Page 3356 - Week 08 - Thursday, 23 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Given that we will not get those things the minister claims we will get, given that we will not get a balance in what we do, given that we will not get better process, given that it will take away the rights of individuals, the opposition will not be supporting the bill in its current format. But it will move sensible amendments to improve the process and protect the rights of individuals, thereby having a balance to satisfy all of the requirements of what we as a community not just want but deserve—the protections that our insurance system offers us.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (11.29): I think the first point to be made about this debate is that it can easily become emotive and play on different prejudices, be they of lawyers or insurance companies. Descending to that does not do justice to what are some very challenging issues.
Unlike many other debates in this place, our decision on this bill will have an everyday impact for most people and a very acute impact on a considerable number of Canberrans every year through no fault of their own. We have the very difficult task of balancing those competing interests and making a public policy decision that will have a very significant impact on people’s lives.
In amongst all the complexity of the scheme and competing options for reform, there is a basic question to be asked: what level of cover do we want to compel Canberrans to purchase? We all know that driving is a risky activity and that the unfortunate reality is that it is one of the riskiest things most of us will do on any given day. Compelling people to purchase insurance for that activity is a very sensible policy that we have had for some 60 years. Compelling the purchase of insurance spreads the cost of driving across all drivers and ensures that those who are injured in motor accidents are covered by insurance for that loss.
Insurance is a unique product, unlike just about everything else we buy. When we purchase insurance, we hope that we will never have to use it. CTP insurance is no different. No-one wants to be in an accident; but we want to know that, if we are, we have insurance to protect us from the loss we suffer. Of course, we also want to pay no more than is reasonably necessary for that cover. Added to that, I suspect that people across Canberra, if given the choice, would choose different levels of cover, just as they do for other types of insurance.
All these competing interests and issues make this a very difficult issue. I do not have a definitive answer about what that level of cover should be; it is almost an impossible question to answer. We can never know the different impacts that an accident will have on any given individual, and I have to say that being charged with the task of choosing the level of cover that should be applied when the consequences are so great and we can never really know what they will be is a task that I have really struggled with.
In assessing the bill, I think it is important that we consider where these proposed changes came from. These amendments essentially copy the scheme in New South Wales. That scheme was created in the late 1990s as a response to the insurance crisis. They were designed by insurance companies to manage the risk they found
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video