Page 3300 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 20 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, this is a simple bill which seeks to achieve two things. Firstly, it will extend the commencement date of the act. The Assembly passed the act in February this year, and it was notified on 26 February. The commencement provisions provided that it commence on a day notified in writing by the minister. The default commencement, in accordance with the Interpretation Act, is six months after the date of notification. Since the minister has not caused the act to commence, the default provision will kick in, meaning the act will commence next Tuesday, 26 August. I understand it will commence at 12.01 in the morning, which is before the Assembly sits. I will come to that later. The act contemplates some 80 regulations. These regulations have not yet been written, nor has there been any consultation with industry or the legal profession in relation to these regulations.
The legal profession, in particular, is very concerned that, even though some of the regulations might not be contentious, they should be made available and there should be some consultation on them before the act actually comes into force. The legal profession is concerned that any new act can have teething problems. If this act comes into force before the regulations are written and before there is any consultation on them, there is a real risk that injustice will be served upon those whom the law should be trying to help—in this instance, those injured in motor vehicle accidents. A delayed commencement date will provide additional time for the regulations to be written, for consultation on the regulations to take place, and for stakeholders to adequately prepare before the regulations and the act come into force. Accordingly, I suggest a commencement date in this bill of 1 March 2009.
A teething problem is the very reason for the second amendment contained in my bill. Currently the act, at section 86, contemplates that, if a nominal defendant does not submit a notice of claim in respect of a motor vehicle accident within three months of the accident, the claim is “barred”. Sometimes a claim might depend on the progress of other processes outside the control of the nominal defendant, such as police reports or proceedings in the Coroner’s Court. Indeed, I am told police reports often might take four or five months for various reasons—for example, people may be traumatised, people give the wrong information or the wrong registration numbers are taken down. This tends to delay the process. There is any number of reasonable reasons as to why three months is sometimes quite impractical.
Given that these reports often take longer than three months, I would suggest the operation of this section potentially could cause the injustices I referred to earlier, and my amendment will enable a court, on application by the nominal defendant—the insurer—to grant an extension of time for a notice of claim if the court is satisfied that the later day is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. This will provide more certainty to the industry as well as to those involved in motor vehicle accidents, particularly injured third parties, the very people whom this act is designed to assist.
It is very important that this bill be debated prior to 26 August, as I said. I have had a brief discussion with the Attorney-General in relation to that. Initially, there was some feeling this bill could be debated today, but I am quite comfortable for it to be debated tomorrow. That will give government and other members time to have a look at it. If there is anything that can be amended to make the bill better, I am very comfortable for that to happen. It is absolutely essential that we have that commencement date of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .