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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3004 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The Law Society has put the view that the full disclosure provisions of the Queensland scheme have resulted in plaintiffs and defendants being at loggerheads with competing experts. It also argues that the broadness of disclosures in this bill will discourage parties from making comprehensive notes and statements for fear of being forced to produce them.

These amendments simply narrow the requirement to the disclosure of documents on which they will rely. They shift the focus from full to early disclosure.

MS DUNDAS (11.33): I will also be supporting these amendments, because I do agree that a requirement for full disclosure may lead to a mindset on the part of the plaintiff that they have to think strategically about the medical advice and care they seek, to avoid prejudicing a future claim. We have all encountered unsympathetic doctors at one time or another who have dismissed a genuine symptom that we have described.

It appears that the government's clauses at this point could effectively prevent injured people acting in the best interest of their recovery to health by encouraging excessive caution. Hence I think Ms Tucker's amendments seek to remove that.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (11.34): Mr Speaker, the government opposes these amendments. The government, in opposing them, is responding to, most certainly, detailed recommendations of the Neave legal process reform group which recommended that all courts move to introduce a whole suite of options relating to the better use of evidence, including requirements to disclose all expert witness reports, with a determination that claims be settled as early as possible.

The whole thrust of the government's approach in this tort law reform exercise has been to facilitate, in the first place, mediation and an avoidance of action; in the second place, an early settlement of claims to avoid expensive litigation. By streamlining processes, streamlining the operation of the courts, we can actually reduce the cost of litigation; we can hold litigation down; and we can, through a more refined, a more efficient and a better operating justice and court system, genuinely attack the cost drivers that have driven at one level the cost of pursuing action up.

That was the recommendation of Professor Neave and her inquiry into legal process form. We've adopted that recommendation; we think it was soundly based; we think that the review that was undertaken by Professor Neave and her group was rigorous; they consulted widely. Certainly it's the case, as Ms Tucker puts, that the Law Society has an objection to what they see as a move away from full disclosure to a determination to seek earlier disclosure. The Law Society's insisting that that in some way disadvantaged plaintiffs. It's not the view of the government, and it's contrary to the intent that we're pursuing in relation to this whole suite of reform.

Members should also note that the major thrust of an earlier major inquiry and report in relation to conduct of litigation in the UK, the Woolf report, which was conducted in 1996, was that litigation should be less adversarial and more cooperative. That's what we're seeking to achieve through this entire reform process-less adversarial litigation, more cooperative litigation. It's noteworthy that Woolf reported-and I think we've all

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