Bills Digest No. 170 2004–05
Trade Practices Amendment (Personal Injury and Death) Bill 2004
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced
and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have
any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine
the subsequent official status of the Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
Trade Practices Amendment
(Personal Injury and Death) Bill 2004
Date Introduced: 9 December 2004
House: House
of Representatives
Portfolio: Treasury
Commencement: 28
days after Royal Assent
The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Trade Practices
Act 1974 (TPA) to prevent individuals recovering damages for personal
injury and death where there has been a contravention of Part V Division
1 of the TPA.
In 2002, the Federal, State and Territory
Governments put in place a series of measures to solve the public liability
insurance crisis. The review of the law of negligence, which was announced
by the Government in May 2002, was one such measure.(1) The
final report of the review(2), in this digest referred to as
the Ipp Report, was released in September 2002.
The amendments contained within the Bill give effect to Recommendation
19 of the Ipp Report. Recommendation 19 states that:
The TPA should be
amended to prevent individuals bringing action for damages for personal
injury and death under Part V Div I.
Public liability insurance has been described by Trowbridge Consulting
as ‘insurance for claims by third parties (the public) for personal injury
or property damage caused by or attributable to the negligence of the
insured’.(3)
The crisis in public liability insurance reached its height in 2002-2003.
The ACCC’s most recent report on insurance pricing notes that average
insurance premiums were stable between 1997 and 1999 at around $620 and
they then increased substantially between 1999 and 2003. In 2003 premiums
were on average $1366.(4) This rapid increase is illustrated
in the following table.(5)
In March 2002 in a report to the Government, the Trowbridge Consulting
Group noted that the insurance crisis was having the most significant
impact on community events, sporting events, tourism and leisure operations,
the retail industry and local non-government community groups that operate
under the umbrella of local government.(6) The report states
that these groups were finding it particularly difficult to obtain affordable
public liability insurance.(7) Significant anecdotal evidence
indicates that the operation of community groups and recreational activities
across the country were under threat of closure or had in fact closed
as a result of the insurance crisis.(8) Submissions to the
Senate Economics References Committee (SERC) which was inquiring into
the insurance crisis argued that such closures would have significant
detrimental social consequences.(9) The SERC also noted that
the crisis was impacting negatively on small business.(10)
Due to the lack of accurate statistics at the time of the crisis, it
was difficult to gauge its true cause however a number of factors were
identified as contributing to it.
The collapse of HIH insurance in 2001(11), terrorist bombings
on 11 September 2001(12) and a poor investment environment
were identified as factors leading to the crisis.(13)
It was also argued that there was a clear link between the insurance
crisis and personal injury laws. For example, the Assistant Treasurer,
Senator Helen Coonan argued that:
There is a widely
held view that the current problems in the insurance market are due
in large part to the operation of the legal system. It is clear that
the broader community is dissatisfied with the seemingly random nature
of court awards. There is also a strong perception that an increasing
culture of blame has emerged within our society. This has led individuals
to seek redress through the legal system where in similar circumstances
in the past, the individual would have been more prepared to assume
responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.(14)
Insurance analysts viewed the crisis as being part of the cyclical nature
of the insurance market. For example, in March 2002 Trowbridge Consulting
described the insurance market in the following way:
Insurance markets are renowned for their cyclical nature,
with extended periods (say three to five years) of stable or reducing
premiums, followed by a shorter period (usually two or three years)
of rapidly increasing premiums….(15)
In their view the highly priced insurance premiums during the insurance
crisis formed part of the cyclical nature of insurance premium pricing.
Although Trowbridge Consulting was of the opinion that the high insurance
premiums formed part of the insurance cycle they went on to argue that
intervention was required if more affordable premiums were to become available
in the short term. In their report to the March meeting of Commonwealth,
State and Territory insurance Ministers, Trowbridge Consulting argued
that:
Occasionally, however, the market cycles are so severe
that insurance becomes unavailable to some customers, or only available
at prices that the customers regard as unaffordable or unjustified.
We have such a situation now….(16)
While this phenomenon
can be regarded as the peak (or trough) of an insurance market cycle,
it is nevertheless to persist for another year or two at least unless
there is some external stimulus to or intervention in the market.(17)
In response to the crisis, the Ipp
review of negligence law was commissioned. When commissioned, the Ipp
review received widespread support from all Governments on the basis that
it was imperative that all Governments considered it imperative that any
immediate response to the perceived crisis in liability insurance was
required.
The Ipp review was asked to examine
personal injury law and to suggest reforms to the law which would have
the effect of decreasing the size and frequency of damages for personal
injury. The review’s terms of reference stated that:
It is desirable
to examine a method for the reform of the common law with the objective
of limiting liability and quantum of damages arising from personal injury
and death.(18)
The review was clearly
aimed at easing the pressure on public liability insurance premiums by
decreasing injured persons’ access to compensation.
As noted above, the review
was announced in May 2002 and the final report was released in September
2002. It would appear that the time taken to consider the issues was extremely
short. The outcomes of the negligence review were drawn together in the
Ipp Report. The Ipp Report recommended significant changes to the law
of negligence in Australia. In particular the Ipp Report suggested that
the rules relating to standard of care, causation and remoteness of damage
should be amended, the effect being to make it more difficult to establish
negligence. The report also recommended that rules relating to damages
awards needed to be modified, with the modifications including thresholds
and caps on damages where negligence had been established.
Many of the Ipp Report’s recommendations
have been implemented by the States and Territories, who have legislative
responsibility for negligence laws. When implementing the Ipp Report’s
recommendations, the Premier of New South Wales the Hon Bob Carr, reflected
the feelings of many of the States and Territories when he stated that:
A diverse range
of community groups, charities and organisations from across NSW including
Coffs Harbour’s Big Banana, the Cobar pool and the NSW Farmers Association
have endorsed the State Government’s public liability reforms…..
These reforms will
reinstate personal responsibility, reduce the culture of blame and avoid
the ‘Americanisation’ of the NSW Legal system.
Our reforms mean
we can all continue to enjoy the simple pleasures such as swimming at
the beach and community shows and fairs.(19)
The uncertainty with respect to whether the negligence law review has
been an appropriate response to the issue was reflected in an article
published in the Australian Bar Review, authored by the chair of the negligence
review, Justice Ipp, who wrote that:
There is no conclusive
evidence that the state of the law of negligence bears any responsibility
for this situation [the insurance crisis]. But the fact is that insurance
companies are not prepared to provide the necessary insurance (or are
only prepared to provide it at unaffordable rates), because of the unpredictability
of the law, the ease with which plaintiffs succeed and the generosity
of courts in awarding damages. There is evidence to suggest that the
insurance crisis is at least partly attributable to the conduct of certain
insurance companies but that is not to say that the state of the law
of negligence has not contributed to the current state of affairs.(20)
In a recent speech the Justice of the High Court, Michael Kirby argued
for balance in personal injury law stating that:
We have to be very careful in pushing the notions of
personal responsibility forward, in court decisions and legislation.
We have to beware that we do not remove entirely the role of the common
law as a standard setter for carefulness and accident prevention in
our society…..
Whilst in Australia we roll back the entitlements of
those who suffer damage, in the name of “personal responsibility” we
have to be careful that we do not reject just claims and reduce unfairly
sharing of risks in cases where things go seriously wrong.
There has also been significant media attention which has focused on
some of the negative aspects of the law reforms. Some newspaper articles
have suggested that there should be a more principled approach to tort
reform noting that the reforms are inconsistent with other areas of personal
injury law such as workers compensation law and have not been implemented
uniformly among the states and territories and.(21)
In July 2002, Senator Ian Campbell,
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, asked the ACCC to monitor
the costs and premiums in the public liability and professional indemnity
sectors of the insurance market on a six monthly basis. The ACCC was in
particular asked to monitor the impact of insurance premiums resulting
from measures taken by governments to reduce and contain legal and claims
costs.(22) The ACCC has now released the fifth of its price
monitoring reports. The report reveals that the insurance crisis has abated.
The ACCC report noted that between
the year ending 31 December 2003 and the half year ending 30 June 2004:
-
average public liability premiums decreased by 15 per cent
-
the average size of claims settled decreased by 11 per cent, and
-
most insurers experienced a fall in the frequency of claims.
In relation to a fall in the frequency of claims, most of
the insurers surveyed attributed this fall to an increase in the levels
of the excess on insurance policies and a change in the portfolio mix.
Only one insurer surveyed suggested that the law reforms may be acting
to remove small claims and hence reduce claim frequency.
The ACCC price monitoring report did not contain a discussion
regarding whether insurers considered that the fall in the size of claims
and insurance premiums was attributable to the law reforms.
In a recent article in the Australian Financial Review,
Alan Mason, who is the executive director of the Insurance Council of
Australia, wrote that ‘But we can say with confidence that tort reform
has had a positive effect on the market. Price increases have moderated
and availability has improved.’(23)
In relation to future insurance premium pricing, the ACCC’s
price monitoring report noted that the insurers made the following comments:
-
In the short term, the majority of insurers surveyed expected tort
law reforms to have some impact on costs and premiums.(24)
-
Most insurers expected reforms to have an impact on claims
costs and premiums in the future although they considered it was too
early to tell the extent to which reforms may act to reduce claims
costs, and(25)
-
Some insurers were concerned that the success of the reforms would
depend on courts’ attitudes when awarding damages and whether plaintiff
lawyers would find ways of circumventing the reforms.(26)
The amendments in the Bill relate
to Part V Division 1 of the TPA.
Part V Division 1 of the TPA contains
key consumer protection measures, the most commonly used ones being those
that deal with misleading and deceptive conduct(27) and false
and misleading representations.(28) Examples of other provisions
in Part V Division 1 of the TPA include those provisions that deal with
bait advertising,(29) harassment and coercion(30)
and pyramid selling.(31) Part V Division 1 does not contain
those provisions that regulate the supply of defective products.
Where provisions in Part V Division
1 of the Act are breached, a person may recover damages for any loss they
have suffered as a result of a contravention of the provision.(32)
Damages may be for purely economic loss (such as damage to property) or
may be to compensate a person for personal injuries or death brought about
by a breach of the provisions. In addition, consumers may seek injunctive
relief,(33) non-punitive orders,(34) punitive orders,(35)
and remedial orders.(36)
The Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission (ACCC) may take legal proceedings (referred to in the legislation
as ‘representative actions’) on behalf of a person who has suffered loss,
where any of the provisions in Part V Division 1 are breached.(37)
Criminal proceedings may also be brought
against persons who have breached any of the requirements (apart from
section 52 – misleading and deceptive conduct) in Part V Division
1 of the Act. A contravention of section 52 is not a criminal offence.
Part V Division 1 of the TPA is also
replicated by all the States and Territories in their own consumer protection
legislation.
As noted above, this Bill gives effect
to Recommendation 19 of the Ipp Report. This is the second attempt by
the government to legislate for this change. The first attempt was in
the Trade Practices (Personal Injury and Death) Bill 2003 (2003 Bill)
which was introduced into Parliament in 2003. Debate on the 2003 Bill
ended in a deadlock after the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Australian
Democrats (Democrats) proposed amendments to the Bill and these amendments
were rejected by the Government. The 2004 election was called and the
2003 Bill lapsed. As a result the Trade Practices (Personal Injury and
Death) Bill 2004 (2004 Bill) was introduced into the House of Representatives.
The 2004 Bill proposes that the TPA
be amended so that individuals will not be able to recover damages for
personal injury and death brought about by conduct in breach of Part V
Division 1 of the Act. The 2004 Bill also proposes to remove the ACCC’s
powers to bring actions on behalf of individuals to recover damages for
personal injury and death.
Under the amendments proposed in the
Bill, an individual will still be able to recover damages for economic
loss suffered as a result of conduct that breaches Part V Division 1 of
the Act. Similarly the ACCC will be able to bring representative actions
on behalf of individuals to recover damages for economic loss.
Criminal proceedings may still be
brought if a person suffers personal injury or dies as a result of conduct
in breach of Part V Division 1 of the TPA. Of course, criminal proceedings
will not be able to be brought where there is a contravention of section
52, as it is not a criminal provision. In addition, a court may issue
an injunction, or make punitive or non-punitive orders where the provisions
have been breached and this leads to personal injury or death.
The 2004 Bill is slightly different
to the 2003 Bill. The amendments in the 2004 Bill provide an exemption
for smoking and tobacco product cases. Therefore where a person suffers
personal injury or dies as a result of smoking or using tobacco products,
they will continue to be able to take legal proceedings under Part V Division
1 of the TPA. Note however that this cause of action must be brought within
three years from the date that the illness/injury was discovered. Similarly,
the ACCC will continue to have the power to bring representative actions
in smoking and tobacco cases.
The Ipp Report has argued that Part
V Division 1 of the TPA must be amended to prevent individuals bringing
actions for personal injury and death under this part of the Act. The
report argued that this change is necessary so that one of the key objectives
of the negligence review (that is to limit liability and quantum of damages
pay outs), is not undermined by plaintiffs relying on the TPA to recover
damages where damages could not be recovered under the law of negligence.
The Ipp Report acknowledges that plaintiffs have ‘rarely relied’ upon Part V
Division 1(38) to recover damages for personal injury or death.
The Ipp Report suggests that once its recommendations which relate to
the laws of negligence have been implemented and it becomes more difficult
to recover damages in negligence, Part V Division 1 of the Act may be
used as an alternative way to recover damages for personal injury and
death.(39) To illustrate this point, the report cited the example
of incorrect advice from architects and engineers leading to the collapse
of a structure with the result that a bystander is killed or injured,
as being a possible circumstance where a cause of action could be brought
under Part V Division 1 of the TPA.(40)
The Ipp Report argued
that it is not appropriate to recover damages for personal injury and
death under Part V Division 1 of the Act as fault is not an element in
the provisions in this part of the Act. In relation to section 52 the
report stated that:
Under s52, however,
the plaintiff can succeed merely by proving that the statement was misleading
or deceptive, even if the defendant made the statement with the utmost
care and with complete honesty.(41)
The report suggested
that a party should have to prove fault on the part of the defendant before
being able to receive compensation.
The report also argued
that when Parliament enacted Part V Division 1, it did not envisage that
plaintiffs would institute proceedings, under that part, to recover damages
for personal injury or death.(42) Therefore recommendation
19 of the Ipp Report would not alter the policy objective of Part V Division
1 of the Act.
As noted above, the Trade Practices
(Personal Injury and Death) Bill 2003 was extensively debated in the Senate
in late 2003 and early in 2004. The debate ended in a deadlock after the
ALP and the Democrats proposed amendments to the Bill and these amendments
were rejected by the Government.
During the debate, the ALP and the
Democrats put forward a number of arguments that they considered were
important to consider in weighing the merits of the proposed amendments.
Labor argued that it was important
to maintain the protections contained within Part V Division 1 of the
TPA. Senator Conroy stated that:
‘the TPA..…has encouraged companies to put an emphasis
on consumer safety. In Labor’s view, the complete removal of this incentive
as proposed in the bill runs the risk of undermining the high standard
of behaviour that consumers have come to expect’(43)
The ALP questioned whether retaining
the protections in Part V Division 1 would undermine tort law reforms
The government has argued that the toughening of negligence
laws by that states will encourage plaintiffs to explore using the Trade
Practices Act. Despite this claim, no evidence was submitted to the
committee indicting that the number of personal injury claims being
instituted under the TPA has increased since the state reforms were
enacted. Given that some of these reforms, such as the Civil Liability
Act in New South Wales have now been in operation since June 2002, that
is, over a year now-any trend towards the increased use of the TPA should
have become evidence by now(44)
This position was supported by the
Australian Democrats. Senator Ridgeway argued that the bill was a speculative
response to the insurance crisis
In fact, the Trade Practices Act has had no impact on
premium pricing in the past, and we are only debating this bill today
because of assumptions about the future(45)
The ALP considered that the amendments in the Trade Practices Amendment
(Personal Injury and Death) Bill 2003 were unnecessarily broad. The ALP
proposed alternative amendments. These amendments would bring the damages
regime for contraventions of Part V Division 1 of the TPA into line with
the damages regime that applies in cases of negligence. In particular,
the ALP proposed that the recent reforms to the damages regime which had
been carried out by the Sates and Territories as part of the tort law
reforms should be applied to actions under Part V Division 1 of the TPA.
This, Labor suggested, would stop forum shopping by potential litigants
and would preserve the rights of consumers.
In the course of debate on the Bill, Senator Conroy stated the following
In Labor’s view, the key problem is that personal injury
damages are capped under state and territory law but not under the TPA.
If forum shopping is to emerge at some future stage this will be the
key driver. In our view the danger can be addressed by pursuing an option…..that
damages for personal injury as a result of a breach of part V division
1 should be aligned with those available unde the relevant state or
territory civil liability law(46)
At the time of the debate, the Trade
Practices Amendment (Personal Injuries and Death) Act 2004 (TP Act
2004) had not been introduced into Parliament. However following its introduction
it was clear that the ALP’s proposed solution was broadly similar to the
changes proposed in this subsequent TP Act 2004 for calculating damages
under other parts of the TPA. [See discussion below for explanation of
the Trade Practices Amendment (Personal Injuries and Death) Act 2004].
The Government reiterated many of
the points made in the Ipp Report, in the course of the debate on the
2003 Bill and made some additional arguments highlighting what they saw
as the imperativeness in implementing the Bill.
During the course of the debate the
Government argued that the TPA was a real avenue for personal injury claimants
to use to recover damages. Senator Coonan stated that:
The Trade Practice Act, on my understanding is pleaded
frequently in cases involving personal injuries. However according to
the Law Council, between 1989 and 2002 there were some nine reported
cases where a personal injuries claim was decided on the basis of misleading
and deceptive conduct.(47)
Implicit in the Government’s argument
is that even though the TPA has not been used frequently in the past,
as a result of tort law reforms making access to negligence claims more
difficult, Part V Division 1 could be used more frequently, thereby undermining
the effects of the tort law reforms and placing further upward pressure
on insurance premiums.
The Government made the point that
the position held by the ALP at the Federal level was inconsistent with
what had ‘been requested and agreed to by the state and territory Labor
governments as a necessary and essential underpinning to the reforms they
have put in place.’(48)
The reforms in the Bill were also
linked to the medical indemnity crisis by the Government. Senator Coonan
argued that
As well as providing a range of subsidies and other assistance
directly to doctors, tort law reform is seen as a key part of an integrated
solution to the very complex problem of medical indemnity(49)
The Government therefore pointed out that if these amendments were not
supported and tort law reforms were undermined, this could have an adverse
effect upon the medical indemnity crisis.
The Trace Practices Amendment (Personal Injuries and Death) Act (No.
2) 2004 (2004 Act) (note, not to be confused with the Bill), inserted
a new Part VIB into the TPA. The new Part VIB sets down principles for
calculating damages for personal injury and death where there has been
a contravention of parts of the TPA, other than Part V Division 1, (such
as Part VA – defective goods).
The provisions in the new Part VIB are an Ipp Report recommendation.
The Ipp Report recommended that where provisions in the TPA, other that
Part V Division 1, are breached and this leads to personal injury or death,
damages should be calculated applying the same principles that the Ipp
Report recommended should be used for calculating damages in negligence
cases.(50) The provisions in Part VIB set out those principles
for calculating damages. Further information regarding the provisions
in the 2004 Act can be obtained from the digest on the Trade Practices
Amendment (Personal Injuries and Death) Bill 2004.(51)
As noted above, Senator Coonan argued
that the changes proposed in the Bill were requested and supported by
the states and territories. The states and territories have provisions
in their legislation that mirror Part V Division 1 of the TPA. To date,
only three jurisdictions have amended their legislation to mirror the
changes proposed in this Bill.(52)
The amendments to the TPA are contained
within Schedule 1.
The main amendment is item 2
of the Bill which inserts a new sub-section 82(1AAA) into
the TPA which states that a person cannot recover damages for a contravention
of Part V Division 1 where the loss or damage results from death or personal
injury. Item 2 also inserts a new sub-section 82 (1AAB) which implements
the smoking and tobacco products exemption. Item 3 defines smoking
and tobacco products.
Sub-sections 87(1) and (1A) of the
TPA give the court power to make remedial orders for conduct covered by
several parts of the TPA including Part V, Consumer Protection. Sub-section
87(1B) gives the ACCC power to bring representative actions on behalf
of individuals who have suffered loss or damage as a result of conduct
in contravention of several parts of the TPA including Part V.
Items 4-7 amend sub-sections
87(1) and (1A) and inserts proposed subsection 87(1AB) into the TPA to
ensure that individuals cannot commence proceedings and the ACCC cannot
bring representative actions to recover damages for loss due to personal
injury or death under section 87 of the Act.
The amendments in this Bill implement
Recommendation 19 of the negligence review, so that individuals will be
prevented from recovering damages for personal injury and death brought
about by a breach of Part V Division 1 of the TPA.
These amendments reduce consumer rights
under the TPA. These amendments do however close a loophole in the law
that has the potential to undermine the Ipp Report’s recommendations and
hence the Government’s policy response to the insurance crisis.
The insurance crisis has abated and
some may therefore argue that these amendments are unnecessary. Those
who support these amendments suggest however that premium pricing may
again increase if the reforms to negligence laws are undermined by claimants
relying on other avenues of legal redress such as Part V Division 1 of
the TPA.
The Bill is also a reminder of the
broader policy issues at play and in particular whether the review of
the laws of negligence has achieved the correct balance between premium
affordability and access to compensation for those who are injured. This
question is particularly pressing given the fact that the review that
led to the overhaul of the countries personal injury laws was completed
within such a very short period of time and was a reaction to a crisis
in the insurance market.
-
‘Liability Meeting Makes Significant Progress’, Media Release,
Senator the Hon Helen Coonan, Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer,
30 May 2002.
-
Review of the law of negligence final report (Ipp Report), September
2002, [http://revofneg.treasury.gov.au/content/review2.asp].
-
Trowbridge Consulting, Public Liability Insurance; Analysis for
Meeting of Ministers 27 March 2002, 26 March 2002, p. i.
-
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Public liability
and professional indemnity insurance; fourth monitoring report,
January 2005, p. 2.
-
Table is from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission,
Public liability and professional indemnity insurance; fourth
monitoring report, January 2005, p. 15.
-
Trowbridge Consulting, op cit., 26 March 2002, p. 30.
-
ibid., p. 30.
-
Senate Economics References Committee, ‘A review of public liability
and professional indemnity insurance’, October 2002, pp. 10–13.
-
ibid., pp. 10–13.
-
ibid., pp. 13–14.
-
ibid., p. 31.
-
ibid., pp. 29–30.
-
ibid., pp. 30–31.
-
Senator the Hon Helen Coonan, ‘Insurance Premiums and Law Reform—Affordable
Cover and the Role of Government’, The University of New South
Wales Law Journal, vol 25, no 3 2002.
-
Trowbridge Consulting, op cit, 26 March 2002, p. 4.
-
ibid., p. 4.
-
ibid., p. i.
-
Review of the Law of Negligence Final Report, Canberra, September
2002.
-
Strong community response to public liability reforms’, News Release,
Premier of New South Wales Australia, September 4 2002.
-
Justice David Ipp, Negligence – ‘Where lies the future?,’ Australian
Bar Review (2003) 23 p. 159.
-
Robert Pelletier, ‘Tort reform needs injection of fairness’, Australian
Financial Review, 4 February 2005, p. 60, Alan Mason, ‘Vital to
balance premiums and payouts’, Australian Financial Review,
29 October 2004, p.57.
-
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission website, Public
liability and professional indemnity insurance–fourth monitoring report,
[http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/378570/fromItemId/11872],
18 February 2005.
-
Alan Mason, op cit.
-
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, op cit., p. 40.
-
ibid., p. 40.
-
ibid., p. 40.
-
Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA).
-
Section 53 of the TPA.
-
Section 56 of the TPA.
-
Section 60 of the TPA.
-
Section 61 of the TPA.
-
Section 82 of the TPA.
-
Section 80 of the TPA.
-
Section 86C of the TPA.
-
Section 86D of the TPA.
-
Section 87 of the TPA.
-
Section 87 of the TPA.
-
When making this assertion the report made particular reference to
section 52 of the TPA.
-
Ipp Report, p. 74.
-
ibid., p 77.
-
ibid., p. 76.
-
ibid., p. 73.
-
Senator Conroy, Senate Hansard, 15 October 2003, p. 16466.
-
Senator Conroy, Senate Hansard, 15 October 2003, p. 16466.
-
Senator Ridgeway, Senate Hansard, 15 October 2003 p. 16469.
-
Senator Conroy, Senate Hansard, 15 October 2003, p. 16467.
-
Senator Coonan, Senate Hansard, 1 December 2002, p. 18550.
-
Senator Coonan, Senate Hansard, 1 December 2003, p. 18549.
-
Senator Coonan, Senate Hansard, 1 December 2003, p. 18541.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, Trade Practices (Personal Injury and Death)
Bill 2004, p. 13.
-
Dudley Susan, Digest No 114 Trade Practices (Personal Injuries
and Death) Bill (No. 2) 2004 Bills, 2004, [http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2003-04/04bd114.pdf.]
-
The jurisdictions which have amended their legislation are: New South
Wales in the Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility)
Act 2002, Queensland in the Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2003 and Tasmania in the Civil
Liability Amendment Act 2003.
Susan Dudley
31 May 2005
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament
using information available at the time of production. The views expressed
do not reflect an official position of the Information and Research Service,
nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents
with Senators and Members and their staff but not with members of the
public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 2005
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act
1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, including information storage and retrieval
systems, without the prior written consent of the Parliamentary Library,
other than by members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their
official duties.
Published by the Parliamentary Library, 2005.
|
