Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (19 August) . . Page.. 2863 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

There are a number of factors here, some of them well and truly beyond the control of a little jurisdiction like that of the ACT. The fact is that we do have to follow suit with other jurisdictions. To some extent, I have some sympathy for the Chief Minister. I know that he very much believes in protecting the rights of people to sue. It might be a bit coloured, but I respect his opinion there, even though I would not totally share it. I can see where he is coming from, too, in relation to the insurance companies. But it is important that we have this reform and this is a very important reform package, apart from just the necessity caused by the medical indemnity insurance situation.

One further point I will make in relation to his press release is that I have not appreciated the doctor bashing statements coming out of the government, the comments about Rolls-Royces, as though somehow doctors are the enemy. Doctors are an essential part of our community. I recall an ABC interview with, I think, a Dr England of Lyneham who indicated basically that it was just all too much for him, a suburban practitioner. The cost of medical indemnity insurance was killing him, as was the worry that under the law as it was he could have hanging over his head a 24-year period in which he might be sued and that might be 22 or 23 years after he had retired.

That is a real problem, probably not just for doctors. There are similar problems in other professions. I do not think that that is something that any of us would particularly want to see happen. I think it is wrong to portray doctors as some sort of incredibly rich elite. I have known plenty of doctors who have given up practising because they simply were not making any money from it. It is a bit like being a rather poor suburban solicitor, and there are some of those. These professions are not the milch cows they were in the 1970s. The real problem with a lot of this was that it was causing members of the medical profession to consider whether they wanted to continue practising.

Mr Stanhope: What do they do instead? Have they retired or gone to other jobs?

MR STEFANIAK: I just wanted to make those points, Chief Minister. I think you have been somewhat unfair in your criticism of doctors here. They are perhaps very much the meat in the sandwich.

Going to some of the points in this reform package, I think the bill does go quite a long way to addressing a lot of the issues that have been raised. Chief Minister, the points you make in regard to it, including that you are including amendments not essential for implementation in the territory but as a basis of ensuring national consistency, are important.

The opposition will be supporting this bill. I have circulated three amendments to this bill, one in relation to a cap. This bill certainly is far better than the previous possible examples. It is the result of a lot of consultation-grudgingly given in some instances, but nevertheless consultation.

Chief Minister, I understand your remark that members of this house would appreciate that it would be counterproductive for us in the territory to retain a common law approach to the determination of liability in the face of widespread adoption of a new statutory framework by other states. That is important.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .