Page 1170 - Week 03 - Thursday, 31 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
over two years, and clearly patterns of behaviour in response to these reforms are only now becoming evident. It is completely premature to propose further reforms until the existing reforms have been shown to be deficient, and at this point that is not the case.
Moreover, the review of the current reforms, which is required under section 275 of the act, has not been undertaken because the three-year period has not been reached. It must be remembered that is the agreed period that the members of this place put in place back in 2008.
The Treasurer is not doing anyone any favours with the bill she has presented. She is not approaching the formation of public policy in a responsible way. She is rushing off with proposals that may not be necessary, but we do not know. She is building expectations in the community which may not be realised.
This brings me to the reforms which the Assembly implemented in 2008. When the then Treasurer, Mr Stanhope, introduced those reforms, he made a number of comments, including that the reforms would “encourage other insurers to recognise the ACT as a compatible, open market jurisdiction”, that the reforms have a “primary emphasis on health outcomes” and that the intention of these reforms is to improve health outcomes for those injured as a result of motor vehicle accidents, to foster competition and to reduce CTP premiums. He also went on to say that the reform package would lower premiums motorists pay. So we need to question whether or not any of that has been achieved.
I must emphasise a number of points. The expectations of the ACT government at the time of the 2008 reform package with respect to health outcomes, premiums and competition were quite clear. There has been insufficient time for trends in any of these parameters to become properly evident. A formal review of the reforms is to be undertaken after three years.
I do not accept, therefore, that the latest package of reforms from the Treasurer to the ACT’s CTP insurance is soundly based. I propose, as a consequence, that the only proper way forward with the Treasurer’s bill is to refer it to the public accounts committee. This will enable the public accounts committee to consider the latest package of proposals along with suggestions which have been made by other organisations, for instance, the Law Society, and by taking into account the outcome of the review that will be conducted by the government after 30 September this year.
There are going to be some amendments, it appears, in an attempt to set a date. My motion as such did not set a date, simply because it is unclear as to what will be practical. It will depend firstly and foremostly on whether or not the government are organised to start their review on 1 October and how quickly they can finish that review, do the normal government process of taking such a review through the cabinet process and, as the act says, deliver it to the Assembly. The Treasurer can of course do that out of session and then refer the act to the public accounts committee. That committee then have to consider whether or not they will conduct any further inquiries on the matter once they have got the government’s review, whether they will call for submissions and whether or not they will hold further hearings.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video