Page 1172 - Week 03 - Thursday, 31 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As I said, while the general premise is easy, the specific operation is very difficult, and non-government members currently only have a limited amount of information and data available to them. This is a key reason why it is reasonable to have a committee inquiry into the matter, so that we all have the benefit of more extensive research and a better understanding of possible improvements that could be made.
The government do have the benefit of significantly more information than the opposition and the crossbench and I understand that they are legitimately limited in what they can provide. However, it is not reasonable for us to rely on assertions. The Greens are committed to evidence-based policy and our understanding is that there is much more data available and that with the benefit of that data we will be in a much better position to make an informed decision about the proposed reforms.
The government has put forward one model based on a scheme which I guess is looking at how insurance companies can reduce premiums. I understand the government’s desire to reduce premiums. No-one would argue that we should be trying to reduce waste and unnecessary costs within the scheme. However, we need to be sure that that will in fact be the consequence and be confident that the reduction is justified.
I understand that there may be, and I guess there is, a level of frustration that the proposed reforms are being delayed and I do note the Treasurer’s public comments in relation to the ACT Greens’ decision to not support the bill until a review has been undertaken. Of course, that review, as Mr Smyth has mentioned, is in the legislation. A review mechanism was put in so that the act, after three years of operation, can be reviewed. We already had significant changes from the previous arrangements to this act and that is why it was a good idea to put in a review mechanism. At the time the bill was debated it was recognised that a three-year period was a reasonable time frame to be able to understand the impacts of the scheme, and there is no evidence to suggest that this is not still the case.
I should take the opportunity to acknowledge the diligence of the government in providing briefings to answer questions during the exposure draft period and I do offer a commitment to work with both parties on the issue. The Greens are very keen to resolve the issue and very much encourage the government to undertake the statutory review as quickly as possible so that the public accounts committee can review the scheme with the benefit of that information and we can then debate the merits of the bill with the necessary information before us as soon as is reasonably possible.
I have no reason to believe that there is an urgent need for the reforms and I do not believe that it is reasonable for the Assembly to consider the bill, which does have the potential to significantly impact upon injured persons’ lives, without all the information that we need in order to make a considered, careful decision.
I would reiterate that the Greens agree with the premise that the scheme can be improved. It is not perfect and it is not unreasonable to expect that there is a solution
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video