HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-03-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS (LIFETIME SUPPORT SCHEME) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide) (16:26): I support the government's proposed changes to the CTP scheme because I think that creating a no-fault insurance system which will provide lifetime care for people who are catastrophically injured in car accidents will dramatically improve the lives of those South Australian families that are tragically affected by those sorts of accidents each year. I also support the reforms because they will ease the cost of living pressures for South Australian motorists by reducing CTP premiums. Reductions to class 1 premiums are estimated to create savings of around $145 in total over the next two years.

Throughout the last few decades, because of changes to road safety laws and public awareness campaigns, the rate of tragic accidents on our roads has been improving. But there are still many lives affected by accidents each year and, when we talk about the tragedy of the road toll, we think of the people who die on our roads and we do not always think about the people who live and are so severely injured that they have to be cared for forever.

These are the people who, after the horror of the crash, have to live with very serious brain injuries, who become quadriplegic, or are permanently blind, badly burnt or have multiple amputations. These people need care and support for the rest of their lives. For their families, they are often not only struggling with the grief of losing the enjoyment and care of their relationship but they are also providing ongoing and demanding personal care.

If the accident victim is unfortunate enough to have been the driver in a one-car accident, there is no-one to sue and, therefore, no financial compensation to help pay for this care and support. Family members find themselves having to give up work to provide full-time care that they cannot afford to pay for. The injury can then lead to family poverty as well.

Even if they were able to receive compensation through compulsory third party insurance, this money comes as a lump sum and has been shown often not to be enough to provide for lifetime care. In fact, the government's green paper on the CTP reform proposals said that about 20 to 35 per cent of all accident victims spend the whole lump sum within two years and 90 per cent spend it within five years.

This creates long-term negative effects, as those who suffer serious injuries can have a reduced ability to work and those who are catastrophically injured are not able to work at all. Financial support for services is therefore picked up by government services. This is often also compensated for by voluntary services from friends, families and neighbours to fill the need. Although a victim should be focusing on recovery and rehabilitation with the comfort of ongoing care, it is often the financial challenges that worry accident victims the most.

The changes in this bill mean that people with catastrophic injuries will be provided with care and support for the rest of their lives, regardless of who was driving. This will be of enormous benefit to both the injured person and their families. The no-fault lifetime support scheme will provide treatment, care and support but not income support for people with catastrophic injuries.

However, if someone else was at fault in the accident, catastrophically injured people would still be able to sue for economic loss. This no-fault approach is particularly important for the wellbeing of family carers. The Productivity Commission has found significant differences in physical and mental health between carers and non-carers in our community. They said three things: that carers are almost twice as likely to be in poor physical health than the general population; that around half of female carers and almost a third of male carers had also suffered from a depressive episode of at least six months since they had begun caring; and that many families caring for people with disabilities experience relationship breakdown.

The no-fault catastrophic care system set up in this bill is socially very significant but so are the reductions in premiums for motorists arising from these reforms. I understand that people will receive less compensation for more minor injuries under this bill, but we have to balance affordability of the scheme with fairness. I am told that about a third of compensation payments each year (in excess of $100 million a year) goes to claimants who have had little or no time off work.

These payments mean cost of living pressures for all. We must cover medical expenses, and we have to get people healed and back to their lives and work, but we need a scheme that is fair and that balances the needs of our community. The government has worked hard to balance these competing priorities. A no-fault scheme for people with very serious injuries and a reduction in compensation for more minor injuries means both a fairer and more affordable system for everyone.

Ms BETTISON (Ramsay) (16:31): I support the government's current reforms to the CTP scheme because I believe that it creates a fairer and more affordable system for treating and assessing those who are injured in motor vehicle accidents. One of the key aspects of the CTP reforms is the use of the 100 point injury scale. Similar to the model used in Queensland, the injury severity values (ISV) table will align injuries within a point range of according to how severe they are. The injury scale values will allow for the use of objective medical evidence to be used in determining the impact on a victim's life, ensuring that injuries and impairments of the body are measurable, and also allowing for subjective measurements.

The table assigns each type of injury a point range and a doctor makes an assessment according to the table using objective medical evidence. Once the point range has been identified, it is then worked out where the person falls in the range. This depends on both the severity of the particular injury and its effect on the individual person. It allows you to take into account that someone who has a moderate shoulder injury is a hairdresser having difficulty keeping her arms up to do hair all day.

I am told this injury scale has undergone thorough consultation with highly regarded medical specialists to ensure that the ISV table is a fair and workable standard. This assessment tool is designed so that different doctors should reach the same outcome looking at the same evidence. This table will be used to ensure that our compensation system is able to distinguish between the minor injuries that will heal over time and the injuries that leave ongoing impairment. The current system needs changing. We know this because currently the threshold for payment damages for non-economic loss—that is, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of expectation of life and disfigurement—is very low, leading to unsustainable levels of compensation being paid.

The reforms in this bill will introduce new thresholds which limit the access to future damages to those claimants with injuries who can objectively prove they have had a loss. These changes will mean that access to damages for non-economic loss will require an ISV score of more than 10 points. The amount to be awarded is determined by a prescribed scale set out in the Civil Liability Act. It carries a maximum of $300,000 and access to damages for future care and gratuitous services will also require an ISV score of more than 10 points.

Access to damages for loss of future earning capacity will require a score of more than seven points. This is because people with particular occupations are more affected by certain injuries than others. This lower threshold for future loss of earning capacity allows for the plumber to receive compensation for an injury that would affect his or her ongoing income but would not bother a desk worker. It is important to know, however, that everyone will get their medical and treatment costs paid. It is things like cash payments for pain and suffering that will be reduced with these reforms to make the scheme more affordable.

Probably one of the most prevalent claims in motor vehicle accidents is whiplash. A person who suffers minor soft tissue whiplash injury which falls in the zero to four point range will not be compensated for future losses or non-economic loss if there are no objective signs to support the reported symptoms. If objective signs of the injury that support the ongoing symptoms are present, a person is most likely to be classified as having a moderate cervical spine injury and therefore may be eligible for loss of future earning capacity.

If the spine injury results in structural damage that causes a permanent impairment, and there are other objective signs and radiological evidence, then it could be classed as a moderate cervical spine injury. This includes a fracture, disc prolapse or nerve root compression or damage that has a point range of five to 15. With this point range, a person may be eligible for all types of compensation, including pain and suffering payments.

It is the intention of the ISV table to strike a balance between determining objective medical evidence of permanent impairment, while also accounting for the impact of a particular injury on that particular person's life, i.e. the disability. Though an important element, the table is one part of the broader reforms being introduced. There will be a new medical accreditation and referral system which will govern the process for accrediting health practitioners, allocating assessment appointments, quality control and frequency of medical reports, and the use of the ISV table by accredited specialists.

This will help to simplify the system and, rather than the insurer and injured person having to get multiple competing medical reports, a medical assessment referral will be made to the next doctor on the list, who will be accredited in the use of the table. This will help to deal with the long debated difficulty of competing medical reports. These are important reforms that will ensure that we create a more fair and just system for all South Australians. I support the bill.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (16:36): I support this bill and commend the government for introducing it. I think it is a pity it was not introduced a long time ago, but better late than never. Despite some concerns raised, mainly by lawyers, I believe this measure is fair, reasonable and, hopefully, likely to diminish the amount of money spent on lawyers in challenging or contesting any of these payments for compensation and injury.

Some concerns have been raised that the threshold in relation to the whole person impairment may be very high, and the other criticism—once again from lawyers—is that people may be reluctant to get legal advice because of the restriction or cap on legal fees. I think what would be useful is that this scheme be reviewed after a period of time; I am sure good government should do that anyway. I do not know whether the minister has that in the bill.

I did not see any specific review time frame in the bill, but I think it will not take long to show whether or not this proposition is going to work and be fair and reasonable. I think it will be, but I guess time will be the test. I welcome it, I think it is a good initiative, and it may save motorists some money. But I think the main thing is that it will, hopefully. ensure that people who are injured as a result of a car accident are justly treated in terms of compensation. I support the bill.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (16:36): I have been asked to put on record a few remarks. I believe that many South Australians would actually be quite shocked to learn that under our current scheme not everyone is covered if they are unfortunate enough to be involved in a motor accident. Those who are injured through their own fault or where no-one was at fault, such as hitting an animal on the road, are simply not compensated through our current scheme, while others who suffer serious injuries which require lifetime care may be denied compensation, or they are provided lump sum compensation that is inadequate.

Each year, about 40 per cent of catastrophically injured accident victims are left without compensation. We are not talking about a small percentage, an outlying percentage or an exception to the rule when we speak of people not being covered: we are talking about almost half of all catastrophically injured motor accident victims, who are not covered by our current scheme—this is not acceptable. This means that those who are injured and suffer catastrophic injuries requiring ongoing care and support who are not covered must rely on disability support programs and family and friends—a heavy burden indeed for all involved.

This bill will end this shortcoming. This bill will bring about, from 1 July 2014, the introduction of a no-fault scheme. Not only will this scheme guarantee lifetime support and care for every South Australian who is catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident in South Australia, but the no-fault scheme will also meet the necessary costs in relation to medical treatment, rehabilitation, ambulance services and domestic assistance that result from such injuries.

This new scheme has already been embraced by vital groups in the medical, disability and legal professions. The government is taking this action to reduce everyday cost-of-living pressures and ease burdens placed on families supporting catastrophically injured South Australians. The introduction of this bill into parliament means an easement in the cost-of-living pressures for all South Australian families is on the way. The cost of our current CTP scheme is unsustainably high.

Since the year 2000, our premiums have grown by over 5.3 per cent—a higher rate than any other state or territory in Australia. Legal costs in relation to the scheme have increased by over 50 per cent since 2005, low economic loss payments are 53 per cent higher per vehicle than both Western Australia and Queensland, while payments for economic loss of earnings are 157 per cent higher per vehicle than in Western Australia. We also have a higher rate of claim: 144 per cent higher than in Western Australia and 132 per cent higher than in Queensland. This bill will rectify that.

Cost of living is a large concern for our community in South Australia. This bill will ensure that, over the next two years, the average South Australian will stand to reduce their expenditure by around $140. However, even if this bill did not bring about such a significant saving for every South Australian, it would still be one of the most vital bills to be introduced into this parliament. This bill will tackle the fundamental issue that our current CTP scheme is exposed to. I commend the bill.

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (16:42): I rise to also support the Motor Vehicle Accidents (Lifetime Support Scheme) Bill 2013. The government has produced a reform package designed to improve the affordability of compulsory third-party insurance and provide better care and support to people who suffer catastrophic injuries in road accidents, and I would like to explain why these reforms are socially important. This is an important piece of social policy reform, providing not only adequate but better care, treatment and support to victims of motor accidents and their families.

Currently, many families experience extreme emotional, social and financial hardship when a loved one is involved in a motor vehicle accident. All too often, inadequate and ill-timed financial support means that victims and their families lose their businesses and livelihoods, with all future plans put on hold. This is to ensure that, in the short term, families are able to assist with recovery and rehab and also, in the long-term, to provide care and support.

The Productivity Commission's 2011 final report into Disability Care and Support highlights that people with disabilities and their carers are among the most disadvantaged groups in Australian society. This can be seen through measures of social isolation and financial status, as well as personal wellbeing. This disadvantage is linked to a lack of sufficient support.

The report goes on to say that, while provision of support is generally lacking, it is also inequitable. The support people receive is influenced by where they live and the cause of their disability. There are significant unmet needs for disability services in Australia, and this has been the case for decades. It affects a wide range of everyday activities including self-care, mobility, communication and transport.

The responsibility of this unmet need often falls upon the families. Where there is no-one else to sue for being at fault in an accident the current CTP insurance system fails these severely injured people. It fails them at their most vulnerable, and this is why we need reforms creating a fairer system. Under these reforms catastrophically injured motor vehicle accident victims will receive lifetime care and support, including rehabilitation, irrespective of fault. Their immediate medical needs will be met from the time of the accident.

Currently, if somebody is catastrophically injured and another driver is found to be wholly or partly at fault, the compensation from CTP insurance is paid to the injured person as a one-off lump sum. This is intended to cover all future needs. However, this compensation might not be enough to fund a lifetime of care. There are several reasons for this, including that it is impossible to predict accurately a person's future needs. Large sums might be mishandled or mismanaged, and the economic conditions affecting investment of the money might change.

Furthermore, the amount awarded might be reduced by legal, medico-legal and other costs of litigation that are not covered by the award of party-party costs, or the amount may be reduced because of the person's contributory negligence. Furthermore, those whose accident was entirely their own fault, or no-one was at fault, receive no compensation or support for their catastrophic injuries and their lifetime needs. This not only impacts the victim, but their family as well, and I will explore further the impacts on families.

For many, lifetime support and care is provided by a spouse, parent or even children. Family members often quit their jobs and become the primary caregiver. Meanwhile, as medical and household bills start to pile up, so does the emotional stress on those victims trying to undergo the process of rehabilitation. The loss of independence can have a huge impact on victims; for example, a young adult who requires 24-hour care in all activities of daily living may have to move back into the family home for a lifetime of care and support. Sometimes, this also means families in rural areas have to relocate to be closer to services, displacing them from their social networks and support base.

Before their accidents, catastrophically injured people lead normal lives, with relationships and networks that are all too often lost after their accidents. This does not, however, need to be the case. A better, fairer system will provide for faster recovery, both physically and emotionally. For those families, whether they are in the midst of raising their children or preparing for retirement, these changes will mean better support; hopefully avoiding the all too common experience of loss of friends and social networks, inability to participate in full-time work, the selling of physical assets and superannuation.

These reforms mean that in the future people who are catastrophically injured will receive: the provision of appropriate care hours affording the spouse the opportunity to work and time to look after the emotional needs of themselves and their children; the provision of ongoing therapy to avoid future medical issues that may involve further surgeries; appropriate housing and quality of life; and assistance with social activities.

Families will have more choice; more choice for their loved ones and more choice for rehabilitation. This does not mean that families will no longer care for their loved ones, but it will give them more freedom to choose how much support they are able to provide and how much they rely on the scheme to arrange supports. Assistance from the scheme will assist in diminishing the emotional burden on the family as well as the financial and physical burdens.

This system will provide and support community participation and inclusion, including employment, for people with disabilities. Those living with catastrophic injuries will be able to participate and build networks, interacting with other individuals, not-for-profit organisations, local councils, businesses and community health centres. We must ensure that we are able to support those who continue to make a contribution to our society, and we owe it to them to ensure this reform is passed.

Delivering those reforms will provide a fairer system not only for those who suffer injuries in motor vehicle accidents but for their families as well. This will mean a fairer deal for the appropriate 40 injured people and their families who will enter the scheme each year. So, I ask all to support this bill.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:50): I rise to speak on the Motor Vehicle Accidents (Lifetime Support Scheme) Bill. Having regard to the usual forensic manner of which the member for Davenport examines these things, I will not traverse the issues that have been raised by him, and quite rightly seeking some response from the government as to the applicability of this new scheme.

Essentially, the Motor Accident Commission is an instrumentality in this state, which has the responsibility to provide for a number of things, including the promotion on road safety in the state, and which provides an annual report to this parliament. I suppose in substance it is South Australia's compulsory third party insurer, and provides for approximately $330 million a year in compensation to road crash victims.

The CTP insurance is built into our registration process, and that provides, of course, for persons injured in road crashes. It is largely a fault scheme, and there are aspects of this bill which propose to introduce a no-fault scheme for those who are able to be eligible as catastrophically injured. The motor injury claims are managed under contract to Allianz Australia, and there are approximately, according to the annual report, 6,000 claims a year.

The other role particularly, of course, is for the board of the Motor Accident Commission to ensure that it manages the investment fund, which is now close to $3 billion in investments for this entity and to also, as I think I pointed out, have a role in advice and managing the state's road safety communication program.

Just as an aside, I note in the annual reports, it also seems to fund public transport for major events like the Clipsal race. I am not quite sure how that fits into its strategy, but, in any event, it has obviously got some extra jobs to do. But it does spend I think some $10 million a year on road safety commercials and advertising to assist all of us to drive more safely on the roads.

I do not wish to be raising the Motor Accident Commission as it currently states for any other reason other than to highlight to the parliament that this is an entity which appears to be run very well. It is one which, you would have to say in reading its annual report, you would struggle to see why the government announced that there would be a review of the Motor Accident Commission and the CTP fund operation in this state at all, because certainly on its own records—for example, in its 2010 report, it had an annual profit of $238.5 million with net assets of $165.4 million. By 2011, it was $131 million, with net assets of $238.5 million. In 2012, the net assets were up to $397 million.

The claims were continuing, they were being processed. The net asset of this entity continued to accumulate, it was continuing to make a profit even in what we see as the instability of the global investment market which seems to have challenged just about every other government or semi-government entity in the state, let alone the private investors, and yet this is an entity that has continued to do very well and financially has ensured that that remains stable.

What is extraordinary is that I noticed that in the 2010 report, under section 5 of the Motor Accident Commission Act, a direction, dated 19 May 2010, was given to the board by its minister (the Treasurer) directing an increase of CTP premiums for premium class 1 be set at $476 per annum from 1 July 2010 and premiums for all other classes of motor vehicles to be set by applying the class relativities used in the calculation of the 2009-10 in force premium relativities. The 2011 report reports another increase and in the 2012 report I was stunned to read, and I quote:

However, the rising medical, care and legal costs to the CTP scheme are a major concern, somewhat neutralising the benefit of the reduction in road casualties. These rising claim costs together with unstable investment markets necessitated a further increase of 4.7% to the Class 1 CTP premium, effective from 1 July 2012.

So, in an environment in which the MAC are reporting to the parliament that they are having an increasing capital base and they are retaining their role, of course, in the significant claims, they have still seen fit to significantly increase the CTP premiums, of course under ministerial direction. It just seems to me that this is an entity which is doing very well, it has plenty of resources and yet it reports to us last year of the new announcement—which has come as a result of the COAG agreement—that is, that consistent with the federal government's proposal to introduce a national disability insurance scheme, which is probably the least descriptive of the wording used, it is essentially to provide for the support of the disabled to a far greater extent than they have now. It is a $6 billion or $8 billion annual exercise if the federal government takes up that initiative recommended by the Productivity Commission, but it is a significant commitment and it is disappointing that we have not had the dollars to flow with it.

We have a couple of programs that are out there which are available for states to sign up to, conditional upon what the real nub of this bill is, that is, to sign up to a no-fault scheme to provide long-term care for those catastrophically injured. Quite simply, if we do not, then we will not get a share of the NDIS trials and that, I think, is offensive enough. In any event, if we are going to have the prop-up Bill Shorten campaign and actually pass legislation to provide for it, and this legislation, let us just consider what the government here has done to achieve that. It has signed up, it has agreed with the federal minister that this is what it is going to do, it has then sent out an issues paper for consultation, which I think is entirely inconsistent when it has already signed up for this. It is not—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Vickie, you've got it completely wrong.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, I may. The minister interrupts to say I have got this completely wrong. It concerns me that in the environment in which the government claims it needed to review the whole CTP scheme, it has put out the green paper, or whatever it is, the first time around and what we find, before they came to the white paper, is that they have signed a commitment to Bill Shorten to prop him up. That is what has really happened here.

It does concern me that what is happening is not that we, as many members of this parliament have said, do not recognise the importance of securing adequate care and support for those who are catastrophically injured. I have heard various reports that it could be six, it could be 20 people a year and, naturally, it could vary in any one year.

However, obviously there are people out there who are victims of accidents in which they have been catastrophically injured but who do not have adequate support. No-one here in the parliament would disagree with that. Sadly, there are a lot of other people who have accidents who do not get the same attention as is proposed to be prescribed in this bill. What concerns me is that, having had a well-run entity, we then had this extra commitment for the feds to be able to secure funds, so what does the government do?

They need to be able to commit to this without it costing any more, and there are two ways they have really identified they are doing it, and one is to cut out the entitlements of a number of claimants who are eligible under the current legislation. Other members, including the member for Davenport, have illustrated the difficulties in identifying what threshold that needs to achieve, what the new threshold will be, and who will be excluded (who are currently covered), and the inequities relating to that, and the second area is to apply a new levy.

How do they sell it to the public? How do you sell it to the general public as a good initiative, as a combination, to deal with the catastrophically injured, to cut out some of those who currently have legal entitlements and to be able to put up with a new levy? What you do is promise in advance that you are going to get a discount in the current obligation. I do not doubt for one moment, having read the RAA's submission in support of this legislation, that they were welcoming and enthusiastic in embracing the offer to have at least a $100 reduction in the first year and a net of about $45 in the second year of operation for all its road users. That was a welcome aspect.

I suppose they took the view in the end that they have a lot more members who have to pay the insurance every year, relative to the number of their members who are at risk of injury or who are injured and who under this scheme may miss out, but, nevertheless, they have signed up to it. My concern is that the real purpose of progressing this type of legislation is one which is under question. I cannot see why, on the financial material that has been presented by the board over the last three or four years, it was necessary to have reform. I can see where the government have signed up to try to prop up their federal colleagues, and it does concern me that they are taking away from one to provide for another.

However, if the government were really serious about the plight of those who are catastrophically injured, why would they wait until 2014 to introduce this initiative? That is what I cannot understand. How can they possibly stand here and say, 'We're really keen to progress this'? There are people every year who are in this situation—there are relatives who are burdened with the support, the distress and the pain of having to cover that—and yet they are prepared to hold out until 2014 before this is available.

If it was an entirely new initiative, and it was an entirely new structure that was necessary and we needed to develop a model upon which to deal with it, then perhaps we would say that we needed some lead time, but we are asked every day in this parliament to progress bills in a hurry. I think one of the marine bills is coming up shortly, and they want to push that through on 1 July 2013 because it is what they agreed upon at COAG. So we are all going to be rushing through to deal with that this week, and yet on this one they say that they can provide some of it to be operative 1 July 2013 but that they are going to put off until 2014 the other side—that is, the application of a levy for the provision of the new scheme for the lifetime support initiative, the establishment of the authority and the necessary things.

I make the point here because it is not something that is new; this is already replicated in other jurisdictions. New South Wales has one that is already operational and, from the reading of the bill, it seems to be one that has been plucked across as the model for this scheme. So it is not new. We have the opportunity to progress this in a manner that will allow for the provision of support much earlier than the government proposes so, if it is genuinely bona fide in its commitment to assisting those who are catastrophically injured, then bring it on.

Clearly, the only reason for the government not advancing it at the same rate as the rest of these apparent initiatives is because of the election. The government does not want to lose the benefit of being able to go out there, as it has several times already, as usual presuming what the parliament is going to do, of course, and making promises that this will be a major cost saving for road users who are required to pay registration on motor vehicles.

That is the real reason; they want to be able to offer a carrot prior to the election and then whack them at the other end after the election if they are successful. They know they will not be feeling the pain of that, and if they are not successful at the next election then they will just expect the new government to take that pain. They want to be able to say to the public of South Australia, 'We care.' I say that if they care, support the amendment to bring forward the application for catastrophic injury to be effective from 1 July this year.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (17:06): I find this place works in some weird and wonderful ways.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: It works.

Mr PEGLER: It does work, but it seems to take months, if not years, to develop a bill to come before this parliament, and then when it comes before the parliament a little over a week later we are debating the bill. I give credit to the government, though; it has consulted with the Independents and has made people available if we had any questions.

There are two main changes that this bill effects, and the first one is the catastrophic life care. I feel that this, and the supports to the compulsory third party insurance, should be implemented at the same time. It is the wrong way to go, where people will see a drop in their insurance and then a rise in their insurance 12 months later. As far as I am concerned, both these changes should happen at the same time.

I certainly support the changes. I think the changes to compulsory third party are a step in the right direction. There is no doubt that third party insurance is becoming far too expensive in this state and, in making it harder for those small claims, in particular I support the fact that there will be no possibility of people claiming legal fees if they are awarded under $25,000 and that the legal fees for between $25,000 and $100,000 will be quite a bit less. Of course, this will not be popular with a lot of our lawyers, but I think it is a great step in the right direction.

I support the changes to the lifetime support scheme. I believe it is a step in the right direction. In my own electorate of Mount Gambier probably almost 80 per cent of all accidents are caused by kangaroos, and many of our constituents would not realise that, if they do hit a kangaroo, or dodge a kangaroo and run off the road, they are not supported through the compulsory third party scheme. So for those people who become severely injured, this is a great step in the right direction. Of course, when those people are injured it is often extremely hard on their families and they have no recourse because they cannot sue the kangaroo. I will certainly watch the questions in the committee stage with interest, but at this stage I indicate that I will support the bill.

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) (17:09): The reforms to compulsory third-party insurance are significant and important for two major reasons. These reforms provide for a no-fault scheme to care for people who have been catastrophically injured in motor vehicle accidents as well as making compulsory third-party premiums more affordable for South Australian motorists in the long-term.

On Tuesday 5 March, I informed the house about the government's intended reforms. While doing so, I informed the house about the anticipated savings arising from these changes and improvements in the performance of the scheme being nearly $150 over two years for class 1 motorists, and said that this would apply to every South Australian motorist. I note that, as members know, there are many different rates for CTP premiums, depending on the class of the vehicle. If premium relativities for each class of vehicle remain the same, the saving on next year's premium will be 20 per cent of the current premium paid. Then, in the following year, for those relativities that remain the same, it would be an 8 to 9 per cent reduction on current premium levels before inflation.

These are significant savings. For vehicles that pay more than class 1 premiums (such as taxis and many classes of goods-carrying vans and trucks), the dollar figure saving will be proportionately more and, for vehicles that currently pay less (such as district 2 passenger vehicles and motorbikes), the savings will be proportionately less in dollar terms. This is before any changes to relativities, which are regularly reviewed and can change premiums paid in varying classes as a result of their different accident histories.

I also wish to provide information to the house in response to claims made by Senator Xenophon about compensation eligibility under the scheme. The senator made a number of claims about compensation not being payable for certain injuries, and I want to set the record straight. The senator was referring to the Injury Scale Value table that was released for consultation with the government's white paper on the reforms. That table is still in consultation with South Australian medical experts, and the final version will be made as regulations.

I note, however, despite the wording in the senator's article which refers to people getting 'zero compo' or 'missing out entirely', under these reforms no-one loses an entitlement to compensation for their treatment and medical expenses, and all claimants will still receive some compensation for past time off work. What these reforms do is prevent people getting 'payouts' on top of that for the most minor injuries on the scale. The need to limit damages in some way to make CTP schemes affordable has long been accepted by most jurisdictions. Despite the senator's claims, these reforms are necessary.

The senator claimed that people will not get a cent for pain and suffering if your skull is fractured and you have 'minimal brain damage'. The senator is actually referring to the category in the table called a minor head injury. The injury is described as an uncomplicated skull fracture or other injuries from which the person fully recovers within a few weeks or, at worst, has associated concussive symptoms which last less than six months.

It is important to understand that the minimal brain damage referred to in the medical description of this category is usually the result of concussive effects. Post-concussive symptoms are generally headaches and reduced concentration that resolve over time. It is appropriate that people receive compensation for their medical and treatment costs and lost wages or income while their injuries heal. However, we must be realistic about what compensation payments we provide through a compulsory insurance scheme that must also be affordable for South Australian motorists.

Senator Xenophon made the same claim about what he called permanent facial scarring. In fact, he appears to be referring to an injury which features 'a single scar able to be camouflaged', 'almost invisible linear scarring' or where, if small scars occur, the 'overall effect of the scars is to mar, but not markedly to affect, appearance'. Again, a person with this injury would be eligible to receive all medical and treatment costs and would have an entitlement to past income loss if applicable.

If, however, the injury is scarring where the worst effects will be reduced by plastic surgery that will leave minor cosmetic damage, they may also be eligible for compensation for any future loss of income. This kind of inflammatory approach is used by the senator for each of the injuries he describes. For example, he says 'You'll also cop it in the neck if your spine is injured. Even if you have a crush injury, you may still miss out.'

A spinal injury that includes a fracture, disc prolapse or nerve root compression or damage has an ISV scale point range of 5 to 15 points. Therefore, if it is significantly affecting the person's life, they are likely to be assessed as above 10 points and receive compensation for all heads of damage.

The government has intentionally taken an approach which allows for the differences between both injuries and people to be taken into account. However, a soft tissue injury with no radiological evidence, including the injury known as whiplash, can receive up to 10 points. A person may be eligible to receive damages for loss of future earning capacity in addition to the medical and treatment costs and lost income, but will not be entitled to pain and suffering damages. This is a deliberate decision. Pain and suffering money awarded to whiplash injuries that heal, cost the scheme a lot of money.

I note Senator Xenophon's declaration of interest indicates that he is receiving substantial financial benefit from the personal injury law firm Xenophon and Co. While I understand that in the past Mr Xenophon's clients may have been receiving thousands of dollars to compensate for the sort of injury mentioned above, the scheme, and every South Australian who pays motor registration, simply cannot afford this type of award.

As I have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, under these reforms, everyone who was previously entitled, will still be entitled to their medical and treatment expenses and compensation for time they have lost off work. Like in Victoria and Tasmania, the maximum compensation for lost wages will be 80 per cent of pre-injury income. The government has consulted about these reforms and chosen an approach which is fair and, importantly, makes this compulsory insurance more affordable as part of our work to ease cost of living pressures for South Australians.

Can I also respond to some of the issues raised by the member for Davenport. The member for Davenport was concerned about when the actuarial advice was to be provided to the Economic and Finance Committee. I can advise that the advice has been provided to the committee by the Department of Treasury and Finance. He asked when the final ISV table would be released. As the opposition leader has been advised, the ISV table is undergoing consultation to ensure that it is appropriate in the South Australian environment.

The member for Davenport suggested that the ISV table should be already completed and is in some way being hidden. In fact, the opposite is true. The table has been widely and carefully consulted with the medical and legal professions. The ISV table is based on a document of the same name used in Queensland. A version accompanying the draft legislation was made public in November of last year which contained very few changes from the Queensland document. Consultation has since commenced with the medical community (including specialists in psychiatry, orthopaedics, neurology, rheumatology, plastic surgery, etc.) to assist in providing clarity around the descriptions in each injury item to assist parties in clearly identifying where particular injuries lie on the scale; point ranges are being considered and adjusted according to appropriateness; the language in the table is being reviewed for consistency with the AMA 5 guides (upon which the table is based); and the table is being reviewed for appropriateness in the South Australian context.

As a result of consultation with the legal community leading to changes to thresholds, there will also need to be some adjustments made to the table to provide clarity around the thresholds. Medical advice is being sought on these changes and they will also be subject to consultation with legal professional associations as well as other community groups. A list of the likely areas where adjustments for this purpose are being considered has already been provided to the legal professional associations. The government is committed to good faith consultation with the Law Society, Bar Association and Australian Lawyers Alliance on all the regulations under this bill, and that includes consultation on the ISV table which will form part of the regulations.

The member for Davenport also asked why there will be a different injury point system for motor vehicle accidents compared to other civil liability systems. The government is making changes to the CTP scheme to contain costs and the use of a new injury assessment system is part of that approach. The ISV table approach was chosen because it allows the ability to assign particular values to injuries whilst also allowing for variation within a band that takes account of the effect of that injury on the individual.

We are tackling motor vehicle accident compensation because it is an unavoidable cost for most South Australians. CTP insurance is unavoidable for motorists and, therefore, warrants special treatment to ensure its affordability. The member for Davenport has also queried why the no-fault scheme is not being expanded to cover all catastrophic accidents regardless of cause. In 2011, the Productivity Commission estimated that including all such injuries in the scheme would require more than $43 million per annum. This is for the additional costs of care and support for those who suffer catastrophic injuries and are not currently compensated. In addition, a system would need to be established to use compensation, which is currently provided through medical indemnity and public liability insurance, to fund care and support costs under a similar scheme.

As part of national discussions regarding the National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS), work is underway to consider the complexities involved in funding a universal no-fault catastrophic care system. However, these reforms are about what motorists pay as part of their ability to register their cars to deal with the accidents that happen on our roads. This is not the funding mechanism for a more universal system, but I am very pleased that both the government and the opposition have accepted that, when paying for our car registration, people should have this form of no-fault compensation scheme for accidents on our roads.

In his speech, the member for Davenport also reached the conclusion that the NDIS launch for children will not be funded by the commonwealth if the no-fault scheme is not operational by the date it is due to start, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was confusing herself on this issue as well. This is simply not true. The commonwealth's funding of the South Australian NDIS launch is not contingent on the no-fault scheme becoming operational. As the information that was provided previously to the member for Davenport states, COAG signed an intergovernmental agreement on the NDIS launch in December 2012. This agreement covers the period of the launch. In South Australia, the launch relates to children. All parties have agreed to continue work on the policy for the full NDIS scheme.

The intergovernmental agreement requires that the state pay the full cost for any person who falls to the NDIS because they are not covered by a no-fault motor vehicle scheme after the launch commences. In South Australia, this will apply to children aged zero to five covered by the NDIS for the first year. This bill provides that all children under 16 years injured in a motor vehicle accident will receive medical treatment and support on a no-fault basis from 1 July 2013. In South Australia, if the legislation is passed in time, any shortfall against the benchmarks is not likely to be a significant issue.

Also in relation to the NDIS, the member for Davenport questioned the timing of the full NDIS scheme rollout. In South Australia, the NDIS will be launched on 1 July 2013 for children. This launch will be rolled out over three years and the age cohort expanded each year. This will help shape the development of a national launch, and detailed implementation arrangements for the full scheme are currently being discussed between all governments.

I also foreshadow that the government will not be supporting the amendment moved by the member for Davenport which seeks to bring the entire bill into operation by 1 October this year. I have sought advice from my agency and this is not practically feasible. The agency advises me that it is very simplistic to claim that we need only to copy the New South Wales scheme. There are many factors which have influenced the chosen implementation date for the Lifetime Support Scheme. As the member for Davenport himself raised, attention must be paid to ensuring costs are contained and the scheme is efficient. No-fault scheme expenses require best possible case management to ensure there is not a blowout in claim expenses and that proper guidelines and procedures are followed.

It is important at inception that we get it right. It is more important to commence the LSS when properly prepared, rather than commence a poorly implemented approach adversely affecting services and costs and preventing South Australians from properly benefiting from reforms which are intended to increase affordability. Once the legislation is passed, I am advised by the department that up to 12 months are required to: determine an appropriate claims management model, incorporating decisions on approach and strategy that outlines written procedures and is supported by sound information technology, business workflow, and accounting systems and tools; and design and establish an appropriate workforce to manage a no-fault scheme and to case manage the LSS participants. This includes progressive resourcing levels, skills mix, recruitment and, importantly, training and supervision.

Service provider tenders and contractual arrangements, incorporating service standards and existing stakeholder consultation, are two other bodies of work that will take an estimated six months. The Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure has also advised a required 45 weeks or 10 to 11-month period to implement the ICT and associated changes required to introduce the proposed LSS levy, which is different from the CTP premium. The government will also develop the models alongside the NDIS launch rollout and use any lessons learnt from this to ensure the Lifetime Support Scheme is well managed.

For these reasons the government will not be supporting the opposition's amendments. However, I will be careful in monitoring the establishment of the authority and scheme to ensure South Australians get the best possible scheme. I thank all members. This is a significant piece of legislative reform. An enormous amount of work has gone into it. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate and support for the bill, and I commend the second reading to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

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

Page 5, line 6—Delete 'This' and substitute 'Subject to subsection (2), this'

This is the amendment I referred to in my second reading contribution. The purpose of this amendment is to bring forward the commencement of what I call the catastrophic care scheme, the lifetime support scheme. What my amendment says is that that particular scheme should come into operation no later than 1 October this year, which gives the government any time between now and then to have that scheme up and running. I note the minister's second reading contribution. The opposition believes that six months is adequate to get the scheme up.

We see no reason why if the current scheme is so bad that we need to change it we should delay it any longer than necessary. I think most people can see through the government's argument. What it is really doing is bringing forward the saving to the driver before the election and increasing the cost to the driver after the election. I do not think that is really in the best interests of the catastrophically injured. We recognise there must be some time required to set up the authority.

The government in its own second reading explanation and answers to my question, which I have read in, explained at length how it has been over in New South Wales looking at the system. I do not accept for a second the government's argument that it cannot get this authority up and running within six months. There is a live model over in Sydney, and you could certainly, in my view, have this up and running within the six-month period. The opposition will be standing by its amendment.

Mr BROCK: I would like to also speak on this here. I also congratulate the member for Davenport for moving this amendment and, before I do, I would like to congratulate the government for bringing this back into the system. I will speak in favour of the amendment. I certainly cannot understand why we cannot bring both systems in together, because I have a concern that, if there is an issue in the interim period, there is no coverage there. Certainly I am happy to give the government time to be able to get everything in place and, as the member for Davenport has indicated, if this amendment giving a provision to the act is not in by 1 October, then it will come into operation on that day. I certainly support this amendment.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The government is opposed to the amendment, firstly for the reasons I have already outlined in my reply in the second reading. The advice from my agency is that a significant amount of work needs to be done in order to establish a new agency which is going to take responsibility for those catastrophically injured in motor vehicle accidents.

I should make quite clear that in the 12 months from 1 July—basically from the operation of the tort reforms to the establishment 12 months later of the no-fault scheme—people catastrophically injured in car accidents will still be covered, but they will be covered under the old rules, so on a fault basis. So, they will still have essentially the same access to compensation that they do at the moment. They will be able to sue on a fault basis for that 12 months.

We envisage, but at this stage we are still looking at whether it will be possible for those people in that 12 months who are injured to actually buy into the no-fault scheme on 1 July 2014. More work needs to be done on that. Obviously, we need to get proper actuarial advice and make sure that however they were buying into it was properly covering the costs we would anticipate. But my advice in the department is it is simply not possible for us to have up and running by October a new agency to do this.

I should also point out that generally when we do adjustments to motor vehicle registration and compulsory third party premiums, they are done on a financial year basis. So, potentially, we would have the introduction of the tort reforms and the subsequent decrease in CTP premiums applying from 1 July, and then, a matter of months later, another adjustment with a new levy having to come into place in October. I do not think it is necessary, and, in any case, my very strong advice from the agency and from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure is that at the end of the day you have to put in place the ICT requirements to implement the new levy and that they need the full 12 months in order to do it.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: As the mover of the amendment, I think I get a right of reply. I just want to make this point to the house. What the Minister has said is quite right in relation to the 12 month period in the government's proposed scheme between 1 July this year and 1 July next year, that they would remain covered, but they would remain covered under the scheme which the Minister says is so bad we need to change. So, the 10, 12, 15 or 20 people who are going to be catastrophically injured in that period—the ones that swerved to miss the kangaroo and are not covered by the scheme—are going to be left in exactly the same position that we are trying to fix through this legislation.

Now, the Minister is quite right in saying that they might be able to buy in, but they are not a special class of injured, as, under the Minister's own legislation, every person who is currently catastrophically injured has the right to buy in. Even before we debated this legislation, if they were catastrophically injured five years ago, under this legislation the government is giving them a right to go to the authority and argue the case to buy in. The authority would do the calculation and come up with a figure and then there would be a decision made by that person as to whether they can afford to buy in.

So, that exact same circumstance will be in place for those people that are going to be catastrophically injured between 1 July this year and 30 June the next year under the government's proposal, which is to leave those people hanging with the bad scheme, the one we are trying to change. That is exactly what the government are proposing. So, the opposition's amendment says no.

The opposition's amendment indicates that we accept the fact there needs to be change. We think that, if you can set up an ICAC in six months and you've got a New South Wales model to copy, in relation to the premiums, minister, I don't believe it's beyond the wit of the government in the Department of Transport, if they know that the premium has to be adjusted, because the new levy is coming in on 1 October. So they've got a 10 month levy to be calculated and added on to the legislation.

If the legislation needs to be changed in the other place to allow that to happen on 1 July, then we will get parliamentary counsel and draft it so there is one adjustment on 1 July for the car registrations and the 10th month levy for this particular scheme It is not beyond the wit of the parliament to design the registration fee so that it takes into account not a 12-month levy the first year but a 10th-month levy.

The opposition is not going to front those families, in that 10th-month period, that are going to have people become catastrophically disabled and say, 'The reason that you are in the bad scheme is because the government could not deliver this scheme within six months.' So, the opposition offers that in rebuttal. We will be standing by our amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (20)
Brock, G.G. Chapman, V.A. Evans, I.F. (teller)
Gardner, J.A.W. Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P.
Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Marshall, S.S. McFetridge, D.
Pederick, A.S. Pegler, D.W. Pengilly, M.
Pisoni, D.G. Redmond, I.M. Sanderson, R.
Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Venning, I.H.
Whetstone, T.J. Williams, M.R.
NOES (24)
Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L.
Bignell, L.W.K. Breuer, L.R. Caica, P.
Close, S.E. Conlon, P.F. Fox, C.C.
Geraghty, R.K. Hill, J.D. Kenyon, T.R.
Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, A. O'Brien, M.F.
Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A. Rankine, J.M.
Rau, J.R. Sibbons, A.J. Snelling, J.J. (teller)
Thompson, M.G. Vlahos, L.A. Weatherill, J.W.

Majority of 4 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

The CHAIR: Mr Evans, do you wish to proceed with your second amendment?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The second amendment standing in my name is consequential and, as I have regrettably lost the first amendment, I will not proceed with the second amendment.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Other members of the opposition may indicate at various stages that they wish to ask questions. This clause is the interpretation clause of the bill, and I notice that there is no definition of 'motor vehicle' in the legislation. There is a definition of 'motor vehicle' in the Motor Vehicles Act. I wonder whether the minister thinks there is a flaw in the bill and whether the words 'motor vehicle' need to be defined.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I advise that the answer to the question of the member for Davenport lies in subclause (2):

(2) Other words and expressions used in this Act have the meaning assigned to them in section 5, or Part 4, of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959, unless the context otherwise requires or the LSS Rules provide otherwise.

So, essentially, it is 'motor vehicle' as described elsewhere.

Mrs REDMOND: Following on from that, does the minister consider it necessary to have a definition of 'road race', as that terminology appears in clause 24 or 25 of the bill? It is also not defined in the definitions, and I just wonder whether it might be appropriate to consider that.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: 'Road race' is defined in the Motor Vehicles Act in part 4.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The clause to which the minister refers, subclause (2), and to which he referred in answer to my first question on this clause, states:

(2) Other words and expressions used in this Act have the meaning assigned to them in section 5, or Part 4, of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959, unless the context otherwise requires or the LSS Rules provide otherwise.

Does that mean that the LSS rules can assign a different definition to the Motor Vehicles Act for 'motor vehicle' or 'road race'? Can the LSS rules actually assign a different meaning?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I suppose they could, but I cannot see why the meaning of motor vehicle or road race might be changed through the use of the LSS rules and, in any case, they have to be tabled in parliament and would be subject to disallowance.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: On the disallowance issue the minister raises, the LSS rules I am assuming will be tabled as a regulation—the whole set of rules—and therefore the only option the parliament will have will be to disallow the whole rules or none of the rules; is that correct?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is right, you cannot amend regulations. The whole system would be inoperative were the parliament to disallow. The whole thing would not operate without the rules if a disallowance motion was successful.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I thank the minister for clarifying that. What I was trying to get on the record was that the parliament's only choice with regard to the LSS rules would be to reject in total or accept in total so, if the LSS rules do assign different meanings for any reason, the reason they might do that, for instance on 'road race', is to try and constrain the definition to constrain the cost. What is a road and what is a race? The definition of 'road race' in the Motor Vehicles Act is relatively broad. For instance, three farmers racing down a private road or a track: does that become a road race, or does a road race have to be a race for profit or for prize?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am advised that three farmers racing down a farm track would not be a road race.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Can the minister confirm whether a race, as defined, has to be for a prize?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The act provides:

road race means any contest—

(a) that tests the speed or reliability of motor vehicles or the skill or endurance of their drivers or navigators; and

(b) that—

(i) is declared to be an event to which section 33 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 applies; or

(ii) takes place on a race track established or adapted for the purpose of such contests;

That is the definition of road race under the Motor Vehicles Act 1959.

Mrs REDMOND: Can I take it then, minister, from that definition that a road race between two Subarus down Magill Road, for instance, is not a road race?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, the member for Heysen is correct.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: In my last question on this clause, minister, clause 3(3) refers to the Motor Vehicles Act section 99(4) which deals with the conditionally registered farmers vehicles. I want to check that SAFF had been consulted regarding this change and whether there is any impact on the conditionally registered farmer's vehicles that are covered under section 99(3). Clause 3(3) provides:

Without limiting subsection (2), section 99(3), (3a) and (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 will apply in relation to this Act in order to determine whether a bodily injury is to be regarded as being caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle.

I want to get on the record that there is no change to the conditionally registered farmer's vehicles proposed in this bill.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There is no change. I am happy to put that on the record.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mrs REDMOND: The definition in clause 4 of the treatment, care and support needs is quite prescriptive and goes from (a) to (m), including a couple of fairly general provisions in (l) and (m) of such other kinds of treatment and things which are either prescribed by the regulations or determined by the authority. I wonder if the minister could give some indication of why then there is a provision in subsection (2) to do with excluded care and support needs. What is in contemplation as being excluded given such an extensive list of prescriptive inclusions?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Essentially because of the breadth of things that may be able to be covered under the scheme, it is necessary to have the ability by regulation to exclude certain things. For example, you will notice education and vocational training is one of the things that is covered. Obviously there is education and vocational training and then there is education and vocational training that may be of a more frivolous education and vocational training.

It provides the ability through the rules which have to be tabled in the parliament for certain types of things to be excluded. Another example might be certain experimental types of treatment that might be provided that the authority may need to exclude. You will notice that there is a fairly broad coverage there and it provides the ability for certain things under that to be excluded. But as I say, it has to be done through the rules subject to the normal parliamentary scrutiny.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Can I check my understanding, minister? In clause 4(2) it provides:

Despite subsection (1), but subject to subsection (1)(m), the treatment, care and support needs of a participant do not include any treatment, care, support or services declared by the LSS Rules to be excluded treatment, care and support needs.

I want to get it on the record that it is not possible for the LSS Rules to exclude treatment, care and support needs that are actually outlined in the act between subclauses (a) to (m).

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I may have missed the point the member for Davenport is trying to make. Subsection (2) basically allows, under the rules which have to be tabled to the parliament, certain types of treatment, care and support to be able to be excluded.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, the question is: can they exclude any of the care, support or service that the act specifically says is included; that is, under (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h)? Can the rules actually say that, 'Even though the act names these, we have the power to exclude them and, therefore, for some reason we are going to exclude them'?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, it cannot override those provisions in the act. It can provide for certain types; so, for example, under paragraph (b) certain types of dental treatment might be excluded, but the rules could not provide for blanket exclusion of dental treatment; or, under vocational education and training, certain types of education and vocational training could be excluded, but education and vocational training as a class could not be excluded under the rules.

So, the rules cannot override the provisions of the act, but what they can exclude is certain types of sub-classes under these provisions. I have just been given an example from New South Wales, of things which are not funded. I am quoting from the New South Wales authority. This is excluded:

services that are of no clear benefit to a participant;

services for a condition that existed before a motor accident or that is not a result of a motor accident;

services that the participant accessed, was assessed as needing, or was on the waiting list for prior to the motor accident; or

education expenses levied by the educational institution, including school fees, fees for excursions or school camps, stationery and uniforms, that are the responsibility of the parent or guardian. The Authority will fund the additional expenses that are required as a result of the motor accident injury.

So, under this New South Wales example, they exclude things, essentially, which are arising from some pre-existing condition.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT