Page 1408 - Week 04 - Thursday, 4 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that recognises our transport system results in significant numbers of people being injured and that these people should be helped to recover. The modelling estimates that about 600 ACT residents per year are injured and cannot get assistance through CTP because they are considered to be at fault. We should not continue to deny assistance to these people.
Removing the need to prove fault also means that people can get earlier access to medical treatment, economic support and rehabilitation services earlier. This was a key principle emphasised by the citizens jury. As the Assembly committee on CTP noted, the most consistent theme of the evidence presented to the committee was that getting help takes an unreasonably long time during which injuries can go untreated and lost income can create significant financial stress.
The existing scheme provides most people $5,000 for the first six weeks, but if you are significantly injured that will not go far. The new CTP model proposes the uses of defined benefits under which injured people can receive treatment for care and lost wages. It restricts common-law access to matters where a person is assessed as having at least 10 per cent whole person impairment, or WPI. This whole person impairment is one of the most controversial aspects of the proposed scheme, and I will discuss it more later.
The new scheme should see fewer claims going through a protracted legal process and see injured people getting faster access to the support and treatment they need. The CTP report tabled by Mr Barr yesterday showed that claims in the ACT often take many years to resolve, an average of nearly four years for large claims. People are currently left to cover the treatment and lost income costs themselves, a situation which can significantly interfere with people’s wellbeing and recovery and is simply untenable for some. In the new scheme payments will begin as soon as the claim is lodged, and insurers are required to cover certain costs while they assess the application.
Not surprisingly the new scheme with its limits on common-law access is not supported by bodies representative of lawyers in Canberra. I note that in the current scheme around a quarter of all income to the scheme goes to legal and investigation costs. Stunningly, that is about the same amount that goes into treatment and care benefits for injured people. I am very hopeful that the new scheme will see more money—a higher proportion of the costs of the scheme—going to injured people for their care, that being after all the purpose of the scheme.
Considering the positives of the new model, including its development by a citizens jury, early access to treatment and benefits and the inclusion of at-fault drivers, the new scheme is overall a win for Canberra’s travelling public.
The Greens did not start from this position of course. In our view the original version of this bill was problematic and did not faithfully implement the principles supported by the jury. We have spent a lot of time raising concerns with the government about the potential for injured people to be left worse off and to face barriers when navigating a new system. We were very clear publicly and in correspondence and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video