Labor foreshadows changes to compulsory third party insurance bill

However the changes that have been foreshadowed have not gone far enough to secure the support of the party's minor coalition partner.

The Greens threatened to vote down the bill unless the potential for "super" insurer profits was curtailed, and claimants were able to seek an external review of their case through the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Liberal leader Alistair Coe has reiterated his party wants the bill dumped, so Labor needs the Greens on board to pass it.

Using ACAT was also a recommendation from Labor backbenchers Bec Cody and Michael Pettersson, who were part of an inquiry into the legislation last year.

The committee, which included Liberal Giulia Jones, was unable to reach a consensus, but Ms Cody and Mr Pettersson filed a majority report that also called for a review of insurer profits in three years.

A spokeswoman for Chief Minister Andrew Barr said the government would make the changes recommended by Mr Pettersson and Ms Cody.

She said the Greens had been told earlier in the week the bill would be amended to reflect those recommendations before it is introduced to the Legislative Assembly next month.

However Greens leader Shane Rattenbury and Greens crossbencher Caroline Le Couteur said there was still a lot of negotiating to do before then.

Ms Le Couteur said the government was yet to table its formal response to the CTP inquiry.

She said the Greens weren't wedded to particular changes like introducing narrative tests; rather they wanted to ensure people weren't made worse off by the new scheme.

“The non-negotiable is that we want to see the scheme work well for people injured in [motor vehicle] accidents in the ACT and we don't want to see the insurance companies have excessive power. The negotiable is the best way of implementing that and that's what we’re talking to [the] government about," Ms Le Couteur said.

Mr Rattenbury said he believed there was room to move on the issue of caps on profits for insurers, and that a review three years in did not address his concerns.

"We have seen in other examples where this is rolled out, [and] in the first few years in particular our information is that insurers have made what might be described as 'super profits', so I think if anything the first few years is a more critical phase than after that," Mr Rattenbury said.

One of the Greens' concerns is that misinformation or a poor understanding of the new CTP scheme may lead to people underclaiming for the first couple of years, leading to an unexpected windfall for insurers.

"We want to see the insurers having to provide good financial information to the government from day one … and for the government to regulate from day one to ensure there aren’t super profits," Ms Le Couteur said.

The Greens have also called for more flexibility to be built into the bill, to stop perverse outcomes such as a child with ongoing injuries being unable to access treatment for injuries related to their accident that may develop later on.

They also want there to be flexibility in cases where someone may not meet the 10 per cent whole-person-impairment threshold, but their occupation is affected by their injuries.

This is similar to a recommendation from the Cody-Pettersson report, which asked for exemptions to be built into the legislation so that person could make a common law claim.

The Greens also want a provision that would reduce payments for unrelated traffic offences, including speeding, drink driving and not wearing a bike helmet, to be axed. The Cody-Pettersson report asked the government to reconsider only the bike helmet clause.

Both the Greens and the Cody-Pettersson report said the time for claimants to choose between CTP or worker's compensation should be extended.

They also agreed that much of the regulation that will govern the scheme - which is yet to be released publicly - should be put forward before the Assembly is asked to vote on the bill.

The Greens' demands go further than the Cody-Pettersson report though, in that they believe there needs to be enforceable obligations on insurers to provide information and support to claimants.

They also want support and advocacy services to be provided by community legal centres and groups like the Health Care Consumers Association, and for the period in which people can claim defined benefits to be extended.

Ms Le Couteur said the Greens supported the citizen's jury and just wanted a model that best reflected the principles that jurors endorsed.

"All of these things we think are entirely consistent with what the citizen’s jury talked about and we’re just negotiating with the government to make the scheme better and close to what the citizens jury was talking about," she said.

Mr Barr's spokeswoman said he welcomed the Greens' "strong indication of support" for the principle of the scheme.

"This kind of constructive engagement on the fine detail of legislation and regulation is encouraging," she said.