MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS (LIFETIME SUPPORT SCHEME) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Schedule 2.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am advised that the move to the 100-point scale, plus the new thresholds that are applied, constitute around $30 in savings.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So if an amendment were moved to restore the 60-point system, the levy would be $135?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Without the thresholds, yes. We cannot get thresholds without the 100 points.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Fair enough. The member for Heysen wanted me to ask, in relation to the 60-point existing system and the 100-point new system, whether it is the intention of the government to issue a correlation between the point system. As she explained it to me, there is a body of case law, a whole range of cases, that have been established on the existing point system. Is it the government's intention to issue a correlation between the two systems?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No; this is a completely different scheme. The 100 points has, as its basis, the 100-point scheme that is used in Queensland.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Heysen also asked me to clarify that schedule 2, part 4, paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), set out this 20 per cent extra discount. The member for Heysen wanted me to get on the record that the reason there is a double discount of 5 per cent and the 20 per cent is simply a cost containment measure.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The 5 per cent exists at the moment, and just reflects the advantage of receiving the money as a lump sum. It is a present provision. The 20 per cent applies to economic loss only. In most insurance policies it is actually 75 per cent, so a 25 per cent discount for economic loss. The basis upon which it is applied is that it is recognised that in working you have additional costs. If you are receiving an income and not having to work for it any longer, you do not have those work-related costs that you or I normally face. It is on that basis that it is discounted back. However, as I said, most insurance policies, where there is insurance cover for loss of income, actually discount it at 75 per cent.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Regarding schedule 2, clause 5, and gratuitous services, I just want clarified why it is limited to gratuitous services provided by the family and why it cannot be by a nominated person; for instance, you might have a neighbour wanting to help a neighbour, but that person is excluded simply because they are not related.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: This is a restriction. This is preventing the payment for gratuitous services. Under existing common law, if you are injured in a motor vehicle accident part of the head of damages is for gratuitous services, payments for your family members, recognising their care. This is actually a restriction on those payments being made under common law.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: How does it restrict them?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: They are only payable if the injury exceeds 10 on the scale and if there are at least six hours per week for a period of six consecutive months. Unless those provisions apply, there is no head of damages payable for gratuitous services.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: If they do meet that level, who can provide the gratuitous services—anyone, or is it restricted to family only?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There is a head of damages for family or another person who is providing gratuitous services to the injured person.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So what is the purpose of paragraph (b)? It states that 'any hourly rate used for the purposes of determining the damages awarded to allow for the recompense of gratuitous services of a parent, spouse, domestic partner or child is not to exceed a rate'.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It just allows us to set the rate under regulation to stop it being excessive. I think what we envisaged was that the rate that we would apply would be according to the award. What has been happening until now, depending on what the person providing the gratuitous service did, was that the award of damages was sometimes quite excessive. If the person providing the gratuitous service was on a high wage, the award of payment would reflect the high wage that person was on. The purpose of this is to restrict it according to what is an award rate for people providing similar services.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Why as a brother or a sister am I excluded from having a rate set for my gratuitous services? The gratuitous service rates are going to be set for a parent—a parent not their parent—a spouse, a domestic partner or a child, but not for a brother, a sister, a sister-in-law, a father-in-law. I could name many families where it ends up being someone other than those people who are providing the service.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Under the Civil Liability Act, there are existing provisions for those other categories, existing restrictions under the Civil Liability Act. We do not need to do it for those other circumstances because there already are restrictions on what they can be paid under existing legislation.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So for the other categories of help—the brother, the sister—they are already covered in the Civil Liability Act but would not the spouse, the domestic partner, the child and the parent be covered in the Civil Liability Act? if so—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: They are, but not in the restrictions.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So if you use a father-in-law to provide the service you are not restricted?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Under the existing Civil Liability Act—other categories of gratuitous helpers—there are existing restrictions on the amount of head of damages for help from other categories, but there is no existing restriction for these categories, so that is why the restriction is placed on these categories but not on any others. For the others there is an existing restriction on the amount that can be paid under a head of damages. Look, there may be a case for expanding the categories of person to whom this restriction applies, but normally these awards for gratuitous services are for the services of a parent, spouse, domestic partner or child. It is not common at all for awards of payments to be made for gratuitous services of any other category.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I will just draw the minister's attention to the Civil Liability Act which does not restrict the other categories, as is his advice. I am not blaming the minister here, but my reading of section 58(2) of the Civil Liability Act is that:

Damages awarded to allow for the recompense of gratuitous services of a parent, spouse, domestic partner or child...

So, it is exactly the same categories, not the other categories. I will leave the minister to consider that between houses, because I think society has changed, there are a lot more single parent families and a lot more families spread worldwide because travel is so much easier. I think there are going to be a lot more cases of neighbours helping neighbours, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, father-in-law, etc., and there must be a way to craft something in which they are not excluded from the system.

I think my next question relates to amendments 10 to 14 to the Motor Vehicles Act in schedule 2, part 4. There is a provision that allows for a clause to become a prescribed clause, and I am not sure what a 'prescribed clause' means.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Where is that?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Maybe we have to go to the Motor Vehicles Act proper. Anyway, let us leave that one for now as I clearly cannot see it. The last one is in clause 18 of part 4 of schedule 2, which is at the top of page 49. What is the prescribed percentage the government is looking at under section 134A for review of the scheme?

The Hon. J.J. Snelling interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: There is a formula that if the premium imposed under class 1 vehicles in respect of insurance exceeds a certain prescribed percentage of the state average weekly earnings, there is an automatic review put in place. I am just wondering if you have some idea—I am assuming this is out of New South Wales—what percentage you are looking at?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We are looking at 30 per cent of one week's average weekly earnings; that would be the trigger, but it is roughly 30 per cent.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I think I have found my prescribed clause, I am sure the minister will be pleased to know. It is schedule 2, part 4, clause 13(2) on page 45, which refers to the changing of 126A of the Motor Vehicles Act. We are changing 126A of the Motor Vehicles Act which means that that particular clause becomes a prescribed clause. I am wondering: what is the impact of that becoming a prescribed clause; what does that mean? For the clarity of Hansard, it is in 118B(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which leads to the changing of 126A.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is probably better if I get something drafted for the member for Davenport and I am happy to email it to him rather than attempting to explain it myself.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (18:30): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

This is a historic reform to the way we insure for compulsory third party. The member for Davenport says we rushed it but, given that the reforms were first mooted in March 2012, that is a very odd definition of rushing. Nonetheless, I thank the member for Davenport for his cooperation in assisting with the passage of the bill.

I thank the officers involved, officers from the Motor Accident Commission who are not here in the chamber. I particularly thank Ms Lois Boswell and Mr Stuart Hocking, as well as parliamentary counsel, for the enormous amount of work. This is a significant body of work that has been done to enable this legislation to pass. The fact that the bill has attracted support from both sides of the chamber, and indeed the crossbenchers, is really a testament to the very difficult and hard work done by those officers in preparing the bill and in extensively consulting, including with the various legal organisations.

I also thank the Law Society, in particular Mr Morry Bailes with whom the government had extensive discussions. I think we came up with an improved bill and an improved scheme as a result of the input of Morry Bailes and the Law Society, the Australian Lawyers Alliance and the Australian Bar Association. I place on the record my thanks for the constructive role they played in the discussions with the government. I thank all members for their support of the bill and commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (18:32): The minister put on the record my comment about rushing the bill. I think anyone in the chamber would realise I was having a humorous discussion with the member for Reynell about me rushing the debate over three days, but I do not retract the comments I made in my second reading contribution about the government's decision to debate the bill this week.

We have completed the debate without the Law Society's advice, without the Lawyers Alliance advice, without the Bar Association's advice, and without being able to analyse any of the actuarial advice the government has had for some time. It was generously forwarded to me in the middle of the debate on the first day. How generous of the government to send us actuarial advice so that we could analyse it on the floor of the house as we debated. Well, of course, we did not do that, and we will obviously be seeking more briefings in between the houses about exactly that advice.

I thank the minister for the briefings the opposition did get in relation to this matter, and we are pleased to support the establishment of a lifetime support scheme. We think that the principle of helping those who are most in need is worthy of support. We have asked a lot of questions, but we think the principle behind the bill of helping those most in need is a good principle, and we are pleased to support it.

Bill read a third time and passed.