Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3003 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
There are a number of process advantages to the option of the single mandatory scheme for the ACT. The provisions we have are based on the Queensland claims procedures for personal injury, which were modelled on successful, implemented procedures under the Queensland Motor Accident Insurance Act of 1994.
Procedures in the bill provide for full disclosure of all relevant material and facilitate cooperation at an early stage between the parties. And the provisions are ideal for application to motor accident claims. The government won't support the proposals proposed by the Greens.
MR STEFANIAK (11.27): Nor will the opposition, for the reasons mentioned by the previous two speakers.
That Ms Tucker's amendments Nos 1 and 2 be agreed to.
The Assembly voted-
Ayes 3 Noes 12 Mrs Cross Mr Berry Mr Pratt Ms Dundas Mr Corbell Mr Quinlan Ms Tucker Mr Cornwell Mr Smyth Mrs Dunne Mr Stanhope Ms Gallagher Mr Stefaniak Mr Hargreaves Mr Wood
Question so resolved in the negative.
MR SPEAKER: A pair is in operation for Ms MacDonald and Mrs Burke. Are you going to pursue your next three amendments, Ms Tucker?
MS TUCKER (11.32): Yes. I seek leave to move amendments 3 to 5 together.
MS TUCKER: I move amendments 3 to 5, as circulated, together [see schedule 3 at page 3092].
These next three amendments go to the question of full and/or early disclosure. Full disclosure, as the bill requires, would mean that every piece of information a claimant has would have to be given to the respondent early on in the process. That will create a tendency for plaintiffs to seek out safe opinions rather than go to a full range of experts, as a contradictory opinion could be used by the defendant against them.