Motor Vehicle Accidents (Lifetime Support Scheme) Bill
30/04/2013
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:04): I would like to briefly put on the record today my concerns about the Motor Vehicle Accidents (Lifetime Support Scheme) Bill. Whilst I appreciate that many other people are terrified of public backlash if seen not to be backing a $110 saving on 12-month car registrations, I think it is important that I put on the record some very grave concerns that I have about how this is going to work, or not going to work, as the case may be.
As far as I can tell, the government’s campaign on this bill and the new scheme comprises of three parts basically. One, spruiking to the media compulsory third-party insurance savings on all of our car registration expenses. ‘You will save $110 on your car registration’ seems to have been yelled pretty loudly from the rooftops for more than 12 months now. Two, let’s do the money-hungry lawyers out of a job and set up a compensation scheme that, in the main, excludes them; and three, ensuring people not covered for lifetime care in catastrophic accidents where no-one is at fault will henceforth be covered.
Point 3 of the above is indeed a very meritorious aim. Those in catastrophic accidents that have only a kangaroo, poor lighting or some other non-insured entity to claim against have been and still are a problematic feature of our car accidents compensation system, and I commend the government for reforming this particular area. This will have an immeasurably positive impact on the small number of South Australians this affects each year, so this aspect of this system I certainly support, but in relation to the other points, I will canvass some very sincere concerns that I hold.
Firstly, I find it more than a coincidence that, nine months out from a state election on 1 July this year, the government will be giving South Australians a $110 discount on their CTP insurance aspect of their car registration. Then, three months after the election, from 1 July 2014, with the establishment of a new bureaucracy, car registration will increase in cost. The government may say this is unavoidable. I believe this could be managed differently, and would like the minister to explain why the ending of the current system and the establishment of a new body could not go ahead on 1 January 2014, for example.
Secondly, we all know that bashing an ambulance-chasing lawyer is bound to be generally a publicly popular move, even if some of the people doing it are former lawyers and now politicians. However, like any other profession, there are those who are good at their job in the legal profession and those who are not, those who are sincere and genuine, and those who are not. Whilst the government seems very keen to repeatedly tell us that the Law Society, Bar Association and Lawyers Alliance have now agreed to a negotiated position on this bill, I would hardly say that there is a gushing show of appreciation for this compromise.
I know that many in legal circles are deeply concerned about the impacts that this could have on many people. These are not lawyers who are advocating for their own bank balances. These are people who genuinely care about how someone’s life will be affected by a car accident. Lawyers are effectively advocates within the legal system, and they do not want to see the rights of the injured and maimed negated or removed, and nor should anyone in this chamber, I believe.
Working from an injury table in percentages is not necessarily a method that is going to work in all cases. How, for example, would a wrist injury that affects the income of a 40-something-year-old hairdresser, who is a single mother, be measured with these new tables? It is going to be a very different effect to that on a 65-year-old male office worker, for example, or a 20 year old. How are those nuances going to be taken into account under these new systems? I am afraid they will not be. I am afraid that is the answer, and I do not accept that.
Percentage limits and particularly labels are very risky to say the least. I would have thought the one thing the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, or Disability Care as it is now being labelled (and I cannot fathom for the life of me why), would have made us realise is that just assuming that a certain injury, disability or illness equals X does not work and it is not the case. How something affects someone’s life is different from individual to individual. Assuming X equals Y does not work when looking at the way that injury and illness affects people’s lives, so we need to look at functionality—how things really impact on someone’s day-to-day life, and work in particular.
I know that the New Zealand and Queensland systems have given us some shining examples of where we should be aiming with our South Australian scheme. However, it is my understanding that, while the New Zealand scheme might be no lawyers’ picnic, it is also a nightmare for victims, a bureaucratic nightmare. What about the Tasmanian system? To that end I have a few questions I would like answered. I will certainly put them to the relevant minister. Why are we not using the latest ISV chart and regulations on this new scheme? I would have thought that it would make sense to use the latest tables available. Secondly, why are we not adapting the narrative test as part of this legislation?
The final point I would like to make relates to why we need to completely remove the current system. We could make changes in relation to lifetime care for catastrophic accidents without throwing out the entire system. We could surely make some amendments. Unlike WorkCover, our current car accident insurance scheme seems sustainable, workable and runs without a loss. It is not an unfunded liability, as with some other schemes, and therefore I really do not know why we have to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater in this case.
To make a final point, there is a little proverb of which I am very fond and it goes something like this: to retain your self-respect it is better to displease the people by doing what you know is right than to temporarily please them by doing what you know is wrong. And this is wrong: this is duping people out of lifetime care that could make an enormous difference to their life. This is not taking into account the true nuances, the true effect, that serious injury could have on people’s lives.
I understand that I may be making myself somewhat unpopular—hopefully, temporarily—by making this decision, but I have that proverb Blu Tack-ed to the back of my door in large print for a very good reason—because I will not stand by any legislation that I see as being sold as a short-term gain to South Australians when I know it will be at a very long-term heavy cost. I cannot stand by that, and for that reason I will not support this bill at this stage.
