MOTOR VEHICLES (THIRD PARTY INSURANCE) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 12.

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Thompson): My understanding is that the committee is considering clause 12. There was an indication of an amendment but that has not yet been moved; is that correct, member for Davenport?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That is correct. We have already dealt with this principle a couple of weeks ago in the earlier stages of the debate and I do not need to proceed with my amendment because I have already moved it once and lost, so I will not take up the committee's time. However, I do wish to make some comments on clause 12.

Clause 12 inserts a new section 127AB into the Motor Vehicles Act, after section 127A. It deals with certain requirements in respect of claims, and the industry groups are quite strongly opposed to this provision. Earlier in today's debate I raised the issue of the words 'must cooperate fully in respect of his or her claim with the insurer' and it is this clause that contains that provision.

I want to talk to this clause of the bill, which the government has moved. It requires a person claiming damages or other compensation in respect of a death or bodily injury caused by or arising out of the use of a motor vehicle 'must cooperate fully in respect of his or her claim with the insurer for the purposes of giving the insurer sufficient information'.

All the legal bodies that have been consulted on this particular issue say it is totally unclear as to what is sufficient information. They are concerned that it will be abused and it will go across legal privilege. It means that MAC can ask for any information that MAC deems 'sufficient'. So, this is the provision that the legal groups—both the Law Society and the Australian Lawyers Alliance—oppose totally.

The Law Society was consulted when I received the bill and then after the government tabled its amendments, so we have consulted with the Law Society twice. By the former treasurer's own admission in his second reading explanation when he introduced this bill, the government had been consulting on this bill for 10 years. Having gone through that process, the Law Society says that it is opposed to this particular provision. So, having considered the proposed amendments, it is the society's position that it is opposed to the proposed amendments, and it lists them all, including this one dealing with section 127, the provision of evidence.

The Law Society is opposed for these reasons. The provision of evidence: the proposed amendments in their current form, which is as we are debating them today, are strongly opposed as distinct from just being opposed. They are strongly opposed by the Law Society subcommittee. It is understood the intention is to have early access to information which allows better decision-making in relation to liability and quantum. The strong concern of the subcommittee is that it has the potential to create, firstly, an uneven playing field in that a claimant is required to give information regarding, in particular, liability without an equal requirement on the part of Allianz to share relevant, non-privileged information concerning the same issue.

The view of the subcommittee is that wording such as 'to cooperate fully with the insurer' is too wide and requires refinement as to what information can and cannot be relevantly and reasonably sought by the insurer when such information is to be sought.

The CHAIR: Member for Davenport, I do apologise. This is not a situation of your making. There are members who are having heated discussions, which is completely fine. Perhaps, member for Schubert and member for MacKillop, you may like to take the discussion outside. No, you would like to leave it in here? Alright. You are all good.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That is alright, Madam Chair, it is not the first time people have left the hall when I have been speaking! The Law Society's issue is to what information can be reasonably and relevantly sought. There is no fence around this provision. It simply says that the person claiming damages must—so there is an obligation—cooperate fully in respect of his or her claim with the insurer for the purpose of giving the insurer sufficient information, so that the insurer can be satisfied as to the validity of the claim, and particularly to assess whether the claim or any part of the claim may be fraudulent; to be able to make an early and informed assessment of the liability—so it goes to the liability question; and to be able to make an informed offer of settlement if appropriate.

In particular, the claimant must comply with any reasonable request by the insurer to furnish information or produce specified documents or records. The insurer may require a claimant to verify by statutory declaration any information, document or record furnished or produced to the insurer. Now, that is interesting, and I will come back to that in a second. And, if a claimant fails to comply, then there is a $50,000 penalty or a one-year imprisonment for not providing the information and cooperating fully.

I am not a lawyer. I have not gone through the process—as luck would have it, I have not had any serious motor vehicle accidents in my time so I have not personally experienced this process. But, it is crystal clear to those who deal with this on a living and breathing daily basis: they say that these provisions go too far, and there is no even playing field.

They do offer a solution to this, and the solution was offered to MAC and MAC refused it, and that is to adopt a set of guidelines as they have in Queensland, a set of parameters which controls what can and cannot be requested in a reasonable manner.

So, why MAC refused to do that is beyond the opposition, because it may well have had the Law Society and others' support to get this particular clause across the line. So, solutions were actually offered by the various legal groups as a way to resolve this particular issue. The Australian Lawyers Alliance is as strong as the Law Society, and it says it is completely opposed to the proposition contained in this particular clause. 'The material requested in that section is already provided upon notice being given of a claim.'

When discussions were occurring in respect to this provision, the ALA said it would not have such a concern with information being sought and provided, so long as the form that they required to be completed had a warning across the top that they should consult their lawyer before filling out the form. The MAC was not agreeable to such a warning being placed on the form. It is not clear why. The minister might want to explain why there would not be a warning on the form.

It would create some fairness [if the warning was on the form] as the matters referred to can really cut across legal professional privilege and a person claiming damages is not required to cooperate fully in respect of his claim for the insurer on any matter. The simple answer to this issue is that the claim will not progress until the plaintiff provides appropriate information. The status quo as currently exists should remain. That is, the Motor Accident Commission through its claim agent requests information. If this provision continues, then it should be mutual.

I want to hear from the minister why the obligation should not be mutual and an obligation on MAC as well, that is:

The claims agent, or the Motor Accident Commission or its solicitors should have the obligation to provide information. In particular, a copy of the police reports. ALA has been agitating for some time, as has the Law Society of South Australia, for the issue of police reports to be made readily available The current practice is that the Motor Accident Commission claims agent receives a report upon request and the report obtained is in nearly every case more comprehensive with more details than anything the plaintiff receives until such time as it issues proceedings or occasionally via the claims agent pursuant to an agreed resolution plan.

Clause 12, in the view of the ALA:

…is inherently unnecessary and is blatantly unfair unless it incorporates amendments to make the obligation to disclose information mutual and the obligation that any claimant should at first contact a lawyer before giving any of that information.

The minister might want to explain why he would not put that warning on the form. MAC has refused to. The report continues:

It should also be made clear that S127AB does not impinge upon legal professional privilege.

That is not clear in the bill. It continues:

Essentially, ALA is concerned that this will be seen as liberty for the insurer to interrogate on whatever it likes with the defendant. Plaintiff lawyers exist for a reason and they are to protect and watch over the interests of the injured plaintiff. The agenda, quite properly from the insurer's point of view, is by its very nature different.

S127AB is a gross invasion of the plaintiff's rights and represents an intrusion into the rights of the plaintiff to run the case as it sees fit. If the plaintiff runs the case in a tardy fashion then he can be subject to sanctions in the legislation and at law that already deal with such matters. Giving the claims agent and/or the nominal defendant further power is not necessary and the obligation to verify by statutory declaration is also, in our view, completely inappropriate.

The other issue the Law Society raised is about the Queensland regulations. In relation to the damages, which is under new section 127AB(2) (which is proposed to be inserted), the Law Society says that the scope of this particular section is uncertain, in that it is limited to the concept of a 'reasonable request' by Allianz. In accordance with the usual principles of litigation, the subcommittee strongly believes the section should reflect access only to reasonable and relevant information.

There is also concern as to what is intended by the concept of 'reasonable', in particular the limits of information that may be requested in the context of being 'reasonable'. There is significant concern that, while the stated purpose is to assist with the early resolution of disputes, the wording is so broad as to invite legal disputation, costs, uncertainty and a general level of distrust which will not be conducive to the stated goal of the resolution.

The subcommittee strongly believes that a more targeted approach to the information that is being sought is appropriate. As I said, they are not opposed to reform, but they are suggesting reform in a different way. They understand the problem; they are just suggesting reform in a different way. They are saying that, in Queensland, the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, by its regulations, stipulates the information that an intending claimant must submit to the insurer before commencing a claim. It identifies the classes of documents, such as income tax records and other such information. So, in my language, it puts a barrier around the information sought.

In South Australia, a like concept is already expressed in things like the Supreme and District Court Rules 2006, where specific information is required to be given in a statement of loss and in the Magistrates Court by Form 22 particulars, with which I am sure the minister is familiar. The subcommittee would support an amendment—so the Law Society would support an amendment—that would enumerate the information it has sought in relation to both the liability and the quantification of the claim. For ease of reference, the subcommittee attaches by way of example an extract of the Queensland regulations.

There would need to be further consultation, obviously, as to what information should be required to be provided in this state to achieve the intended goal of timely information and potential for ready resolution. It must be noted that, while a claimant is required to provide such information in Queensland, there is also a reciprocal right, a reciprocal requirement, that respondents (which would include Allianz) should also provide access to relevant information. It is a two-way street, minister; unlike your bill, which is a one-way street.

Again, by way of example, section 27 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, Queensland, provides that a respondent must provide information directly relevant to a claim. It provides:

(i) reports and other documented material about the incident alleged to have given rise to the personal injury to which the claim relates;

(ii) reports about the claimant's medical condition or prospects of rehabilitation;

(iii) reports about the claimant's cognitive, functional or vocational capacity;

(b) if asked by the claimant—

(i) information that is in the respondents position about the circumstances of, or the reasons for, the incident; or

(ii) if the respondent is an insurer of a person for the claim, information that can be found out from the insured person for the claim, about the circumstances of, or the reasons for, the incident.

So, the issue there is that the government bill is a one-way street. It is too broad. It is going to be confusing and costly and there will be lots of legal disputes. The Law Society suggested another method of doing it. It also suggests that a statutory declaration is not required. In relation to new section 127AB(4), it also says that, should there be failure to comply with the previous new subsection (3), this bill could bar and preclude a claimant from issuing proceedings. This does not accord with section 36 of the Civil Liability Act. There are a number of issues with this, so maybe the minister might like to answer some of those points and then I will ask two questions.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The member for Davenport has made a wide-ranging speech on this particular clause. I will do my best to answer the issues he has raised. The purpose of this amendment is to enable MAC to settle matters as early as possible. It is in no-one's interest—people who pay compulsory third-party insurance—for cases to drag on. It is not in the interests of claimants for these cases to drag on. It is in everyone's interest that, as far as possible, matters are able to be settled early. To enable matters to be settled early, MAC requires cooperation from claimants.

Regarding the issue of Queensland, and having a mutual obligation on both parties, I am prepared to a look at that between the houses. I understand that different jurisdictions have different policies, or different legislation, with regard to this. New South Wales, for example, does not have a mutual obligation to provide information—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: —perhaps—Queensland does. It is something I am more than happy to reconsider between the houses. With regard to the matter that the member for Davenport raised about police reports, we have already had that debate. It is not appropriate for MAC to pass on the police reports that have been provided to it on a strictly confidential and limited basis.

If claimants want access to the police reports, it is most appropriate that they access them directly from the police, not through MAC. If you had a requirement for MAC to provide the police reports, I expect that SAPOL would cease to provide those reports to MAC, which would significantly frustrate the ability of MAC to do its job.

The member for Davenport suggested that MAC should be obliged to warn people that they should have legal advice. The overwhelming majority of people who make a claim—75 to 80 per cent—are legally represented during the course of the claim. It may be superfluous, but again, it is something I am prepared to have a look at if it assists in the passage of the bill.

The member for Davenport raised the issue of this clause not being specific enough in terms of the sort of information that would have to be provided. In one of the earlier drafts of the bill that is, in fact, what was in there. The sort of information that would be expected to be provided was prescribed. In the course of consultation, the ALA and the Law Society did not like the fact that the information that needs to be provided was prescribed. They preferred the more general provisions that we have in the bill before us; so, it was specific.

To clarify that, the prescribed information was put up in an earlier discussion paper about this bill. The ALA and the Law Society did not like this provision at all, and I think making it more general was an attempt to ameliorate those concerns, although I accept that both the Law Society and the ALA are still not happy with this provision being in the bill. In short, I am happy to give consideration to this provision between the houses.

Ms SANDERSON: I rise to speak about particular clauses of concerns that have been raised with me by my constituency regarding the proposed legislation. New section 127AB refers to 'MAC via the alliance', which requires the claimant to comply with providing to the insurer information, specified documents or records. New section 127(4)(a) asserts that if the claimant fails to do so they are not entitled to commence proceedings or continue proceedings, nor be entitled to damages, compensation or interest.

I believe that this creates an unfair playing field, and the same disclosure should be required of the insurers to the claimant. I understand that, at present, such documents are provided by way of discovery during the court process. To provide demand of one party such disclosure and not the other appears to be completely biased or prejudicial.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I thank the member for Adelaide for her contribution on behalf of her constituents. I have a question to the Treasurer. Under new section 127AB(3) the claimant is required to verify information by statutory declaration. Why is there not a requirement on MAC or Allianz from sending information the other way. Why are they not obligated to sign a statutory declaration? Just as someone can send misleading information one way, it can certainly come back the other way. If you are going to put an obligation on one party, why not in good faith put it on the other?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is because of the nature of the information. When information flows from the claimant to the insurer, it is the claimant who is providing the sort of personal information for which you would expect them to make a statutory declaration, which includes information such as income tax returns and wage records—those sorts of things; whereas the flow of information from the insurer to the claimant is not of a personal nature which would be appropriate or possible for there to be a statutory declaration.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Under new section 127AB(4), the Law Society argues that, should there be a failure to comply with new section 127AB(3), this will statute bar and preclude the claimant from issuing proceedings. This does not accord with section 36 of the Civil Liability Act, and if new section 127AB were to be put into practice would cause frustration and cost in the court system in relation to the application for the extension of any expired limitation period.

Pursuant to case-flow management principles, the insured's ability to request information and documents should be limited to the pre-action stage as the court has processes and procedures with respect to matters once actions are issued. Is it the government's intention to make this particular provision accord with the Civil Liability Act, and is it the government's intention that the insured's ability to request information and documents will be limited to the pre-action stage?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will answer the member for Davenport as best I can. You cannot prevent someone from issuing proceedings—anyone can issue proceedings. Once the proceedings have started then the court is in a position where it has to make a decision as to whether there has been a breach of the section, and that would be subject to argument. If the court decides that there has been a breach of the section then it will make the appropriate decision with regard to compensation, costs, penalties and interest.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The Treasurer can take this on notice. I think this is the right clause to raise it in. I do not expect an answer today. One person has raised with me that the current South Australian compulsory third party injury claim form is in the form of a statutory declaration and they are wondering under what provision MAC has the power to demand a stat dec and use the claim form as a stat dec. I do not need the answer now, but in between houses, or whatever.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I think the form has to be witnessed but it is not a statutory declaration. When you fill it out you have to have someone witness your signature, but it is not a statutory declaration. I will double-check that.

Clause passed.

Clause 13 passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I move:

Part 2, clause 2, page 11, lines 19 to 24 [Schedule 1 part 2 clause 2(3) and (4)]—

Delete subclauses (3) and (4)

For the sake of the house, the amendment I am moving has to do with when the bill takes effect. I give credit to the member for Adelaide, who represented this position to me on behalf of her constituents, and, when I checked with the Law Society, the Australian Lawyers Alliance, the Motor Trade Association and the RAA, they had similar concerns, so it was good of the member for Adelaide to pick it up so quickly. It relates to the transitional provisions.

The easy way to explain this is that, in the bill the government is moving, there is concern from the legal fraternity that the transitional provisions do not mean that the accidents to which this new set of conditions outlined in the bill relate to are those accidents that have occurred from the time that the bill is proclaimed as an act. My amendment makes it crystal clear that any provision in this particular bill that goes into the act should only commence for accidents that occur after a future date.

Now, the reason this was raised is that some lawyers have already given advice to their clients about levels of possible payout and levels of liability. The lawyers' advice to me is that had they known at the time of giving that advice that the rules were going to change, their advice may well have been different. So, some people have actually taken legal advice based on the current law but those cases are still going.

The legal advice to me is that these transitional provisions leave that open and have a retrospective element to them. Our amendment makes it crystal clear that any change to the law only applies to accidents from a future date (from when the act is proclaimed), so then everyone has a starting date from when the new rules will apply. I think that is sensible. So, that is the amendment on the transitional provisions.

The other issue, which is outlined in schedule 1 (the last clause of this bill), relates to amending the Civil Liability Act. Now, the Civil Liability Act sets out the non-economic loss, that is, the damages, and how that is assessed. In essence, there is a 60-point system. MAC is concerned that those independent judges have been making decisions that MAC thinks do not accord with the understanding of how the 60-point system is used. MAC gave us a couple of rough examples about that. It is terrible that the courts have independence to interpret the legislation as we write it.

The reality is that the government is changing the Civil Liability Act not just to do with motor vehicle accidents. They are amending the Civil Liability Act to do with any claim for damage. So, if you are injured in other ways outside of the motor accident scheme, the 60-point system could be applied to you. The intention of the government's amendments is to tighten the 60-point system because the courts have not quite been doing what the government or MAC wanted.

So, it is not just motor accidents we are talking about, it is all the other injuries. The government has not consulted the medical associations or the doctors, or all of those groups that are potentially out there and subject to claims, about what their view is of this particular provision and what their view is of the 60-point system and the changes to the Civil Liability Act. So, no-one is supporting the changes to the Civil Liability Act on that particular basis.

It is not just to do with motor vehicle accidents. The government is changing the Civil Liability Act so that it narrows the judgement so that the court finds that, instead of being a higher number of points, you might be a lower number of points, and that dictates how much money you get. The government is trying to tighten that up and all the groups talk about that. The Law Society perhaps put it best. They say:

Assessment for non-economic loss...The Sub-Committee does not support the related amendment to Section 52 of the Civil Liability Act...It is the view of the Sub-Committee that the existing provision is clear as to the manner in which it should be applied. In South Australia a person is only eligible for some award of damages in the first place (including for [non-economic loss]) if fault on the part of another can be established.

Whilst it may be stated that the amendment is there to provide emphasis, the concern of the Sub-Committee is that in changing the wording, this will not provide clarity, but will instead introduce doubt.

In particular, the wording 'strict proportionality' in particular will lead to legal disputation, cost and uncertainty. The following are examples of contentions that may be raised:

1. The interpretation of the word 'strictly'. There is a clear difficulty in applying these words when each point on the 1 to 60 scale does not have the same dollar value.

2. Given that there has been change to the wording, does this then mean that Parliament is indicating a different method of assessment.

If we are not indicating a different form of assessment, then on what basis are we changing it? The Law Society continues:

The Sub-Committee considered the effect on damages for NEL [noneconomic loss] even for the genuinely injured and the difficulty in getting more than 3-5 points (1/20^th to 1/12^th the gravest loss conceivable) on the wording proposed. For example, a person with a genuine injury to the neck with an [assessment] at 20 per cent of the neck receive on the proposed wording (maybe 1-2 points)? Or an arm amputee, but [with] full motor skill of all other body parts and no residual cognitive effects (maybe 5-10 points)?

So the Law Society, the Australian Lawyers Alliance and others simply do not support the change to the Civil Liability Act. It is far broader than just motor vehicle accidents and in relation to our amendments we think that gives more certainty to the commencement of the provisions and we hope the government can support those.

Ms SANDERSON: I refer to two different sections, as did the member for Davenport. Firstly, I support the Liberal Party amendments and that there needs to be a clause inserted from a particular point in time that the amendments become effective. This amendment was based on feedback that I had in my office from a senior partner at a law firm who specialises in plaintiff personal injury with whom I met to discuss the bill.

Solicitors provide advice to clients based upon the legislation and case law. A good solicitor is able to provide a prospective client with an estimate of legal costs versus expected payout so the client is able to assess whether they should make a claim, having consideration for the emotional cost of pursuing the claim.

The nature of personal injury cases means that the cases take years to come to conclusion. If legislation such as this passed without an 'incidence from a certain date' clause, claims that are currently going through negotiations will be prejudiced. That is, there will be some claims in which clients nearing the end of the process will now be forced to negotiate a lower claim amount which may result in some clients receiving a claim payout less than the legal fees already negotiated.

There are also issues that have been raised with me regarding the Civil Liability Act as well. These amendments seek to reduce the noneconomic loss component of claims. Such amendments would have a negative effect on those who are elderly and disadvantaged such as recipients of a disability pension.

At present, generally those who are not working either because they are elderly or receiving a disability pension cannot include an economic component for loss of future income in their formulated claim. Such claimants rely on the noneconomic loss component to receive financial compensation. If this component is taken away, there will be no meaningful way to seek compensation if the claimants are injured in the future. I cannot support clauses that seek to benefit by taking away the rights of those who are most disadvantaged.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The member for Davenport has convinced me of the justness of his cause, and we accept the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The example in clause 1 of the schedule is similar to the examples that have been provided for earlier in the bill. As I said previously, they in no way restrict or affect the discretion of the court. There has been an observable creep in the points that are awarded. Relatively minor injuries are finding themselves creeping up the point scale towards 60. This is simply to try and clarify that, to provide some guidance to the courts on where these things should lie.

For clarification, we need to establish that the amendment which we just agreed to was amendment No. 6 standing in the name of the member for Davenport, rather than amendment No. 5, and that amendment No. 5 in the name of the member for Davenport actually stood withdrawn; is that right?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The chair clarified it was amendment No. 6, which dealt with the transitional provisions. Amendment No. 5 I am going to consider between the houses and look at moving it upstairs, Treasurer.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: So, that is my answer with regard to the amendment on the Civil Liability Act.

The CHAIR: Just for the record, I would like to clarify that we were dealing with No. 6, which was in the name of the member for Davenport. I hope that clarifies things for everyone.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Because No. 5 was not moved, I do not need to move No. 7, as I understand it.

The CHAIR: As I understand it, the member for Davenport has indicated that he is not proceeding with amendment No. 7 of schedule 1.

Schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education) (16:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The bill, with its amendments, is designed to improve the CTP scheme, social responsiveness, protect the fund, and also provide an important deterrent effect to certain unsociable road behaviour. Issues such as drink-driving and hit-run are unacceptable. If the threat of a compulsory third-party recovery can deter just one person from getting behind the wheel while drunk or leaving the scene of a crash, then I think we have achieved our goal. The CTP scheme pays out around $400 million each year to victims of crashes. These amendments are about protecting the scheme and ensuring that its boundaries are clearly defined. The amendment relating to arising out of the use of a motor vehicle is one such example where the government feels it is important to clarify the coverage of the scheme through the insertion of examples.

If we can play our part as a community and drive safely on the roads and respect our fellow road users, then we will hopefully reduce our reliance on the fund; and indeed we will all be much better off. Throughout the debate I have listened to the concerns of the various interest groups that have made comment on the bill. I would like to thank all parties who have been involved in the extensive consultation conducted by MAC.

While the government is committed to the principles of the bill, I have heard the points raised by the opposition and others and inform the house that before the bill is debated in another place I will carefully look at the concerns raised, particularly in relation to the chain of responsibility amendments and, if necessary, the government will either move or accept the amendments proposed.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (16:46): I just want to thank the Treasurer for the way he handled the committee stage. I think it is actually the way that the committee stage is meant to work, to go through it thoroughly like that, so I certainly appreciate the Treasurer giving the opposition that chance. I think it is important for the industry groups to hear the answers and be able to consider in detail the Treasurer's response. So, thank you to the Treasurer and also to the Treasurer's adviser from MAC, the MAC staff and the parliamentary counsel for their assistance.

While the bill is in between houses, I just want to get one piece of advice from the Treasurer, and that is in relation to the different treatment, if it is different treatment at all, between the interpretation of the law in relation to when you are drink-driving, that is in a vehicle, and when, under this bill, the vehicle is in use. I think the example MAC gave the minister to use was the 'ugly dog' circumstance, where a worker was injured when the vehicle was turned on and accidentally went forward instead of backwards.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So the issue I want clarified is: if a person who was drunk started the vehicle in the car park of a hotel, I think the vehicle would be deemed to be 'in use'. Is the interpretation different under the drinking laws from under this law? That is the interpretation of 'in use' of a vehicle. Under the bill we have just dealt with, there are restrictions on when the vehicle is in use. The way I understand the law with drink-driving is once the key goes in, then the vehicle is in use for the purposes of drink-driving legislation. I am not clear how the parliament is going to distinguish between a vehicle in use for drink-driving purposes and a vehicle in use for other purposes under this bill. So, between the houses I would like to get that advice and we can deal with it then. Again, I thank the minister for his handling of the bill.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: They are two different pieces of legislation. They do not have any bearing on each other, is essentially the answer. One is part of the criminal law, one is part of the civil law. One does not have a bearing on the other, but if I get any other advice to the contrary, I will be more than happy to come back to the house. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a third time and passed.