Motions

Motor Vehicle Accident Injury Schemes

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.A. Darley:

That the Social Development Committee inquire into and report on the impact of the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme and the Compulsory Third Party Insurance Scheme on persons injured in motor vehicle accidents and any other relevant matters including, but not limited to, consideration of other schemes in operation around the country.

(Continued from 17 June 2015.)

The Hon. T.T. NGO (22:43): As the Hon. Mr Darley correctly pointed out, the Motor Vehicle Accidents (Lifetime Support Scheme) Act 2013 requires that the act be reviewed as soon as practicably possible, three years after its commencement. The act clearly sets out the requirements for the review. The review must assess whether the Lifetime Support Scheme has provided an effective and fair way to assist people who have been left with lifelong disabilities as a result of a motor vehicle accident in South Australia.

The review must also assess the changes that were made to the Civil Liability Act. This will include the changes to the assessment and award of damages for non-economic loss involving a motor vehicle accident. It must particularly look into whether the removal of non-economic loss damages for injuries that do not exceed 10 on the injury value scale have resulted in substantial hardship. It will also consider the caps made to various types of damages and the effect that the amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act enacted by the act have had on the handling and settlement of claims under part 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The review must also consider whether the scheme provides reasonable compensation for persons with multiple injuries. It will also consider whether the scheme has changed how injured persons claim compensation and if this has or could lead to an increase in third-party insurance premiums payable under part 4 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1959.

It is important to note that this review may also include any other matter that the committee designated—the Social Development Committee of parliament or another committee if designated by both houses of parliament—to carry out the review considers to be relevant. As the Hon. Mr Darley has correctly identified, the provisions are comprehensive and were implemented after they were originally proposed by the Hon. Tammy Franks on 15 May 2013.

The government was fully supportive of these amendments at the time and continues to be supportive. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work that was done by the Hon. Tammy Franks in getting this scheme through. I know about this personally as I was working as an adviser to the then minister Jack Snelling. I appreciate her work very much.

This lifetime support scheme is based on the New South Wales Lifetime Care and Support Scheme which has been in operation for over eight years. The government believes that the terms of reference for the review prescribed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents (Lifetime Support Scheme) Act 2013 are wideranging. The Motor Vehicle Accidents (Lifetime Support Scheme) Act 2013 has been in operation for two years. It has an inbuilt requirement for an extensive review to occur as soon as practicable after three years of operation.

The act will have been in operation for three years on 1 July 2016. The review can be conducted after this date and the government will be in a strong position to determine whether any changes need to be made to the act. Currently, it is still too early to undertake an extensive review. It is important for members to remember why the scheme was introduced in the first place—that is, to support those in our community who are catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident, especially those who would not have received assistance prior to the scheme.

Under the old motor accident compensation provision, if an adult was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident where either no-one was at fault or they were at fault, they would not receive any compensation. I recall last year on the 7.30 Report there was an interview with then 40-year-old Craig Clarke, who was in a motor vehicle accident on a country road when he was 17 years old. He drove off a verge and was left a quadriplegic.

As the accident was his fault, he did not receive any compensation. At the time of his accident he had to rely on the support of his parents who had to remortgage their home. He now spends a large portion of his full-time income on injury-related expenses. When I saw this report, just before the scheme began, I thought about the positive impacts that it would have on those in a similar position.

The new lifetime support scheme has only been in operation since July 2014, just over 12 months. During its first 12 months, the scheme has provided assistance to 43 people; approximately half of whom would not have received assistance if their accidents had occurred before the scheme came into operation. Not only does the scheme help those who would not have received support under the previous CTP scheme, it has also ensured that those who receive support for severe injuries under the lifetime support scheme get better support than they would have under the previous CTP scheme.

This better support includes allowing participants and their families to choose the long-term care and support services they need. The scheme also provides home-based care to enable those who are injured to return home sooner. In May this year, a participant of the scheme, Alexey Vasilev, who sustained a brain injury after a serious motor vehicle accident in January, recounted his experience with the scheme so far at a press conference. Alexey said:

Thanks to the participation in the scheme, I have been able to continue my treatment at home which is much better for me.

I understand that some opponents of the 2013 changes to compulsory third-party insurance have been supportive of the lifetime care scheme. They often state that they should simply have both the old compulsory third party insurance and the lifetime care scheme. Unfortunately, we do not have an endless supply of resources. We do, however, have an obligation to keep premiums low for all South Australian motorists whilst providing support to those who need it most.

Mr Morry Bailes from the Law Society has advocated that persons injured in a motor vehicle accident should receive the same compensation through CTP as persons injured in the workplace through ReturnToWork. In its submission to the Statutory Authorities Review Committee's Motor Accident Commission inquiry, the Law Society stated that 'both statutory schemes are subject to premiums paid'. This is to compare two completely different funds. ReturnToWork insurance is paid by employers and premiums depend on a number of factors, including prior performance and the number of employees etc., whereas CTP insurance is a flat rate paid by every South Australian who has a motor vehicle registration.

Even under the previous motor accident scheme and previous WorkCover scheme, people who sustained the same injuries received different compensation. Does Mr Bailes believe that those who have been in motor accidents should be charged more for compulsory insurance or households with more cars be charged more as ReturnToWork does if you have more employees? The act already requires an extensive review to be carried out as soon as reasonably practicable after 1 July 2016.

The government is supportive of this review occurring at this time. As the act has only been in operation for two years and the scheme only for 12 months, it is too early for such an extensive review to be conducted. I therefore ask members not to support this motion to review the lifetime support scheme at this stage and wait for a few months when the full review is underway as outlined in the act.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (22:53): For the reasons that the Hon. Mr Darley outlined quite eloquently in his contribution, the Liberal Party party room position is that we will be supporting the motion. We wish the Social Development Committee well in its difficult task. There was some initial discussion that perhaps this might have been referred to a select committee and we think that the reference to the Social Development Committee makes more sense and we are pleased to support the motion.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (22:53): Just very briefly, I do not think it will come as any surprise that Dignity for Disability supports the motion, given that we joined the Hon. Mr Darley in calling for it. We have long-held concerns about this scheme and about the changes to compulsory third-party insurance which, as we see it based on the advice we have received, will result over time in less coverage for injured workers. I will not go into all those issues as I am already on the record as having stated them, but we look very much forward to this important review and commend the motion.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (22:54): For the sake of the lack of divisions, I indicate the Greens will be supporting the Hon. John Darley's motion.

Motion carried.