Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 28 June 1999, Corrected Copy)

The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 3.00 p.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge that we are meeting on Eora land.

Consideration resumed from 24 June.

The CHAIRMAN: A new running sheet is available that takes into account additional amendments by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, the Hon. Dr P. Wong, the Government and the Hon. A. G. Corbett. Members should familiarise themselves with those amendments. The Committee is still dealing with Australian Democrats amendment No. 1.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.02 p.m.]: On Thursday I moved amendments Nos 1, 2 and 17 in globo. I now seek to add in globo amendments Nos 24, 25, 26, 27, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 44. By leave, I move:

No. 24 Page 49, clause 81, line 29. Omit "a medical assessor". Insert instead "an expert case assessment team".

No. 25 Page 51, clause 82 (note), lines 19-21. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

Note. Case assessment disputes about payments under this section may be referred by the insurer or claimant to an expert case assessment team for assessment under Part 3.4. Other disputes may be referred to a claims assessor under section 95 for assessment.

No. 26 Page 54, clause 85, lines 1-3. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(3) A claimant must comply with any request by an expert case assessment team or a member of that team to undergo an assessment by the team or member for the purposes of an assessment under Part 3.4.

No. 27 Page 58, clause 95, lines 9-11. Omit "not being a medical dispute that may be referred to a medical assessor under Part 3.4". Insert instead "not being a case assessment dispute that may be referred to an expert case assessment team under Part 3.4".

No. 35 Page 74, clause 129, line 14. Omit "medical assessor". Insert instead "expert case assessment team".

No. 36 Page 74, clause 129, line 18. Insert "and disability" after "impairment".

No. 37 Page 74, clause 129, lines 19-21. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(3) An expert case assessment team may decline to make an assessment under Part 3.4 of the degree of permanent impairment and disability of an injured person until the expert case assessment team is satisfied that the injury has stabilised. Court proceedings

No. 38 Page 74, clause 129, line 25. Insert "and disability" after "impairment".

No. 44 Page 85, clause 147, lines 22 and 23. Omit "for use in connection with a medical assessment by a medical assessor". Insert instead "for use in connection with an assessment by an expert case assessment team".

I have deleted amendment No. 54 from that group and I will speak separately to No. 34. I will elaborate on the concepts of the amendments, otherwise the consequential amendments will cause a great deal of confusion. I will explain "expert case assessor" for the benefit of those who were not in the Chamber.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: We were all here.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Then I will explain it for the benefit of those who cannot recall. Basically, the idea is to withdraw power from a single doctor, who would presumably be referring to the American Medical Association guidelines. Within three months the Motor Accidents Council [MAC] is supposed to produce guidelines and the American Medical Association guidelines are supposed to disappear. That is likely to be a ridiculous ask, having regard to the difficulty involved in producing guidelines.

I suggest this amendment on expert case assessment as a more broadly based and holistic approach. It has been suggested in the media that these amendments will increase the costs of green
Page 1464
slip insurance to $600. This is supposedly based on a Trowbridge report. I suggest politely that that is complete nonsense in the sense that it lumps all the costs together. A number of times in this House I have spoken about the Government’s poor decision-making process and how the Government consistently gets away with not providing reasonable evidence of the matters it asserts. It simply uses rhetoric and anecdotes to put together information and then relies on this House to accept them.

The Government claims that this bill will result in a reduction in premiums of $100. If that is the case, the Government should cost each clause of the bill and let the members of this Chamber decide on the merits which clauses will save money and which clauses will not. The Government should show the evidence underlying the claims it has made so that honourable members can make an informed decision. It has not done that. The Government claims that my amendments will increase premiums by $170, so they will cost $600. The Government has not backed up its claim at all, nor has it costed any of the amendments.

In correspondence with me, Industries Australia has made the pertinent point that when the Joint Standing Committee on Law and Justice examined this reform under the chairmanship of the Hon. Bryan Vaughan, in three years the committee could not work out the costing of the scheme, yet this Government has worked out the cost of my amendments in 24 hours. I suggest that the Government has not come up with any real evidence to support its figures, nor has it distinguished the clauses that will increase the costs from the those that do not.

Effectively, the Government is attempting an assassination of all the amendments I have proposed. The expert case assessment proposal, which I believe will save money, cannot simply be lumped with all the other proposals. It shows the sloppiness of this Government that it weighs in with political criticism rather than present facts to either support its proposals or criticise mine. It reflects very poorly on the Government’s attitude to this Chamber and to democratic decision-making processes. I took the precaution of asking for actuarial calculations to be done. A letter of opinion from Cumpston Sarjeant Pty Ltd, consulting actuaries, was sent to Mark Richardson from the Law Society. The letter states:

Dear Mr Richardson

MAC Bill - Democrat amendments

Robert Leeder has asked me to comment on a letter of 24/6/99 by Geoff Atkins of Trowbridge Consulting.

I find it surprising that no effort has been made to place cost estimates on any of the amendments. The letter does nothing to assist intelligent debate about particular amendments. With 24 hours and 10 years of advising NSW CTP insurers, Trowbridge Consulting should have been able to do better.

I suspect that the costs associated with some of the amendments are small. For example, the restrictions on interest on awards may be of little overall financial consequence, although providing an undesirable opportunity for insurers to procrastinate.

I also suspect that the "more than $600 per vehicle" is based on an assumed future rate of superimposed inflation much higher than is being used to make estimates for the proposed system.

The letter says

"The Democrats scheme will not result in the desired reduction in the use of the Courts to resolve claims because

•cost penalties are virtually removed . . ."

There seems to be a widespread view amongst actuaries that the courts are responsible for large CTP cost increases, and that financial penalties are needed to reduce access to the courts by the injured.

Judging from the recent material I have seen from Trowbridge, Price Waterhouse Coopers, Tillinghast and Ernst & Young, the actuaries advising the MAA are unaware of the elimination of the District Court’s backlog, and the subsequent transfer of virtually all motor accident cases from the Supreme to the District Court.

As a result of this ignorance, the actuaries may have substantially over-estimated recent rates of superimposed inflation, average claim sizes and periods to payment. This may have resulted in excessively high estimates of necessary premiums.

Actuarial methods are generally reliable when underlying systems are stable. There have been so many recent changes to the NSW CTP system, however, that the actuarial estimates are currently unreliable. As nearly all the actuaries involved are employed by insurers rather than by the injured, there is a real possibility that the actuaries are being unduly pessimistic.

If the bill is passed unamended, motorists may save $100 a year, and the injured will lose on average about 25% of the previous entitlements. Ultimately the real losers will be the people of NSW, who may find their civil rights further eroded.
Yours sincerely

Richard Cumpston

We should not kid ourselves with this effort by Trowbridge to frighten everybody into thinking that these changes are really serious. I make the point that I do not believe medical case assessment is particularly expensive. If it is being asserted that a single doctor who is working with artificial American Medical Association guidelines alone will not cost much money in the assessment process - and, given the nature of the American Medical Association guidelines, will probably not get much
Page 1465
benefit for the poor injured person either - that would set a new low as the benchmark.

Leaving aside the concern of the Australian Orthopaedic Society, which is that a number of doctors could be blown away by an angry plaintiff with a shotgun because of this system of assessment, if we assume that these holistic assessments are done by three people - a specialist medical practitioner, a rehabilitation practitioner whose initial training may be medical, physiotherapy or occupational therapy, and a financial adviser who knows both the rates of pay and the probability of the claimant getting a job before and after the accident - I suggest that in this amendment we are simply expanding the current assessment system from one medical practitioner.

The financial assessor is already paid in the sense that the specialist chooses the magic number from the American Medical Association guidelines, which I believe is a totally artificial construct, and superimposes that number on a wages cost and comes up with an amount of compensation. Under the system I have suggested the financial assessor would work more personally on the case and have a real understanding of it from the more comprehensive formulation of the rehabilitation practitioner, in addition to the specialist medical practitioner. We would have a better overall view, a more tailored system.

I do not see any reason why that assessment would cost any more than an assessment by a rehabilitation practitioner. Currently, rehabilitation practitioners are paid less than some other specialist doctors. That is an historical occurrence. Physiotherapists and occupational therapists are also paid less than doctors. Medical assessments are expensive but relative to treatment they are not that expensive, and they only become a relevant factor in litigated cases when each side has five specialists costing about $500 each and they are cross-examined at great length in the courts with reports going to and fro.

The cost of a simple assessment is fairly minimal. A more thorough assessment will effectively save costs because it will be a neutral report covering not only a narrow American Medical Association impairment guideline but also what the impairment means in regard to both the person’s ability to earn money and his personal and vocational life. In other words, in litigated cases the courts will have a much more solid foundation for assessment, and litigation costs should drop. So there is quite a financial upside in this more holistic assessment.

Psychological assessments could be done if a psychological assessor were part of the team; the team could cope with psychological assessments in that model. If the Government insists on tables such as the American Medical Association guidelines, guidelines later formulated by the Australian Medical Association or the Motor Accidents Council, or the Comcare guidelines, these groups can still work off the tables because they understand them. I want to separate the use of the case assessment mechanism from consideration of percentage impairment, which is central to the Government’s position.

It is important for honourable members to understand that they can vote for my amendment No. 1 and vote either way on the proposed percentage impairment amendments. It is not the case that if they accept a percentage impairment guideline they must reject this amendment. I ask honourable members to support this amendment as a more holistic way of dealing with the issue of medical assessments.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.24 p.m.]: There is a great deal of merit involved in having a triumvirate of people making an assessment. I say that because I have had dealings with what I call insurance consultants. I dare say that over time the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer has had a great deal to say about insurance consultants, both medical and non- medical. He who pays the piper often calls the tune. It is probably much easier to bribe or suborn one person or to make only one person part of the system and envelop that person in a culture. That view is reinforced in a letter I received from a physiotherapist, who made the point that it is important that the initial assessment be undertaken by a person trained in rehabilitation. In a letter to me Mr Jack Graham of the Australian Physiotherapy Association said:

. . . it is of paramount importance that rehabilitation service providers such as physiotherapists are included on advisory committees when developing and implementing treatment guidelines.

In support of the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, I believe also that it is important to have a physiotherapist on the initial assessment panel, although the Minister has said that that will cost the earth. It is sensible to have at least a tripartite arrangement in place, as proposed by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans. However, I have taken further advice and I have done something the Minister has not done. I have consulted the service providers, the Australian Medical Association.

Page 1466

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: I consulted the Australian Medical Association.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I know the Minister consulted the Australian Medical Association but that was two weeks ago. The Minister has not consulted the Australian Medical Association on the amendments. We have some 50 pages of amendments to the schedules alone. I shall save my arguments on those amendments and the need for them, and the Minister can wait with anticipation for what I will say later about the way the Government has brought this bill forward.

I have taken the trouble to consult the Australian Medical Association, the major provider of treatment services for the injured. Not all services are provided by medical people, and not all those who provide services are members of the Australian Medical Association. The Australian Medical Association said:

Dr Chesterfield-Evans has expressed concern at the establishment, under the Act, of a single medical assessor at first instance. The AMA must offer comment on the assumption that the person appointed to this responsible position -

the Minister should listen to this; he does not know about this yet because he has not consulted the Australian Medical Association about this matter -

and being appropriately remunerated, would bring to the process a degree of excellence that will enable injured persons, their legal advisers, insurers and the Motor Accidents Authority to accept the impairment assessment with only fine degree of possible variation either way which, in all of the circumstances, may lead to relative expeditious settlement of claims. This view, however must be severely tempered by AMA concerns relating to textbook impairment guidelines or guidelines issued by the Motor Accidents Authority that would constrain a medical practitioner in bringing the whole of his experience and training to the task at hand.

So the Australian Medical Association is saying that, should someone be appropriately trained and remunerated, and should he be seen to be and really be independent, such a person could possibly exercise the degree of excellence that the Minister is proposing. If not constrained by a textbook impairment guideline process, and bringing to bear that particular medical person’s whole skills, it is possible that the person would speedily make an assessment. But both the person injured and the insurer may disagree with that assessment. Because there will be only a fine degree of possible variation - which is of course the aim - a relatively expeditious settlement could be achieved, which is the Minister’s aim.

So the Australian Medical Association is saying that the Minister’s idea is a bit like the curate’s egg. I ask the Minister: Will that medical assessor be constrained by a textbook impairment guideline or will the medical assessor be able to apply, in the Australian Medical Association's words, the whole of his experience and training to the task at hand without constraint with a series of fixed and imported guidelines? The answer to that question will make a big difference to the way in which I approach the remainder of the debate on this amendment.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [3.31 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the Australian Democrats amendments. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is experienced in the medical arena. He has brought to bear some very positive comments on the value of the amendments. Accordingly, the Opposition will support them.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS [3.32 p.m.]: I have read the Australian Democrat amendments in relation to the expert assessment panels, particularly the definition which refers to definitions. I do not think that the problems that the panels would cause have been properly thought out by the mover, and I would ask him to reconsider his support for them. The first thing that needs to be said about the expert case assessment team, as opposed to the Government proposal, is this: The Government proposal allows more than one medical practitioner in an appropriate case to examine a claimant’s position. It is set out that the proper officer of the authority can refer an appropriate medical dispute to a medical assessor or assessors.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans is proposing an expert assessment and care team that will be strait-jacketed in its composition by having to contain a specialist medical practitioner from a discipline appropriate to the injured person’s medical or surgical problem; a person specialising in rehabilitation and retraining - who need not be a medical practitioner, but can be, but who has to be a rehabilitation provider - and a person who, again, is not a medical practitioner but a person who has expertise in employment placement and remuneration relative to the injured or disabled persons.

The only requirement in this expert assessment panel for medical practitioners is, first, the specialist medical practitioner in a discipline appropriate to the injured person’s medical or surgical problem. The second requirement is not necessarily for a medical
Page 1467
practitioner but for someone who has expertise in rehabilitation. Under the scheme there cannot be more than two doctors, and one person has to be a rehabilitation provider.

Imagine a case in which a person has multiple injuries which require different specialties. The Government proposal allows people from those different specialities to examine the person for the purposes of the assessment - because there is reference to a medical assessor or assessors. The proposal of the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans does not allow for that: The injured person will be examined by only one specialist and another specialist, who may be a physiotherapist, I think, or a person with an occupational therapy background and not a specialist. So where would a person with orthopaedic and neurological problems get the assessment from? That is the first problem.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: But Arthur’s thinking is that you can have three doctors if you want, is it not?

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: There are not three doctors; there is provision for (a), (b) and (c).

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: But they can all be doctors if necessary.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: The person in (c) cannot be a doctor: that has to be "a person with expertise in employment placement and remuneration of injured or disabled persons", whatever that is supposed to mean.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans is an expert in that area.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: But where is the neurologist going to be fitted in?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It doesn’t say those members cannot be doctors.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: Where is the orthopaedic expert to be fitted in? This is not a specialist medical panel. This is an expert panel. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans referred to it in his opening remarks. It is an expert panel.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That is right. They can all be doctors.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: Then where is rehabilitation dealt with? Where is the person who has expertise in employment placement?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You can have a specialist in rehabilitation.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti thinks that doctors are expert in every field of human endeavour but some of them have restrictions in what they can and cannot do. He ought to -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It says that -

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti should listen for a moment instead of talking. It would have been useful if he had actually read the amendments. Then he would have worked out how impractical this solution is. It is even more impractical in view of what the panel has to do. This is where the expertise of the members will come to the forefront. Under the heading "Application" the expert case assessors have some additional requirements to perform. Amended clause 57 (1) (e) and (f) will read:

(e) the degree of disability consequent on an impairment referred to in paragraph (d),

(f) the economic consequences of the disability referred to in paragraph (e).

How is a doctor to assess the economic consequences of the disability referred to in paragraph (e)? That is not defined. It could be claimed that non-economic loss is an economic consequence of a disability. Are expert assessment panels to determine that the level of pain and suffering and loss of expectation of life and all these other pre-requisites will be put in non-economic loss? Are three doctors going to assess all these factors for the purposes of the certificate?

Clause 59 refers to the expert assessment procedures. The amendment to clause 59 (5) would allow this team, this triumvirate as the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti refers to it, to make its assessments either individually or jointly. So all the members would have a choice, would they? They could do it together or not. There could be a majority opinion or a minority opinion? Paragraph (d) would read:

A recommendation as to the compensation amount and the likely outcome for the individual is to be made jointly by the members of the team.

Firstly, what is the compensation? The bill does not refer to compensation; it refers to damages. What expertise will these three people have in determining the "compensation", whatever that is supposed to mean, and the outcome for the individual? This is not some minor matter. Under the amended form of
Page 1468
clause 63 the certificate will be conclusive only about the matters referred to in the bill, but the likely "compensation", whatever that is, and the likely outcome will be matters which can be used in court proceedings. What an extraordinary suggestion!

Three uninformed people will make an uninformed decision as to the likely economic consequences and the "compensation" - which are not defined. This totally inexperienced team which the honourable member calls the expert team will make these assessments, and then for whatever purpose, which I do not understand, we are going to have this useless opinion thrown into the middle of court proceedings. For what purposes? At least the Government proposal says that when this matter goes to CARS, the Claims Assessment and Resolution Service, and it provides a certificate as to what the appropriate compensation is, that certificate cannot be used in the court proceedings except when it comes to the question of costs.

That is when that certificate comes to the forefront: the judge who is hearing the case will be able to make appropriate cost penalties on the basis of that determination. What is the point of having this useless information from this useless body put into a court proceeding except to infect the outcome of the court proceedings? It can be used only for that purpose. The propositions put forward are illogical. So there has to be an assessment of economic consequences and "compensation" is not defined. There is an assessment report by these three people who have no expertise, I would argue, in assessing those issues, and it then will be put into the middle of court proceedings for some, as I said, useless and ill-defined purposes.

The amendments proposed to clause 62 refer to the expert case assessment review panel. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti said it is better for the panel to have three members rather than one, but the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans does not agree. He suggests that if the three get it wrong, there should be a review of the decision of the three members by the expert case assessment review panel. However, the same people who made the original decision could be the ones to undertake the review. Proposed new clause 62 (1) says that all of the members of the original expert assessment team may be replaced on the panel by one or more expert case assessors with the same area of expertise or specialisation. What is the point of having the same person reviewing his or her own decision? These amendments are farcical. They make a mockery of the bill and should be rejected.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.40 p.m.]: The honourable member simply did not read what the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans said. The amendment proposed to clause 57 (1), under the heading "Application", states that can be done at the same time or at different times. They still have to come up with a single assessment and that was the explanation given by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans. They can do it severally or jointly but they have to come up with the same assessment.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.41 p.m.]: I am amazed at the Government’s response. It is suggesting that three people, one of whom is a specialist medical practitioner, do not have the expertise, that they are mugs and cannot make a decision. An assessment by three people, including a person similar to the member proposed by the Government, could hardly suddenly be deemed to be ill-informed. The Government is relying wholly and solely on the specialist medical practitioner, whereas I propose that person plus two others. So it is absurd to suggest that such a panel would have less expertise.

It is also absurd to suggest that these people would not understand the consequences of an injury. The Government proposes an imposed formula without reference to anything except the angle at which joints can move and other similar narrow medical frameworks. From that emerges a magical number and into that is somehow plugged a financial formula to work out the damages. I have called it compensation but if it should be called damages, I apologise. However, the difference is small and the meaning clear.

The Government wants one person and a formula; I propose that person, with two others, giving a more holistic framework, with a recommendation. To suggest that the financial adviser or the doctor lacks expertise when it is the same person is absurd. The rehabilitation member will put into context what can be done and make the financial compensation or damages far more realistic and case specific than the abstract formula. The Government has no case. I want to add expertise, the Government is critical of lack of expertise. The Government’s position is indefensible.

The possibility of the same people being on the panel was also criticised. If a point of argument is a medical point, in other words, the diagnosis is in question, the medical member would be changed, not the financial adviser; any damages recommended by the financial adviser would be accepted. There would be no point in changing the whole panel
Page 1469
because that would just add to the costs. What is material to the dispute must be reviewed.

A review that is not done at a joint sitting of three experts will be done in sequence, with diagnosis, diagnostic consequences and financial ramifications being dealt with discretely, unless those elements are first agreed to in discussion, which may not be convenient to the members. Sadly, the Government does not appear to have read my amendments yet it is critical of them when its proposition is far less holistic and well intentioned. What the Hon. J. Hatzistergos said is irrelevant.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [3.45 p.m.]: I wish to reply to matters raised by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti and the Hon. J. Hatzistergos. It is my view that problems with the motor accident system will only be addressed, despite the initial problem of the average cost premiums, if we achieve a culture change with the way in which claims are assessed and dealt with by insurers, the representatives of plaintiffs and the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA]. The amendments of the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans impede the progression of any culture change. Despite the undoubted good intentions of the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, the result of the amendments would be an incredibly expensive system and, in the first instance, an increase in costs. As the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti and the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans are both medical practitioners they would be aware that a high level of skill involves high levels of remuneration.

Therefore, at the first port of call in assessing the utility of these amendments, the amendments fail simply because the result would be an unacceptable level of cost. However, it goes further than that: it is actually needless cost. Concern has been expressed by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans in responding to the Hon. J. Hatzistergos, and also the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti in a private conversation earlier - and their concerns arise probably because they are both medical practitioners - that the approach of the Government and the Motor Accidents Authority will be a system requiring medical doctors to make diagnostic and treatment-type decisions in the form that is suggested in the medical assessment process that Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans seeks to amend. That is not the case.

The Government is not seeking to require doctors to make prescriptive or diagnostic decisions. The medical assessor will simply be asked to make a medical interpretation of what in most cases will be undisputed facts in relation to impairment. However, not only are we arguing about different structures, we are arguing from totally different premises. The Government is not asking the medical assessor to make all the decisions that the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti are envisaging they will end up making. We are not asking them to make prescriptions about how these people will be dealt with, about rehabilitation, about medical treatment or about a prescription of treatment. The Government is simply asking them to make a decision, based on the facts, about the level of impairment. That is also why the Government opposes the amendments.

The Government does not propose to constrain doctors in relation to prescription or diagnostic decisions. The Government is not asking people to abandon the tradition of medical science but to do something quite consistent with modern medical practice. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti again echoed a concern of a number of medical professionals and one that is on foot in the media about the aspects of medico-legal disputation. The Government does not propose that the American Medical Association guidelines will be the final guidelines used for motor vehicle impairment. Consciously and deliberately embedded in the legislation is the opportunity for the MAA to evolve its own set of guidelines which will be in place well before any case is to be dealt with under this legislation.

The American Medical Association guidelines, which we are proposing only as interim guidelines, are in place in 69 other jurisdictions, for these or similar purposes. So it is a little cheeky of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti to infer that by virtue of the Government’s amendments there is some radical conspiracy going on, that we are thrusting upon the people some imperialist medical scheme from some other country.

As I said, we are not asking people to use those guidelines. By the time it comes to real-time use, they will be using the purpose-designed guidelines of the Motor Accidents Authority, which I would hope, given the level of expertise available to us in the medical and legal professions in New South Wales, will be absolutely state-of-the-art. In fact, the guidelines will be exported to the United States to be used as medico-legal guidelines. As the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti knows, there needs to be a starting point, and the guidelines are a starting point. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti made great play, as the shop steward here for the medical profession -

Page 1470

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What’s wrong with shop stewards?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: There is nothing wrong with them. In fact, I have a lot of respect for shop stewards. Having been a union member all of my working life and once or twice having been a co-delegate at various workplaces, I am happy to acknowledge that that is an honourable thing for the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti to be doing here. But, in their capacity as shop stewards, they are concerned that I did not consult the relative executive arm of their union.

On 27 May I met with Mr Allen Thomas, a director of medico-legal services for the AMA, and I made as much time available as Mr Thomas would have wanted. He undertook to contact me for further meetings with either senior officers of his organisation or him if any issues developed that the AMA was concerned about. That was a clear understanding, it was a fruitful discussion, and we departed on good terms. Mr Thomas subsequently engaged in dialogue with members of the Motor Accidents Authority. I believe that he is agreeable on the core facts about the level of my consultation with the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti’s union.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You didn’t even send the amendments to him.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: As the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti knows full well, any good union has the capacity to send its researchers to undertake relevant research.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You didn’t even send the amendments. You said you discussed the matter with all the providers, but you did not.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I have just told the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti that I did more than adequately provide for the AMA -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That’s not their view.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: It may not be the view of the AMA, and perhaps it has its own issues to deal with at the moment. I would like to talk to the AMA again about any matters that it wishes to raise and would be very anxious to consider those matters. I should now like to deal with the issue of Mr Cumpston, a gentleman whom I have not met and have no direct knowledge of. I do not propose to say anything more than to respond in general terms to the assertions made on his behalf by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans.

It seems that the first assumption is the idea that the shift from the system that we are seeking to review here and to replace with a new system will somehow lead us into a position where actuarial assessment will be comprehensively changed in some way and that actuaries will be able to deal with things in rapid, jerky changes. In fact, the actuaries, the insurers, and indeed the solicitors and the barristers, will confirm that what has added to costs in the system has been the inherent instability of many of the features of the system.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Rubbish!

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti says that is rubbish, but I am afraid that is the case. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is very friendly with the AMA, but I am sure that many actuaries would like to become good friends with him and to explain to him some of the ways in which the insurance system will operate. I am sure the Hon. J. F. Ryan has taken the opportunity to familiarise himself with some of these arguments. The core arguments in relation to actuarial assessment are stability, a reduction in costs in the system, and getting back to the fundamentals that the costs in the system will be increased at no great advantage - or insignificant advantage, and perhaps even disadvantage - to claimants. For example, there will be a loss of time limits.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans asserted that it will not be any problem to get these three wise people - hopefully they will not always be three wise men - involved in the medical assessment of motor accident victims. If his amendments are accepted, three very expensive practitioners will often be dealing with matters that are relatively minor. Many of the cases to come before this jurisdiction could in fact relate to relatively minor injuries.

Potentially, three very expensive practitioners could be involved in lengthy considerations. Even if their considerations are short we are talking about fees that would add massively to the cost of the system, for no great benefit - or indeed no benefit, I believe - because we will end up with lengthier times for consideration of matters for medical assessment and impairment. As I said, the amendments simply seek to provide medical practitioners with the capacity to make an assessment of the level of impairment based on otherwise agreed facts. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans’ amendments merely add a layer of expertise that is simply redundant in the system; it is not needed.

Page 1471

Returning to my opening point about the culture change, the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans referred to the fact that a medical practitioner was attacked with a shotgun by a plaintiff who was unhappy with results. I do not know whether that was based on a hypothetical or real, historical situation. If it was a real situation, I am not aware of it. If we were to adopt the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans’ amendments duelling doctors would be back in the courts, there would be delays, there would be not only less speedy resolution but longer times to resolve issues, and plaintiffs would be subject to even greater and more frustrating delays in the assessment of their claims.

Reference was made to Trowbridge’s assessment and report of the costs of various amendments before the House. The matters dealt with by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans were the subject of a presentation by Trowbridge to the Law Society and other members of the motor accidents working group. I think that most people were satisfied that while the transfer of matters from the Supreme Court to the District Court contributed to the lowering of costs in general, that has already been sufficiently taken into account by the actuaries in inflationary trends in the system.

Certainly Trowbridge, an eminent actuarial assessment company, is satisfied that those matters have been dealt with. As I said, I am not able to comment on the veracity of Mr Cumpston’s claims, other than to say that until I heard the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans’ comments I was of the view that those who had examined the Trowbridge assessment were satisfied that it had taken those matters into consideration in its reporting.

In summary, the guidelines that we are proposing as interim guidelines only are used by 69 other jurisdictions. Actuaries require stability in the system. The tyranny of this actuarial oversight of the scheme is that there will be continuing cost increases unless we address that. Adding additional layers of expertise unnecessarily will add to costs, including the cost of green slips and inbuilt costs of the system, and it will add to delays and frustration. Notwithstanding the fact that I am quite sure the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans’ amendments are well-intentioned, while the addition of extra experts might give us some sense of security, it will not solve our problems. I believe that we are better off going with the Government’s propositions as they stand.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.59 p.m.]: I wonder whether the Minister might answer a question for me because it goes to the issue of the clause 57 application and therefore goes to the issue of the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans’ amendments. Clause 57 (1) (a) provides that the assessor must make a judgment about "whether the treatment provided or to be provided to the insured person was or is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances".

Does that mean that if an assessor says the treatment was no good, the injured party can sue the doctor? Does it mean that the assessor, who is not necessarily an expert in surgery, will make a judgment about whether the surgical treatment of an individual, either at a prior or future time, was or is not appropriate? I was attracted to the idea advanced by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, because the assessor, who is not necessarily a surgeon or a rehabilitation specialist, is asked to make a judgment about treatment.

The Minister keeps saying that the assessor makes no judgments about treatment. In fact, under this clause of the bill the assessor is asked to make a judgment not only about treatment but about proposed treatment. Does the Minister stand by his statement that the assessor has nothing to do with treatment? If the assessor makes those judgments, will the assessor’s statements be able to be used in court? When an injured party fails to get money under this uneven and unfair system will that party then be able to take the matter to common law under the medical practitioners’ professional indemnity insurance arrangements?

Pursuant to sessional orders progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I thank the Government for acknowledging the importance of the Motor Accidents Compensation Bill and the need to expedite it by reducing question time to half an hour. The Opposition supports that move. My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer. Given the nature of the bill currently before the House, can the Minister give this House an assurance that he does not have any personal conflict of interest with respect to his duties as Special Minister of State, given that Abbott Tout, lawyers for the NRMA, have recently engaged his wife as a business development consultant?

Page 1472

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I can assure the House that I have no personal vested interest in matters before the House. It is true, as the Leader of the Opposition, a fellow resident of the Central Coast, has observed - and this is probably fairly well known amongst those who follow the careers of those on the Central Coast, as the Leader of the Opposition does - that my spouse is currently employed, and has been for some time, as a member of a consulting firm called Abbott Consulting, which is owned by the law firm Abbott Tout. I fail to see how that in any way constitutes a possible conflict of interest in respect of my duties as Special Minister of State.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I ask a supplementary question. In view of the Minister’s answer, has he advised the Premier of this matter? If not, why not?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I do not have anything further to add to my previous answer.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. When will the current management of Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre by the Department of Corrective Services be replaced by a more sensible arrangement that does not perpetuate the racial discrimination that has resulted in all boys in the unprivileged unit, known as the normal section, being Aboriginal, all boys in the privilege unit being non-Aboriginal?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I know Ms Lee Rhiannon has a particular interest in matters pertaining to juvenile justice, particularly Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre. I confirm that the centre is still being managed by a senior manager of the Department of Corrective Services, and that is being kept under review. I cannot confirm the details sought in the question in relation to who is in the privilege unit. I can confirm that Kariong operates three of its four units, one of which is a privilege unit and two are standard units.

Detainees progress to the privilege unit if they meet a number of criteria, including applying for a transfer to that unit, participation in full-time school and vocational activities, appropriate behaviour and active participation in non-school-centred programs such as sport or other recreational activities. Decisions on transfers are made at meetings of the centre support team. Detainees in the privilege unit who have met the requirements but do not continue to meet them are returned to the standard unit.

I repeat that I cannot confirm the exact details of who is in the privilege unit of Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre. I know that in the past month there have been at least two indigenous detainees in the privilege unit, so it is not the case that there have not been indigenous detainees in that unit. I cannot confirm that there are indigenous detainees there now. If detainees qualify for, but do not apply for, transfers to the privilege unit - they may well have close friendships in the current unit in which they reside - they are not forced to change units even if they meet the criteria for the privilege unit.

Ms Lee Rhiannon would be aware that under the security and recovery plan I announced some time ago a review is being conducted of the provision of programs at the Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre. That review will no doubt result in changes to the provision of programs at the centre. Indeed, some changes have already been implemented.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Will the Government abolish bookmakers tax at the time of the introduction of the goods and services tax [GST]? Will the Government allow bookmakers to be double taxed?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I do not know how the GST will affect bookmakers. The honourable member has asked an interesting question. To offset the GST State governments have agreed to reduce their gambling taxes in respect of most forms of gambling, so there will not be a double tax. In respect of bookmakers, the State tax is so low I am not sure what impact the GST will have.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: It is 0.6 per cent.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is the impact of the GST?

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Yes.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I will take that question on notice and get back to the member. It is a good question. That is the first time the Opposition has asked me a question relating to my portfolio to which I do not know the complete answer, and I congratulate the honourable member on asking it. It is a remarkable achievement in 14-odd years. In the past I have told the House that I thought the Hon. D. F. Moppett and the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner were two of only six National Party politicians in the history of politics, State and Federal, in this country
Page 1473
that I would regard as intelligent National Party members. I have had to reconsider that assessment. In fact, in the last few weeks the Hon. D. F. Moppett and the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner have been well and truly dumped and their places have been taken by the Hon. R. T. M. Bull and the Hon. D. J. Gay.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. I refer the Minister to an article in the Daily Telegraph of Thursday 4 June entitled "Tourist Loses Sight". Is the Minister aware that a tourist travelling by train between Blacktown and Doonside in New South Wales was blinded after a rock was hurled through a train carriage window? Is the Minister also aware that last year a truck driver was killed when concrete was thrown from an overpass at Menangle Park through his windscreen? In view of these dangerous incidents, what will the Minister do to ensure the safety of the people of New South Wales travelling on the roads and those travelling by public transport, especially the potential danger to the many tourists who will be travelling on our roads and who will be using public transport during the Olympic Games?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I thank the honourable member for drawing this incident to my attention and to the attention of this House. It would be a matter for concern if tourists or any Australian travelling on either of the public transport systems referred to by the honourable member were to face such a situation. I am sure that my colleague in the other House the Hon. Carl Scully will be more than concerned about this matter. I will seek an answer to the honourable member’s question as soon as possible.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question without notice is directed to my friend the Treasurer, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is the Treasurer aware that he has not answered any of my recent questions concerning Integral Energy? Is the Treasurer able to give me simple yes or no answers? Was there or was there not a loss on futures trading by Integral Energy in its half-yearly result - yes, or no? Was the loss by Integral Energy less or more than $80 million?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have answered fully and completely on a number of occasions the questions which the Hon. D. J. Gay has asked. To the best of my ability I will repeat the full and complete answers that I gave him on those occasions. It is true - as Integral Energy reported in its half-yearly report, which was tabled in this Parliament earlier in the year - that this year Integral Energy will make only about a $50 million profit from its operations. As honourable members are aware, electricity distributors engage in both the distribution activity, which is the poles and wires business, and also electricity retailing, which involves the buying and selling of electricity. In other words, they act as electricity energy traders.

Integral, in its trading function, made a loss this year, which is the reason it will return only a $50 million profit, which, of course, is part of the return of more than $500 million to the State this year from electricity utilities which are owned by the people of New South Wales. I suppose that the loss that Integral Energy will make from its energy trading this year will depend on the ups and downs of electricity prices over a period. But it will certainly be a substantial loss. I do not think we will know, until Integral Energy tables its annual report, precisely what the loss on energy trading will be. I have referred to energy trading; I think the Hon. D. J. Gay is talking about futures trading. I would not describe it as futures trading; it is the buying and selling of energy.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Fair Trading. Is the Minister aware of a highly restrictive insurance policy offered by the QBE insurance company where the person seeking insurance is a licensed firearm owner? Can the Minister confirm that QBE sets a very low $500 limit of insurance for a firearm? Does QBE also demand that firearms owners provide an unusually detailed range of private information before a policy will be granted?

Does the company demand to know whether the client belongs to a shooting club, or whether he has had a shooting accident? Does it require close details about the security systems in a client’s home and other matters which are in any case actually part of the requirements for holding a shooter’s licence? Does the Minister agree that most of this information is irrelevant to the insurance risk, may breach the client’s privacy, and could even put the client at risk by revealing information about security which should not be known to an outside person? Is that fair trading?

Page 1474

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: It does not appear to be fair trading. Quite obviously, QBE is not keen on seeking to insure those with firearms, the matter detailed by the honourable member. It appears unreasonable for an insurer to seek all that sort of information the honourable member has detailed just to insure an item of property which a client might hold. I will seek a detailed answer for the honourable member from my colleague in the other House.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question is also directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. Is the Minister aware that in a publication issued by the Department of Transport a claim was made that negotiations were taking place with other States to achieve mutual recognition of the taxi transport subsidy scheme for people confined to wheelchairs? Will the Minister indicate to the House whether those negotiations have been brought to a successful conclusion? Alternatively, will the Minister report on the progress on these vital negotiations to extend that benefit to people in those unfortunate circumstances when they are travelling in other States?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I will be more than happy to seek information from my colleague in answer to the honourable member’s important question.

The Hon. P. J. BREEN: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Can practising solicitors in New South Wales, on average, be expected to be the subject of a professional conduct complaint every five years? Is it also a fact that such complaints about solicitors frequently result in the Legal Services Tribunal investigating solicitors and publishing their findings in a supplement to the Law Society Journal? Does the Attorney General agree that the way the Legal Service Tribunal publishes its findings is both sordid and defamatory, suggesting no regard for the privacy of solicitors, their families or their clients? What action does the Attorney intend taking to require the Legal Services Tribunal to discontinue this disgraceful practice?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I have not formed the opinion that the publication of the judgments of the Legal Services Tribunal as an annexure or an appendix to the Law Society Journal is in any way untoward. I am happy to rethink that matter in light of the honourable member’s question, but I read that journal with interest each time it comes out as it gives me an indication as to what is going on amongst the ranks of solicitors and what views are being taken by the Legal Services Tribunal about appropriate ethical standards and other norms of conduct amongst the profession. I would be happy to have dialogue with the honourable member if he thinks that some of those reports are inappropriate. No doubt some are embarrassing to individual solicitors who are named or identified in the decisions.

On occasions I have been astounded that some solicitors have been unable to attend to files of clients for a long time, and the tribunal has been critical of that conduct. One can only assume that there is some psychological blockage on the part of a practitioner who cannot come to grips with a particular problem and the client is fobbed off time and again. Most of us have too-hard files.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I don’t!

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Treasurer does not, of course, but there are exceptions to every generalisation. Some of us have a mind block in certain areas, which is difficult to resolve. I know it is wrong to answer a question with a question, but I would be interested to discuss with the Hon. P. J. Breen what, if any, decisions he thinks have been inappropriate. I reiterate that I have found them interesting and enlightening. They are the decisions of an independent tribunal, presided over by a judicial or a quasi-judicial officer, containing representatives of the profession. Both barristers and solicitors sit on the Legal Services Tribunal. This is an advance from the days when disciplinary matters were dealt with within the Law Society. The idea of objective, external scrutiny and accountability of professionals is an appropriate form of disciplinary procedure.

Medical practitioners are dealt with in an open tribunal, presided over by a District Court judge, and comprising members of the learned colleges. They bring their expertise to bear when dealing with disciplinary allegations against medical practitioners. That is now part of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and has been a very salutary process in establishing a standard of conduct for medical practitioners. Similarly, openness and accountability in the disciplinary scrutiny of legal practitioners is an appropriate measure.

Page 1475

Some years ago, when legal reform measures were passed under the former Government, the Parliament insisted on there being a Legal Services Commissioner who could take action independent of the Law Society. That meant no disrespect of the Law Society but this statutory officer could act with fearless autonomy, separately from the professionals, in order to take up issues if a client had been disadvantaged or badly treated by legal professionals, whether they be barristers or solicitors. I was supportive of that process. In short, I hope I have not been too prolix in my answer -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: There is nothing short about your answers.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am sorry, I thought I was giving some information. I would need to be persuaded that the openness of the current system ought to be curtailed, as seems to be implied in the honourable member’s question.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. The Minister’s response to my question of 12 May relating to the allocation of Tangara trains to certain lines stated how many of those trains stopped at Campbelltown and Roseville stations. His response also stated that an improvement in any part of the service is of benefit to any passenger on the network. Is the Minister aware that many trains do not stop at Roseville station, as it is often bypassed on express routes to Hornsby? How many Tangara trains service the North Shore line, as opposed to the Campbelltown line, every weekday? Will the Minister explain how a better train service going to Roseville is of benefit to western Sydney commuters living in Campbelltown?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I will obtain a detailed answer from my colleague the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads and provide it to the honourable member.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. Recommendations 105, 106 and 122 of the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues concerning the neglected epidemic of the hepatitis C virus recommended the establishment of an intersectoral advisory committee to investigate the role of a drug policy regarding hepatitis C. Will that committee be established? If so, when?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not conversant with the report referred to by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, nor with recommendations 105, 106 and 122 contained therein. I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Health and obtain a response.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question without notice is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. Does aerosol created as a result of rushing stormwater and sewage combining when they enter the northside storage tunnel contain the organisms Clostridium perfringens, faecal coliforms, giardia, cryptosporidium, entero viruses, adeno viruses and reo viruses?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti for his good question, but it is not one that I am able to respond to immediately. I undertake to obtain a response from the Minister for the Environment as soon as possible.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer, representing the Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation, a question without notice. Does the Minister intend to permit the disposal of a portion of Crown Land Reserve R87991, known as Airport Reserve, Milperra, for the construction of an access road to Bankstown airport through flood-prone land affecting the Georges River and the existing endangered habitat? Is the Minister aware that the remnant transition forest at this site is listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995? Is the Minister further aware that this road will access fast-food chains, hotels and warehouses approved by Bankstown City Council?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I am not in a position to answer the question, but I undertake to obtain an answer from the Minister and provide it to the honourable member as soon as practicable.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment, representing the Minister for the Environment. The Minister would be familiar with the environmental lead remediation scheme being
Page 1476
undertaken in Broken Hill which involves, in part, the removal of contaminated soil and its replacement with soil from adjacent areas of low health hazard. Does the scheme extend to the treatment of insect pests that might be brought in with the soil, such as bush ticks and bull ants? If not, would the Minister be prepared to look at individual cases in which hardship is experienced because soil containing pests causes inconsiderable inconvenience to house-holders?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. D. F. Moppett for his good question, but it is not one that I can respond to with adequate detail. As the question deserves a comprehensive response I will take it on notice and undertake to get a response from the Minister for the Environment as soon as possible.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. I refer to the tragic death of ambulance officer Mr McEwen-Markworth at Mungindi, as reported in the Daily Telegraph on 24 June. Did the officer communicate to his superior officers any concerns about the effect of pesticides on his health during his placement at Mungindi? On the day of, or days preceding, his fatal asthma attack did Mr McEwen-Markworth perform any duty or was he in any location that brought him into contact either directly or indirectly with cotton pesticides?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. Elaine Nile recently asked a similar question of one of my colleagues. I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Health for a response.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I direct my question to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Health. Can raw sewerage generate airborne organisms? If so, what are the organisms and are any of them pathogenic to humans?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti asked: "Can raw sewerage generate airborne organisms?" The word should be "sewage". The sewerage is the pipes, and I would not think that the pipes could generate airborne organisms.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I forgot you studied at Sydney University.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am from the university. Now that the difference between "sewage" and "sewerage" has been sorted out, I do not have a clue whether sewage can generate airborne organisms. I will consult the appropriate experts, as I do on all matters where my knowledge is deficient, and I will come back to the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti with an authoritative answer.

If honourable members have further questions I suggest they put them on notice.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: On 2 June the Hon. J. H. Jobling asked a question without notice concerning grapevine virus B. I have been supplied with the following answer:

1. A plant virus, similar to but not identical to grapevine virus B [GVB], has been detected in routine testing of vines, of the table-grape variety, at the Waite Institute in Victoria. Further testing has shown the presence of this virus in the same grape variety in the Sunraysia region of New South Wales in early May this year.

Grapevine virus B is considered to be exotic to Australia. Overseas, the virus has been associated with corky bark, which is a disease causing the reduction in vine vigour and yield in some varieties. Visual symptoms of corky bark have not been observed in the varieties tested in Australia.

Federal and State governments have discussed the issue with industry representatives, together forming a consultative committee.

2. A consultative committee of Commonwealth, State and industry representatives has met to consider the implications of these findings. The committee has been testing further to establish the distribution of the virus and to assess the potential to spread to other varieties. This resulted in the detection of one other infection in the same variety - jade seedless - on another property in the Sunraysia. There are currently only four small field plantings of this variety in Australia.

The GVB virus and corky bark disease are found only in grapevines. The consumption of infected vines poses no threat to human health. On 1 June the consultative committee of government and industry representatives discussed this issue.

Growers of jade seedless grape varieties have also now agreed to a voluntary moratorium on the distribution of this variety and other varieties growing in close association with it. The consultative committee has endorsed this decision and praised the responsible action taken by affected growers.

The consultative committee also agreed to: commission further testing to establish the distribution of this virus; investigate the potential for spread of the virus from vine to vine by testing other varieties growing in close association with plants of jade seedless; and compare the virus isolated in Australia with isolates of GVB from Israel to establish the source and significance of the virus. The consultative committee will meet again on 23 to 24 June to review the findings and consider further action.

Page 1477

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: On 22 June the Hon. A. G. Corbett asked a question without notice concerning back-to-school allowances for home schoolers. I have been supplied with the following answer:

Home schoolers are eligible for the $50 back-to-school allowance. In 1998 and 1999 back-to-school allowance claim forms were sent to the addresses of parents of all home schoolers aged six to 15 years who are registered with the Office of the Board of Studies.

Home schoolers younger than six and older than 15 are not required to be registered with the Board of Studies. The parents of such students need to seek and complete a back-to-school allowance claim form for payment of the allowance. More than 2,300 $50 back-to-school allowance payments were made to home schoolers in 1999.

Questions without notice concluded.

Consideration resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.32 p.m.]: When considering the amendments moved by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, honourable members must keep in mind the integrated nature of the bill. Any amendments that strike at the heart of that integrated nature will destroy the integrity of the bill, particularly as to its costing. For example, I am advised that the cost of a medico-legal assessment would be no less than $500. Under the panel system, as proposed in the amendments of the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, the Government’s actuaries have calculated that for an estimated 2½ assessments per day each assessor on the expert panel would receive about $1,000, thus adding considerably to the costs.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: I would not charge that.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans would probably not charge that fee. If he did, very few people would be prepared to visit him. However, other doctors who are real experts would probably charge in the order of $1,000 a day for the assessments. As a consequence of these proposed amendments, the costs would spiral. As the Minister has said, the proposed amendments include a duelling doctor concept and an increase in complexity. Given the thrust of the amendments, the majority of matters would end up in court. Thus, the cost and complexity would increase for all those involved.

I note that the Hon. D. J. Gay and the Hon. D. F. Moppett of the National Party are present. I am concerned, as are other Government members, that the National Party may support these amendments. As the Government’s actuary, Trowbridge Consulting, has said the proposed amendments of the Australian Democrats will significantly increase, not decrease, premiums. By supporting the amendments, the National Party will ensure that New South Wales farmers will pay increased premiums.

I note that the Hon. D. E. Oldfield is back in the Chamber this week. I would have thought that One Nation would be intrigued by any National Party proposition to support amendments that would lead to increased premiums. In many areas of the State, and particularly in the bush, One Nation received up to 20 per cent of the vote. I am very concerned that the National Party would support these amendments. I do not criticise the Hon. D. F. Moppett when I say that. But has the honourable member and his colleague the Hon. D. J. Gay considered the impact of the amendments on farmers and their ability to pay the increased premiums?

As all honourable members know, a $100 decrease in premiums would not be much for North Shore Liberals - probably a drop in the bucket. However, for people in the western suburbs and in the bush it is a significant amount. I ask the National Party to carefully consider whether it wants to go down this path. If the National Party supports the amendments it will say to the people in the bush that they should not receive the decrease in premiums that the Government is endeavouring to secure for the millions of motorists in this State. The Government is concerned about the cost impact of the amendments moved by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans. Three or four medical opinions might be beneficial in a world where costs do not matter. Honourable members should keep in mind the cost impositions when considering the proposals put forward by the Australian Democrats.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [4.37 p.m.]: In response to a question asked by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti earlier, clause 57 of the bill does allow disputes over whether treatment is reasonable and necessary to be referred to a medical assessor. That is necessary because of clause 82 of the bill, which imposes a duty on insurers to pay the reasonable and necessary medical expenses of the injured person, pending the finalisation of their
Page 1478
claim. The Court of Appeal in Stubbs v NRMA found that it could not deal with such disputes over whether treatment is reasonable and necessary.

Allowing medical assessors to determine whether treatment is reasonable and necessary gives teeth to the obligation on insurers to pay an injured person’s treatment. If medical assessors could not do this and an insurer claimed the treatment was not reasonable and necessary and refused to pay for it, there would be nothing the injured person could do until the claim was finally heard by the claims assessment and resolution service or by the courts. Allowing medical assessors to determine whether treatment is reasonable and necessary is about ensuring that injured people receive proper treatment when it is needed. It has nothing to do with claimants suing doctors.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [4.39 p.m.]: If, prior to a matter coming before an assessor, a surgeon suggested to an injured person that certain treatment was required, would the doctor have to contact the assessor and say, "Do you agree that I can provide this treatment?", as occurred under the old repatriation system? Once the patient has undergone a series of treatments and gets to an assessor, does the surgeon have to ring the assessor or the insurance company to say, "Look, you are likely to settle this case. You have taken responsibility for the case. I am proposing to provide this service. Should I or should I not? Will it be covered?" Is that what it is going to come to?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [4.40 p.m.]: I will confirm general advice that the simple answer is no, but if the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti wants a more detailed answer than that, I will consult and get some further advice.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [4.40 p.m.]: I would like an answer to my question for use when that section of the bill features in other amendments.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [4.41 p.m.]: I find it hard to support the amendments moved by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans. I understand the basic principle: to reduce premiums, to change the culture that we have at the moment in order to avoid as much legal argument as possible, and to provide early treatment. I respect the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans’ ability and expertise. As the honourable member has said, his amendments are very holistic. They are, I must say, also very idealistic. In a perfect world I would support fully what he has said.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Oh, good.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: I would. However, the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans’ amendments are very complicated.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: No, they’re not.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: They are totally untrialled. I have not seen the system trialled before - unless the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti knows some country that has tried it before, in which case I will apologise, but I doubt it. It is very expensive. As someone who has been a medical expert before - not now - I probably charged about $100 an hour, which is true.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That’s not much. That’s cheap.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: At any time a patient could face three experts for an hour. That would cost $300. In a day an expert would cost $800 - easily $700 to $800.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That’s cheap.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: We are talking about three of them facing one patient, one victim.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: How much does a barrister charge per day, can I ask you that question? How much does Trowbridge charge per day, per person? I’ll bet it’s $3,000 or $4,000.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is arguing the wrong point. We are talking about how to cut the costs.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Listen to an expert doctor.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: At least I have more general practice experience than the honourable member has. He has seen patients asleep. He knows nothing.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I put them to sleep.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: I know.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I wake them up again too. I see them alive.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: I hope so. However, I do not think the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has
Page 1479
seen as many third party patients as I have. I understand the deficiencies in this bill and it needs considerable amendment. Most honourable members agree that the process will be far too expensive. I am not saying it is bad, but it will be far too expensive. It is complicated, there will be long delays and therefore I am unable to support the amendments.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.43 p.m.]: I am sure, as the Hon. Dr P. Wong just said, that we all recognise that the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans is sincere in bringing forward these amendments. We could all sit back and think about producing a perfect scheme, and forget what it will cost. We could all think of ideas, proposals and amendments and have an unworkable scheme. That is what we are facing in this debate. The purpose of the bill, as I understand it, is simply to reduce premiums and to change the culture of the whole green slip scheme. That is what we are attempting to do. If these amendments are defeated I hope the Government will give an assurance that this new approach will be carefully monitored to ensure it achieves the aims we all seek, while at the same time providing justice for the consumers. That will be a difficult thing to achieve.

That is how the Christian Democratic Party is approaching this bill. We are not sitting back saying how we can produce a perfect green slip scheme. We have a scheme and it has become too expensive so we have to make modifications to it. That is the approach of the bill. If we add all these amendments to it the bill may as well be scrapped, there is no purpose to it. That is the dilemma we, and I am sure all other members of this House, face. We would all love to have a Rolls Royce scheme, which is what the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans is seeking to achieve through these and other amendments, but we can only afford a Holden scheme. We must do all we can to ensure that the scheme we have is workable and affordable. Obviously, adding more doctors, more benefits and more lawyers must increase the cost of the scheme. Eventually the high premiums could threaten the whole scheme.

I recall the hearings of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. Many people say there is a lot of profit in this and that the insurance companies will not pull out. However, I believe there is a point at which they will regard it as not worth the trouble or the risk. Also, if these amendments pass, how will the insurance companies estimate all future costs of the scheme over the next five or 10-year period? Some of it is very vague. Obviously, insurance companies would overestimate the costs to protect their investments.

We have reached a serious point with the first amendment on this bill. I am sure honourable members have it in the back of their minds how the GIO third party insurance scheme collapsed and all motorists in the State had to pay that surcharge for a number of years. That has almost been paid out. We do not want to go back to that. That is the risk we are facing. We must have a workable third party green slip scheme in this State.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [4.46 p.m.]: I wish to make some remarks in response to the document from Trowbridge Consultants that was read by the Minister. It is important to make a short response to this because I suspect the House is going to be banged over the head with these three pages again and again, and there is a subsequent item that relates to a proposal from the Opposition. First of all, the Minister said he would circulate this document to honourable members. He circulated it to me, colleagues, and I have not circulated it to you. The rest of you have had to work with what appears in Hansard.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It has been circulated.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: It was faxed to me at home. I was not in a position at home to put it under the doors of individual members. I acknowledge that the Minister’s staff worked hard on this, but it was about nine o’clock on Friday night.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: I was in the building.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile might have been but I know that many of my Liberal Party colleagues have not received it.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Only the leaders got it.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Well, I am not a leader. In any event, the document needs some response, and I ask the Minister to do what is necessary to circulate it more widely, because I suspect he will be quoting from it later in the debate. This particular document was read in response to these amendments which relate to medical assessments and assessments for rehabilitation.

The Trowbridge letter barely deals with medical assessments. There is a phrase - not even a sentence - that medico-legal assessment has changed. The only reference to medico-legal assessment appears at the bottom of the second page. It is one
Page 1480
dot point in relation to a more general comment about changing the scheme. In other words, one ought not think that this particular document is in any way a response to the amendments moved by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans. The biggest problem with the Trowbridge letter of 24 June is that it is very general. I will read one item from it:

You will understand that with only 24 hours to prepare this advice, and with the complexity of the Bill -

the House would agree with those remarks -

and the Democrat Amendments, it is not possible to fully analyse every detail. This advice is therefore at a high level and covers our understanding of the main issues relevant to the scheme cost.

The letter then goes on to make some fairly general statements, but its political intent is obvious. Basically it says that "By our assessment the Democrat amendments, without detailing them in any specific manner, would result in an increase in the cost of the scheme of more than $600 per vehicle. Consequently it would be impossible to have a scheme with the Democrat amendments and also with the 330 premium requirements of the bill." This illustrates one of the problems with the manner in which we are proceeding in the debate. I ask the Minister: What specific dollar amount related to the proposed $100 reduction in the cost of premiums relates specifically to changing medico-legal assessments?

We get lots of general claims that say that the system stands like a pack of cards: remove one and they all fall apart. I am sure the Government did not make the decision on that basis. In response to my request for more information the Government has given me a document that I understand has not been available to honourable members. It is a review of the motor accidents scheme for the Board of the Motor Accidents Authority conducted by Ernst and Young. I have had the report for only an hour, and question time has intervened. I recognise that the report is lengthy, but it is also interesting because it purports to cost various parts of the scheme and makes no reference to specific dollar amounts for specific trade-offs.

Honourable members should be in a position to assess what it will cost if we change the medico-legal assessment; what it will cost if we remove the 10 per cent impairment level; and what it will cost if matters are assessed by the Claims Assessment and Resolution Service [CARS] rather than by negotiation between the lawyer, the client and the insurance company. We do not have a specific cost amount. The shadow minister attempted to provide a cost amount to the Opposition party room, but I have not been able to question him about the basis of that assessment. I suspect it is a reflection of figures that were mentioned to me by the Law Society.

It is interesting to note that the Law Society quoted $4 out of the $100 as relating to medical treatment reduction, and $30 as relating to medico-legal expenses. That is not an assessment as to what goes to doctors to get a better assessment, or what goes to lawyers to fight the scheme. We do not seem to have a specific dollar amount. I would appreciate information from the Minister on what basis each of these items is deducted from the scheme. I suspect that these amendments might not be passed, but some time down the track we want to be in a position to hold the Minister accountable for remarks he made in this House.

If the people of New South Wales have to pay more insurance than they should, we want to know why. We want to know what we are losing. I suspect that the people of New South Wales want to know what they are losing if they can no longer go to the doctor to get a simple assessment of their illness, if they cannot consult their doctor about their treatment and go to the medico-legal reporter of their choice. All honourable members know, and it is obvious, that there are different types of medico-legal reporters: those who tend to support insurers and those who tend to support plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the Government has not given us that information and we need to know it.

I am sure honourable members would be interested in other selected readings I have been able to gather from a review of the Motor Accidents Scheme by Ernst and Young. The Trowbridge documents are extremely brief. They are qualified heavily by the people who wrote them. Trowbridge Consultants are actuaries who assist insurance companies with the preparation of their premium filings to the Motor Accidents Authority. The most absurd scheme this State has seen is the Motor Accidents Authority taking these premium filings to be assessed by Trowbridge Consultants, the very people who prepared them in the first place.

It was news to me, despite my three years on the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, that Trowbridge appeared to be the only firm with information about the insurance scheme and that it was the only actuarial firm in this field able to give this advice. But it now appears that Trowbridge is the only actuarial company in this field in New South Wales. Other actuarial companies are able to provide at least some peer assessment. To date it
Page 1481
appears that we have had only one request for peer assessment, and that assessment came from the Law Society. It is probably about as adequate as the Trowbridge document.

We could argue all day as to whose advice was better, but to some extent we are still groping in the dark. The information is not detailed. To some extent it is a guess. The word "guess" is used on numerous occasions in the Ernst and Young report. Will the Minister inform the Committee what dollar amount, as part of his $100 reduction in the cost of the scheme, relates specifically to changing the means by which medical assessments are made?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [4.55 p.m.]: We have talked a lot about this matter in the broader issues that have been dealt with. The detail is sufficient for honourable members to make up their minds and vote. The bill introduces significant reforms to achieve a better system for claimants. That is the heart of our concern. I go back to our original proposition and simply restate the essential elements. The answer to the Hon. J. F. Ryan is no, I am not going to produce such a document. If such a document were able to be produced it would be horrendously expensive and take a long time. It would not assist the debate.

Only 1½ hours ago the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti said that actuaries are paid too much and that we should not pay them any more money. If he does not want to pay them the money they will not do the report. It would be a waste of honourable members’ time to continue to dissect the principle under which actuaries operate. As the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans mentioned a number of times in his contribution, actuaries operate on an holistic basis, as well as on individual items. I have been fairly generous with the information that has been available to me in the drafting of the bill and the brief to Parliamentary Counsel, who drafted it. I have not been secretive about any of it. The Hon. J. F. Ryan continues to quote the report by Ernst and Young -

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: You quoted it first.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I am happy to quote it when it is relevant, but it is not relevant in this debate because it dealt with the wisdom or otherwise of changing to a completely different type of system. We decided to opt for a system that represents a balance between common law access and preserves some common law process, but adopts a mediated-style of approach. If the medical assessor finds that treatment is not necessary, the injured person is still able to seek payment through the Claims Assessment and Resolution Service, or at court at a later stage. In other words, when cost is not a major consideration, when there is a benefit of doubt between the defendant and the claimant, we have ensured that the claimant is best served by the process. In other words, it is binding only when it is in favour of the injured person; it is not binding on the insurer.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.58 p.m.]: We received a lot of amendments late in this debate, and I insisted to the Government that we have some costing, no matter how quickly it was done - obviously, it could not be a six-month costing - so that we would have some basis upon which to vote. The advice can be based only on the amendments, and the advice given to us early enough so that we can use it in this debate. It is the best advice the Government could get and it is at least something on which we can base our decisions. The Government could have insisted that we vote simply on the amendments. The Government at least tried to obtain advice, and it should be given credit for doing so rather than being attacked.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [4.59 p.m.]: The Hon. Dr P. Wong made a bit of noise about how much these assessments would cost. The central part of this bill is the true and accurate assessment of the disadvantage a person has suffered from an accident. The Minister keeps calling this bill the Motor Accidents Compensation Bill, but all he is really interested in is the cost to motorists, who comprise less than half the people of New South Wales. The Government dresses it up as a motor accidents compensation bill, but does not even use the word "victim" in its title because even that would be too dishonest for this current Government!

The issue is how much it costs to have a scheme that is more likely to produce a more accurate assessment of the disadvantage suffered by the victim. The bill provides that three people - not necessarily three doctors, which I support - will make a judgment from different angles. First, the treatment undergone and a medical assessment of the disadvantage the person suffers; second, the disadvantage in terms of rehabilitation, what treatment is needed and what has been given; and, third, whether the person is likely to suffer work deficit problems - the degree of impairment the injured person suffered from the motor accident.

The issue is whether an accurate assessment will be obtained. I believe that three people, each approaching an issue from a different angle, will produce an accurate assessment. The Government
Page 1482
says it has these whiz-bang, you-beaut, fantastic, well-trained, super-phantasmagorical, not general practitioners but super specialists, who as individuals know all of these things and have all of this knowledge and can make judgments on all of these matters.

I have met some super fantastic medical people, but no-one I know can accurately and fairly produce such a result. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile was quite proud that he had weaselled out of the Government a promise that these measures would be costed. It is a simple matter for an actuarial group to calculate the cost of three assessors, rather than one assessor, and not just the cost of paying for the people -

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: For the process, too.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I will come to that. An actuarial group could cost not just the expense of the assessors but the savings or otherwise of having it done properly in the first place; the cost benefit of getting it right the first time. The Government has not done what Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asked it to do on the most central part of this bill. It just started to cost all of the amendments of the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, which go to a range of other matters, some of which are not supported by the Opposition. However, the Opposition supports this measure because it goes to the heart of getting a fair, accurate and more direct result early. It will save a lot of trouble down the trail.

I am pleased that the Minister put his toe into the water and gave us some answers in his reply in the second reading debate, which I hope he will not walk away from: about what will be paid for treatment that this super-duper person says did not need to be done, or what will be paid for excessive physiotherapy. I understood the Minister to say that if some super-duper person says the injured person did not really need the week-long hand physiotherapy treatment that cost so many dollars, the Government will pay it anyway because, all things being equal, it will give that person the benefit of the doubt. I doubt that that will be the case.

I ask the Minister again whether he will produce, either now or in the future, an actuarial cost. These days, someone wanting to design a road across mountainous terrain does not have to walk that terrain. Computer programs are available to accurately cost such a project. I would be surprised if an actuary could not cost the change from one person to three, plus the flow-on benefits down the track. I am certain that the document the Minister has, which does not help us one little bit, cost more than $4,000.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [5.04 p.m.]: I should like to respond to some remarks made by the Minister in answer to my question and also to the remarks of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I agree with Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile that the requirements to cost the amendments must have been difficult, and necessarily required someone to be briefed, but that is part of the point. We are discussing something in great haste, which might have been better done if we had had a little more opportunity to consider it. The key point is that we are making a change to a scheme that costs more than a billion dollars each year and we have to get it done in two weeks. The Ernst and Young report I referred to was produced and apparently forwarded to the Government in November 1998. That means that the report has been available for in excess of six months but has not been given any public airing.

Second - and on this point I need do no more than reiterate what the Government has said - the Government has not costed its own changes. It is fair enough that it might not have been able to cost the amendments produced in the past couple of weeks, but what about those it has been working on for apparently some months? The Government has not costed its own changes. That is my point: we are grappling with a general amalgamation of changes that the Government guesses will produce a $100 reduction in insurance premiums, but it cannot guarantee that, because it has stipulated that changes can be made six months after the scheme has been in operation.

The point of my question is the impact of this component of the $100 reduction, and the Minister saying he will not give the House the information merely answers my question. Though the Government may have carried out a global costing - we are not able to tell by what means, because it has not given us the information - it has not individually costed the amounts so that the public can work out whether they will lose. For example, it could be that the changes to the medical assessment might make a difference of only $3 or $4 in the $100; we do not know.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It might make it cheaper.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: As the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti said, changing the scheme might even make it cheaper. I do not need to debate
Page 1483
the matter further with the Minister because I believe that his comments support my argument.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS [5.06 pm]: In relation to the cost of the scheme, one point that Opposition members seem to have overlooked in what is proposed with the expert case assessment team is how necessary it will be, because the only way to obtain a certificate is from the expert case assessment team actually examining a particular claimant’s case. Honourable members would be aware of a number of cases where people may be injured in accidents and suffer no economic loss, particularly if they are on an invalid or other pension.

Yet, an expert case assessment team, with experts in rehabilitation and employment placement, must be convened to formulate a view about the matters for which a certificate has to be issued. This is where the cost blows out, because these experts will be convened to summarise and formulate a certificate in relation to someone’s injuries for a totally useless purpose. When honourable members vote on these amendments, they should think about the cost of getting in these other experts for no purpose.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: To determine the economic consequence of disability. What is wrong with that?

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: What are the economic factors?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: If a person cannot feed himself he has to have someone come in to feed him.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: I ask the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans to explain exactly what are the economic consequences of a disability, because it is not defined anywhere in the bill. Nor is "compensation" defined. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans refers constantly to "compensation" in the amendments, but that is not defined.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is the name of the bill: "Motor Accidents Compensation Bill".

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: No, that is what the bill deals with. If you read the content of the bill it defines "damages", but members keep talking about economic consequences, which could include non-economic loss, for all I know, and compensation.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It doesn’t.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: Why?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That is a separate issue.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: That is an economic consequence of a disability. Non-economic loss is an economic consequence. If someone is on a pension or is an invalid and is already out of the work force, why should this expert -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You may have to have someone come in to feed them.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS: Someone to feed them, he says. Clause 66 refers to a person with expertise in employment placement and the remuneration of injured or disabled persons. That person has to be part of this panel formulating a certificate for no purpose.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.10 p.m.]: I am pleased that the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer thinks my amendment is well intentioned, and I wish I could say the same for this bill. It might be well intentioned as far as the premium-payers are concerned, but I am not sure that it is well intentioned for anyone who is injured.

I am disappointed that the Government is playing Big Brother by not revealing the costings for each clause. It is all very well to say that they are global costings, but how does one get to global costings except by adding up individual costings? Clearly, the costings on the Government’s proposal must be available and the Government must have chosen not to provide them.

Honourable members never get the costings; they are simply asked to accept that millions of dollars will be saved. The Government asserts that if members tinker with even the smallest clause, we will be responsible for a massive blow-out in premiums, and that is simply outrageous. The key to this bill, and the reason why it will save money, is that assessment will not have to be done by a court.

To some extent, my suggestions are derivative of the Government’s bill by trying to keep people out of court through a non-legal assessment process. For a number of reasons the scheme has credibility. However, my amendments are criticised because they provide for three people instead of two people to make an assessment.

The Government provides for one doctor who comes up with a magic number based on what I
Page 1484
regard as a totally out of touch and inappropriate American formulation - a magic book, if one likes. The financial expert takes the magic number and applies it to a set of economic guidelines related to the person’s wages, et cetera. The financial expert is already part of the assessment team. I am not adding three people as opposed to two people; rather I am adding one person to the existing two people. I want to make that perfectly clear.

The suggestion that I am trebling the number of medical experts and creating a great deal of trouble is simply not true. I am adding a rehabilitation expert to provide a more holistic assessment. The financial assessment will be based on an individual calculation rather than on a number plus a book of figures. The proposal is put forward in the hope that it will result in greater justice in the assessment process.

In a scheme costing a billion dollars a year, the cost of adding one person who has expertise in rehabilitation to humanise and make the assessment holistic is surely low. Trowbridge has suggested that the overall cost will be $600 without providing a breakdown in the figures and making no attempt at costings.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Dishonest!

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: Basically, it is dishonest, as my colleague says. We must have stability in the assessment system. It is not good enough to change the number of experts. If there is a consistent method of assessment, the process will provide stability as the number of claims levels over time.

In terms of risk, the stability of the existing system is actually quite reasonable. Variations that occur from year to year will be relatively small in number. The recent increase in premiums reflects that the backlog of claims has been cleared. If people are concerned that premiums will be increased to $600 as a consequence of accepting my amendments, I point out that on 3 June the NRMA provided a quote to insure a 1984 Toyota panel van which is parked at Forestville. The premium is already $710 and was $560 last year. Increased premiums are already a part of the system.

The Government is pretending that an increase in premiums will result solely from my amendments. The premiums are already rising. A six-month period of offering reduced premiums is merely an artificial construct for political purposes. It has been suggested by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald that assessors will only do 2½ assessments per day. No doubt far more assessments than that will be done. If the revised form of assessment is adopted and saves people from going to court, it would be money well spent. But the Government does not want to consider that possibility.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has suggested that if my amendments are accepted they will result in an increase in the number of lawyers involved in assessment. He suggested that it would be better if I kept the number of lawyers to a minimum. I point out that I am not proposing to increase the number of lawyers, and that my suggestions involve the same number of lawyers as are in the proposals put forward by the Government. I am trying to keep lawyers out of the assessment process.

My suggestions will result in the assessment process being more holistic and will provide a wider basis of assessment than one person acting on the American Medical Association guidelines. By providing a broader base for assessment, I hope that the assessment process will have more credibility and will result in less litigation, not more. The Hon. J. Hatzistergos wants me to define the economic consequences of disability. It is interesting that the member would speak to the amendments if he does not know what the economic consequences of disability are. It is not as though economic consequences are a highly abstract concept.

Clearly, if people are unable to do a particular act, cannot earn an income, or cannot function domestically by doing household chores and purchasing groceries, in a worst case scenario they would have to pay someone to do those chores for them, or a relative would have to forgo his or her employment to be a carer. They are the consequences of economic disability. It is clear that the degree of disability will effect economic consequences and the interaction between the person who has the disability and the person who provides rehabilitation.

Assessment of economic consequences is an important aspect in arriving at a fair assessment and outcome. I ask honourable members to bear in mind when they vote that it is important to get the assessment right in the function of the bill, which has been neglected in the bill’s statement of objectives. The bill should result in a fair outcome for those who are injured. I ask members to bear in mind that the cost of my amendments will be trivial in the overall scheme of things but that the amendments will, if accepted, result in a fair assessment of disability.

Page 1485

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Bull Mr R. S. L. Jones
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Lynn
Mr Cohen Dr Pezzutti
Mr Corbett Ms Rhiannon
Mr Gallacher Mr Ryan
Miss Gardiner Mr Samios
Mr Gay Tellers,
Mr Harwin Mr Jobling
Mr M. I. Jones Mr Moppett

Mr Breen Mr Oldfield
Ms Burnswoods Ms Saffin
Mr Della Bosca Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Tebbutt
Mr Hatzistergos Mr Tingle
Mr Johnson Dr Wong
Mr Macdonald
Mrs Nile Tellers,
Rev. Nile Mr Manson
Mr Obeid Mr Primrose

Mrs Forsythe Dr Burgmann
Mr Hannaford Mr Tsang

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.23 p.m.]: I should like to ask the Minister three questions before he moves the Government amendments. Clause 3 in chapter 1, Definitions, states:

claims assessor - see Part 4.4.

Is it true that we do not have a definition of "claims assessor" except "see part 4.4", because the Parliamentary Counsel did not have the time to get the bill into decent shape?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [5.24 p.m.]: Can I have time to consider my response to that question and move on to the rest of the business?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.24 p.m.]: No, I have more questions to ask before we get to the Minister’s amendments.

The CHAIRMAN: I would be more comfortable if there was something before the Committee. The Minister could move his amendments and then the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti could ask his questions.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.24 p.m.]: No, I am asking questions about the bill before we get to page 4.

The CHAIRMAN: I would prefer it if the Minister moved his amendments and the honourable member asked his questions.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.25 p.m.]: Mr Chairman, I am not dissenting from your ruling in any way. However, if we are dealing with the bill sequentially we must deal with it line by line. It is pointless for me to ask questions after the Committee has dealt with the Minister’s amendment because we have already moved on to page 4. I asked the Clerk for advice, and that is the advice I received.

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee is dealing with clause 3, so the honourable member’s questions should pertain to clause 3.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.25 p.m.]: On page 3 under "injury" there is a series of full stops rather than commas. Is that because the bill was put together by Parliamentary Counsel with such speed as not to be complete? Did Parliamentary Counsel not have time to proofread the bill?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [5.26 p.m.]: As the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti knows, this is the first bill of which I have had carriage. As I understand the process and as I have been involved in it, the relevant officers and I gave a briefing to Parliamentary Counsel as to the effects of the drafting of the bill. We relied on the advice of Parliamentary Counsel about the final formulation, and the bill before the Committee is in that form. I am not sure of the import or the direction of the honourable member’s questions, but I am satisfied that any minor grammatical deficiencies will be attended to in the course of the normal parliamentary process. Standing Order 192 states:

Page 1486

Clerical, typographical, or other obvious errors may be corrected in any part of the Bill by the Chairman of Committees or Clerk, before it is sent to the Assembly for its concurrence.

I do not propose to answer the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti’s question in any greater detail. I should like to be given the call in order to move the amendments.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.26 p.m.]: No, I am not finished yet. Under the definition of "injury" what is an "artificial member"?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It’s an artificial limb.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [5.27 p.m.]: I will have to seek advice about the honourable member’s question and come back to him on that. I think it is common usage.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What does it mean?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I have given the honourable member the best answer I can.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The importance of definitions is that they change the nature of ordinary words to mean what the bill needs them to mean.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I do not have anything further to add to my response to the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. I have an understanding of the meaning of "artificial member" in relation to this form of legislation. I had assumed that such matters were self-evident. I will seek advice in respect of any ambiguities that might arise. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said that an artificial member was an artificial limb, and that is certainly my understanding. Given the level of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti’s medical knowledge, I am surprised that he is not familiar with that terminology. By leave, I move Government amendments Nos 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 54, 61, 66 and 67 in globo:

No. 1 Page 4, clause 3, lines 1-4. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

MAA Claims Assessment Guidelines means guidelines issued by the Authority under Part 4.1 and in force.
MAA Medical Guidelines means guidelines issued by the Authority under Part 3.1 and in force.

No. 8 Page 30, clause 43, line 27. Omit "Motor Accidents Council". Insert instead "Authority".

No. 9 Page 30, clause 43, line 27. Omit "MAC". Insert instead "MAA".

No. 11 Page 31, clause 43, line 9. Omit "Motor Accidents Council". Insert instead "Authority".

No. 12 Page 31, clause 43, lines 9, 11 and 14. Omit "MAC" wherever occurring. Insert instead "MAA".

No. 14 Page 31, clause 44, line 20. Omit "MAC". Insert instead "MAA".

No. 15 Page 31, clause 44 (2), lines 23-25. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 16 Page 31, clause 44, lines 26 and 31. Omit "MAC" wherever occurring. Insert instead "MAA".

No. 18 Page 34, clause 51, line 30. Omit "MAC". Insert instead "MAA".

No. 19 Page 35, clause 51, line 3. Omit "MAC". Insert instead "MAA".

No. 21 Page 37, clause 55, line 32. Omit "MAC". Insert instead "MAA".

No. 23 Page 39, clause 58 (4), lines 1 and 2. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 25 Page 41, clause 64, line 3. Omit "MAC". Insert instead "MAA".

No. 26 Page 41, clause 64 (2), lines 6 and 7. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead "The Authority may arrange for the provision of training and information".

No. 28 Page 43, clause 68, lines 12, 14, 16 and 19. Omit "MAC" wherever occurring. Insert instead "MAA".

No. 29 Page 43, clause 68, lines 10 and 14. Omit "Motor Accidents Council" wherever occurring. Insert instead "Authority".

No. 37 Page 51, clause 83, line 36. Omit "MAC". Insert instead "MAA".

No. 38 Page 53, clause 85, line 28. Omit "MAC". Insert instead "MAA".

No. 39 Page 56, clause 91, line 17. Omit "MAC". Insert instead "MAA".

No. 42 Page 62, clause 105, line 36. Omit "MAC". Insert instead "MAA".

No. 43 Page 63, clause 105, lines 1-2. Omit "The Motor Accidents Council may make arrangements with the Authority". Insert instead "The Authority may make arrangements".

No. 54 Page 75, clause 132 (1), line 16. Omit "Motor Accidents Council". Insert instead "Authority".

Page 1487

No. 61 Page 118, clause 203. Insert after line 11:

(d) to issue and keep under review relevant guidelines under this Act,

No. 66 Page 120, clause 206, lines 3-7. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(a) to advise and make recommendations to the Authority on, and to keep under review, the MAA Medical Guidelines and MAA Claims Assessment Guidelines,

No. 67 Page 120, clause 206 (1) (c), line 8. Omit "and oversee".

The Motor Accidents Council is to have an advisory and monitoring role in the new schemes, especially regarding medical and claims assessment procedures. It will also advise the MAA on the medical and claims assessment guidelines. The Motor Accidents Council will consist of representatives of various service providers and stakeholder groups such as the Insurance Council of Australia, the Law Society, the Bar Association and so on. The Motor Accidents Council will be a part-time body which will meet several times a year. It will not develop guidelines and perform other functions which the Government proposes should more properly reside in the Motor Accidents Authority.

The MAC is not the sort of body that should be vested with regulatory powers or the power to issue guidelines. The success of the new scheme will depend on the new regulatory powers being exercised vigorously. The Motor Accidents Authority, as a regulatory body, should be doing this rather than the Motor Accidents Council. It is proposed that it will take the interests, attitudes, belief systems and important contributions of the various service providers and interested parties and add them to the process via that ventilation.

The Motor Accidents Council will have a similar role to that of the recently established Motor Traders Advisory Council under the Fair Trading Act. The council provides the Government with essential advice on the operational activities in the motor trades industry. The essential point is that it is expert advice that is called for by the council’s operations. It is the opinion of expert organisations and those constituent lobby groups, organisations and material interest groups that go to make up a complex system such as ours.

The advisory body undertakes research on its own behalf or on reference from the Minister and advice is provided on the development of policy or on any issues relating to the motor trade. Its members are appointed by the Minister and represent both consumer and industry representatives with appropriate expertise. Just as the Department of Fair Trading retains its regulatory role to ensure that the public is protected, similarly the MAA is to retain the role of key decision maker in the motor accidents scheme. The MAA will prepare, issue and review the medical and assessment claims and assessment guidelines and generally retain all the regulatory powers essential to maintain the scheme’s effectiveness. It will continue to fund projects aimed at reducing the cost of the scheme, including funding for rehabilitation, research and injury as well as education.

The Motor Accidents Authority is the body that will audit compliance with the legislation and have the power to impose sanctions on insurers, to seek information and to prosecute for breaches of the legislation or guidelines. It will be the body that ensures that the guidelines work. This new separation of functions has been designed to avoid problems that arise under the current scheme and the Motor Accidents Authority Board. It was found that MAA board members who represented service provider groups often acted to protect the interest of their groups instead of the interest of the motor accidents scheme or the larger community. The constitution of the board will change under this bill.

In summarising the reasons for the Government putting this group of amendments I will try to anticipate some of the concerns put to me by members of the Chamber. As the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has pointed out - I have been happy to concede this and I have gone through the reasons why it has been so - the Government has moved quickly to undertake the reforms in the scheme.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Undue haste.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: It has not been with undue haste; it has been with essential haste in the public interest. The public is demanding reform of the scheme. I again emphasise that the amendments are to put in place the structures to reflect that the first point of our culture change, the positive change that we want the Motor Accidents Authority to supervise in the provision of motor accident care and insurance, is that there are only two real interest groups or stakeholders in the system. They are the victims of motor accidents and the consumers of motor accident insurance - in short, the motorists of New South Wales and those who have catastrophic or minor accidents.

If we want to get into the intangible area we could include prospective victims of motor accidents. We have said all along that there are only two stakeholders that have an essential and
Page 1488
permanent stake in the success of the system. The Government has had those as the central and only stakeholders taken as primary in the system. I am not cynical about the medical profession, the rehabilitation profession, the legal profession, the bar and the whole range of other interest groups being serious and important service providers in the scheme.

To draw an analogy from industrial relations, they have two kinds of interest. They represent their profession and the interests of their profession, not just the economic interest but the intangible ethos that is related to the various professions in the motor accidents scheme, as well as at the end of the day their economic interest. They also represent the sorts of knowledge and schools of thought that can be brought to the scheme to inform government policy, inform the executive of the MAA and inform the MAA board.

The medical profession, the various rehabilitation subprofessions and professions, and the legal profession - barristers and solicitors who work for defendants and plaintiffs - all have a role to play in a permanent review, an ongoing review, of the system. In relation to the previous amendment we were also talking about the role of the actuarial profession and the insurance companies. However, they all clearly have some limitations in their contributions. In the end they cannot be the final decision makers in regard to the regulatory activities of the scheme.

That is because at the end of the day the public interest and the interest of the two key stakeholders has to be always paramount. It is not realistic to expect that groups that represent lawyers, medical practitioners, actuaries, insurance entrepreneurs or anyone else in part of the system will make public interest decisions or confine decisions solely to the interest of the two key stakeholders: the victims and the consumers of motor vehicle third party insurance, motorists.

In the scheme as proposed in the Government’s amendments the division of labour is very clear. The Motor Accidents Council is there to give full ventilation to the expertise, the interests, the concerns and the knowledge that can be brought to the table by the medical profession, the legal profession, the actuarial profession, insurance entrepreneurs and other interested parties including the various formal and semi-formal groups that represent victims and their interests. They will be represented on the Motor Accidents Council. They will get the ear of the Government in respect of all the matters that they bring before it on the motor accidents scheme. But in the end the decisions on regulation, the economic decisions on the scheme, and the process decisions in the scheme must reside with the regulator, the Motor Accidents Authority.

I will anticipate what the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti might say in respect of these amendments. He might well say that the amendments are necessary because the Government has rushed to the table with the bill and the parliamentary draftsman has not had the chance to put all the dots and commas in the right place. All that may be true, but in my reply to the second reading debate I gave the reasons for the scheme being fixed in a timely manner, in the time frame that is required - well before the ordinary round of October filings of insurance companies. This would not only prevent further increases to the cost of premiums but also secure against increases that would eventually cause more and more motorists to risk driving uninsured.

The timeliness of the change and the importance of the reform are not related to some political agenda, as no doubt the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti will hint at. It is related to a fundamental question of public interest. The motoring public of New South Wales is sick and tired of the green slip system the way it exists. The Government has undertaken to address as many of the issues that have affected victims as it can and in many respects it has achieved that goal. Both of those two bodies have equally important roles in the operation of the scheme and those roles should not be confused: One is a regulator and one is an advisory body. They are two distinct roles and should be embodied in the Act so that they can, in turn, inspire the changes needed to make the Act work. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! For the benefit of the Committee I note that Government amendments Nos 41, 51 and 53 seek to amend Australian Democrats amendments Nos 28 and 39, which have not as yet been moved.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: In the interests of a fair hearing of all amendments the Government will move amendments Nos 41, 51 and 53 at a later time so that debate on the definition of MAA guidelines can proceed.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! For the clarification of the Committee the Government is moving Government amendments Nos 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 54, 61, 66 and 67.

Page 1489

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [5.42 p.m.]: Before addressing the issue the Minister raised, because he talked of difficulties with the legislation, I ask when the Government changed its mind about the existing legislation and what caused it to change its mind and introduce the new bill, bearing in mind that structures such as the Australian Medical Association, medicos and the Law Society New South Wales indicate considerable disharmony with the bill? In his second reading speech the Minister stated:

The Motor Accidents Council will be able to issue guidelines on the appropriate treatment of injured people. These will ensure that treatment focuses upon a person’s rehabilitation and recovery. The treatment guidelines will be prepared in conjunction with the health professionals.

A new body, the Motor Accidents Council, is established to oversee the new medical assessment and claims assessment processes.

The council has various functions that will give effect to the changes introduced in this legislation.

On the face of the first draft of the bill tabled on 3 June this new body, while mostly subject to the direction and control of the Minister under clause 204 (2), was intended to be a stakeholder-driven entity sparked by shareholders under clause 205, semi-independent of the Motor Accidents Authority under clause 206 (4), with a clear supervisory role over both administrative tiers of the proposed motor accidents claiming process, that is, and must closely supervise the operation of the proposed Motor Accidents Assessment Service [MARS] and the Claims Assessment Resolution Service [CARS], under clause 206 (1) (c).

It appears that the council was modelled to some extent on the Workers Compensation Advisory Council structure. In the first draft of the bill it was envisaged that the council would perform its function by issuing both parties with guidelines about how they should carry out their operations. For instance, it was to assess and oversee the Motor Accidents Assessment Service by setting guidelines for appropriate treatment: rehabilitation under clauses 43 and 206 (1) (b); advise the authority on the appointment of medical assessors under clause 58 (4); and train these assessors under clause 64 (2). Furthermore, it was to assist and oversee the Claims Assessment Resolution Service by having the ability to issue guidelines for claims assessed under clauses 68 (2) and 206 (1) (b).

The council was not only to play an important role in managing the dispute resolution mechanisms sought to be established under the bill but also to assist in managing the initial and final stages of the claiming process. For example, it was envisaged in the first draft of the bill that the council could play a role during the early stages of claiming through assisting the Motor Accidents Authority in designing an accident notification form under clause 48 (1) and claims handling guidelines under clause 67 (3), and oversee the early payment provisions of the bill under clause 206 (1) (d). It was also to be given a role in assisting with those claims which went through to the court by being given the power to publish information or promote the publication of information to assist courts to determine the appropriate level for a non-economic loss as a result of motor accidents under clause 132 (1).

During its unhappy life the motor accidents scheme has experienced successive shock therapy legislative reforms, with much of the focus of the reforms appearing to be reactive rather than pro-active. The current legislation continues this tradition of shock therapy. It seeks to be seen as doing so for the sake of defending victims’ rights. However, there is little evidence that the form of the current bill resulted from consultation with victims groups, and that is very important. When groups such as Injuries Australia were belatedly made aware of the proposed legislation - not by the Government - they were adamantly opposed to it. Two things are clear from the Government’s continuous mismanagement of the motor accident scheme. First, improvement of the scheme should be incremental, rather than simply taking the form of blunt and unilateral reform in response to a never-ending series of real or imagined crises. Second, the Government’s past experience with the scheme indicates that it cannot and must not run on its own and that it needs to manage the scheme in close consultation with all stakeholders.

For the Government to directly control both the design of the scheme and the details of its operations, especially the means by which injured people receive compensation and the extent to which they are compensated, would spell bad news for victims, if the past pattern of this Government’s legislative change to the scheme is anything to go by. This bill seeks to remove much of the mechanism of judicial independence from the motor accidents scheme by replacing court-based compensation with an administrative structure. As such, it is imperative that this administrative structure remain, at least to some degree, independent of the Government, to ensure the proper working of the system.

The Motor Accidents Council, made up of stakeholders as proposed in the first draft of the bill, was a means of achieving this through ensuring
Page 1490
stakeholder input into the design and monitoring of the proposed compensation system. On this basis, it would be a mistake for the Committee to pass amendments which would centralise control of the scheme in the hands of the Motor Accidents Authority and effectively silence stakeholders’ input into the reform of the scheme by emasculating the Motor Accidents Council. The Motor Accidents Council, in its structure as proposed by the first draft of the bill, might provide a way in which the interests of all consumers, especially injured persons, are safeguarded under the proposed system.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [5.51 p.m.]: Some of the Government’s changes to the bill constitute a radical reform of the legislation. The bill as originally drafted created a council which was to have regulatory control over the scheme. When did the Government change its mind and decide to make it a bureaucratic supervision of the scheme? The Motor Accidents Authority [MAA] is effectively a government department which operates under the control and direction of the Minister, and it will do this more so.

I can only imagine that at some stage or other after the Government introduced this bill into the Parliament - and it was introduced only a couple of weeks ago - the various moguls within the Motor Accidents Authority said to the Government, "No, Minister, you can’t do this. This takes away all of our power. You can’t trust a committee of doctors, lawyers, other stakeholders and victims to issue guidelines. This is the sort of stuff that can only be handled and managed by bureaucrats with appropriate expertise and training."

My concern is that we are at the moment about to pass judgment as to whether we have confidence in the MAA. I believe that the old scheme gave us reasons for not necessarily having that confidence. The MAA’s original role in the scheme as originally established - a role which was reconfirmed in 1995 and again in 1998 when changes were made to the scheme - was to regulate each aspect of the scheme.

From my experience as a member of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, it is fairly obvious that the MAA did not do that. The regulator was ill-resourced, it did not have the necessary culture to regulate particularly the insurance industry, it was captured by the very bodies it is supposed to regulate, and in fact had more their culture. I can assure the Committee that, by and large, most of the other stakeholders in the motor accidents scheme - whether they be lawyers, doctors or victims - regard the MAA and the insurance industry as almost one and the same.

It is necessary for me to explain the sorts of difficulties that occurred when the MAA had control of the scheme and what the authority did not do when it did not carry out the role that the Parliament originally bestowed upon it. The MAA had powers to regulate the insurance industry which it did not use. With regard to the insurance industry, by and large the authority concerned itself solely with regulating its solvency.

At no time did the authority make any decent attempt to gather the necessary information which would allow it to even report on the issue of profitability of the scheme or what the various stakeholders were doing. As a member of the law and justice committee, I felt that the committee was driving the MAA to do its job. The committee was making recommendations which were, in many respects, recommending the obvious - things that the MAA should have been doing of its own volition.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the original make-up of the scheme: the Motor Accidents Council and the Motor Accidents Authority, which for brevity I will refer to as the council and the authority. The Government’s original intention was to have a council, which was basically a council of stakeholders. The council was not able to make decisions by means of a simple majority; it had to make its decisions by a majority of 13 of its 17 members. In other words, it needed overwhelming consensus before its decision could be changed. It must be borne in mind that the scheme we are legislating is not without regulations of its own.

The American Medical Association’s guidelines will be part of the scheme already. It is not as if it is a vacuum which the council has to fill; it is simply a series of issues to which the council needs to address itself. One of the major advantages of the original scheme as originally drafted in the bill was that the scheme had a level of open transparency about it. The various stakeholders would have had an opportunity to inform the various groups of the potential changes to the scheme and to have a level of public consultation, which will not be the way in which the MAA will regulate the industry. Decisions by the MAA will be made in private. They will be specific briefings to the Minister, to which he alone will be privy.

I have a great deal of respect for the democratic process and for the authority of Ministers. However, we are now travelling a long way from the scheme being public and before the courts to largely the most important drivers of the scheme being a matter of a private business between a series of bureaucrats and the Minister. Given this Government’s reputation for openness, I am not sure
Page 1491
that we will necessarily get the answers which all stakeholders would require.

Originally the Motor Accidents Council comprised four lawyers, four doctors, a couple of victims and three representatives of the Motor Accidents Authority. In order to outvote the MAA, every one of the other stakeholders, who usually have competing interests, would have to have been in uniform agreement to outvote the MAA. That puts the MAA in a very powerful position. In fact, the appointment of these people is largely a matter for the Government. One knows that lawyers who operate within the scheme are not an homogenous group of people -

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Are you speaking to the amendments?

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I am speaking to the series of amendments which relate to the council and the role of the authority. The four lawyers who were appointed to the scheme are not likely to have been an homogenous group of people. There would have been what are called plaintiff lawyers and defendant lawyers. I have no doubt that, in addition to the three representatives of the MAA, there were four insurers and one representative of the NRMA. There were five people from the insurance industry itself, plus three from the MAA, probably a couple of defendant lawyers, and of course people who might have been referred to as defendant doctors.

The insurance industry had the overwhelming voting power within the original Motor Accidents Council. It was hardly going to be a radical body which would make decisions which would not take into consideration the underwriters of the scheme or, as the Minister eloquently put, the overall solvency and interests of the scheme. The difference between the scheme that the Government is now seeking to introduce by amendment and the scheme that it originally outlined is that one was open and the other was not. Given the reputation of the Motor Accidents Authority, I prefer a scheme in which the players are directly able to have some say in the decision-making process and where the decision making is somewhat open.

The report of the review of the New South Wales motor accidents scheme - which the Government provided only hours ago and which, incidentally, was produced for and commissioned by the Motor Accidents Authority - makes some interesting comments about the role played by the Motor Accidents Authority in regulating this industry. Page 130 of the report outlines a list of information required of the Motor Accidents Authority in the future - which, one might say, the authority must not have been doing until the present time. The report reads:

The information required from the insurers in relation to their NEW SOUTH WALES CTP business would include:

•a statement of profit and loss by accident year -

the Motor Accidents Authority did not have that -

•a detailed analysis of paid and outstanding claims by accident year;

•information in relation to the acquisition and claims handling expenses incurred by the insurer in the period;

•a description of the basis upon which each insurer has allocated capital against their CTP portfolio;

•information in relation to the investment returns the insurer has achieved and expects to achieve in future periods;

•a detailed analysis of actuarial projections in relation to future claim, discounts to present value and prudential margins held in relation to each accident year at year end; and

•selected performance measures for the Scheme, such as claim settlement statistics, and average period prior to the acceptance of liability etc.

In other words, the Motor Accidents Authority did not even collect and publish accident claim statistics to enable it to work out whether insurers were settling claims quickly. The MAA produced two rather nondescript annual reports and none of that sort of information was available. Yet, private consultants, responsible to the MAA, have outlined a litany of matters that the authority has not achieved in its regulation of the scheme. Given that the MAA has been an abject failure in regulating the scheme, why would honourable members hand responsibility for the decision about medical guidelines and other regulations with regard to the scheme to that organisation?

I believe there is a good case to not give that responsibility to the MAA. The amendments that honourable members seek to reject do not make a great difference to the cost of the scheme, about which the Government has been concerned. If the scheme is administered by a council rather than by the authority it is unlikely that the cost of the scheme will blow out at all. The reason for that is the high level of consensus that will be required before any decision is made.

If a decision is made by the council to introduce a regulation which has the force of law and which the MAA does not like, the MAA may
Page 1492
advise the Minister that the regulation is not in the interests of the scheme and the Government will be able to move in the Parliament to disallow that regulation, in the same way as members of the Opposition have done on many occasions.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It has the numbers.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The Government has the numbers in the Legislative Assembly and it can achieve what it wants in the Legislative Council. In other words, the Government has the whip hand. Under the scheme as outlined in the original bill circulated to the House the Minister can oversight and have an impact on every material decision, if he wants to. There is no need to take the extra step of making the scheme largely secretive with decisions being made by bureaucrats with no opportunity to achieve consensus.

The only criticism I have of the scheme in the original bill, given that it required so much consensus, is that it might be reasonably possible that no decisions at all would be made. If that were the case, it would not be too long before the Minister made some changes to the way the scheme operated. The Government would have forfeited its right to do so.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Get it right now.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile says, "Get it right now." There is nothing wrong with getting it right now, but this issue does not relate to costs; it relates to whether stakeholders have some input into how the scheme works. It is not fair to say there are only two sets of stakeholders: policyholders and motorists. By and large, victims are represented intelligently by lawyers in the courts. The scheme the Government outlined two weeks ago had great merit and was worthy of a trial.

I have no idea why the Government, suddenly and without much explanation, wants to tear down that scheme which it outlined fairly carefully to the House in the original bill. I can only imagine it is because of bureaucrats within the MAA, who, as I said, have not exactly done a brilliant job to date. Those bureaucrats certainly did not convince me, as a member of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, that they were anything other than captives by the insurance industry. They did not do a great deal to regulate the legal industry either, for that matter.

The bureaucrats did little to regulate much at all, other than provide a certificate at the end of each year that the scheme was solvent. The MAA funded a number of useful rehabilitation programs which I accept were marvellous and terrific but had little to do with regulating the industry. We are more likely to have the healthy regulatory climate that is needed to get the right results if we adhere to the scheme that was originally outlined to the House by the Government rather than turning it into a scheme that is regulated by bureaucrats.

The Hon. I. COHEN [6.04 p.m.]: Briefly I express some concern about a number of amendments moved by the Minister. It was proposed that the Motor Accidents Council have outside independent members with relevant expert qualifications. The amendments clearly strip them of power and give that power to the Motor Accidents Authority, which, as the Hon. J. F. Ryan most eloquently explained, is a government body. The Greens are concerned about that.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan clearly and convincingly argued that these amendments favour the insurance industry. The Greens are also concerned about that. The amendments will reduce the membership of the authority from 12 to seven. That reduction would decrease the effectiveness of the council, now the authority, by reducing the number of stakeholder representatives and, hence, reducing its effectiveness, its expertise base and the degree to which it could render any valuable contribution to the scheme.

The council will be a sideline entity with no real supervisory role over the scheme and no chance to implement changes in the scheme for medical assessments and claims assessments. Guidelines will now be issued by the Motor Accidents Authority, not the Motor Accidents Council. The amendments will remove the role of the Motor Accidents Council in advising on the appointment of medical assessors. The role of the Motor Accidents Council has been reduced to an advisory one. The council will no longer have the power to develop and implement guidelines, including impairment assessment guidelines. The authority will be required to consult with legal, medical and insurance organisations, but it will not be required to follow the recommendations of those organisations. As I have said, the Greens have some significant concerns about the amendments.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [6.06 p.m.]: I move:

That Government amendments Nos 1 and 66 be amended by deleting "medical" from "MAC medical guidelines."

Page 1493

I ask that that amendment be dealt with separately. The amendment seeks to delete the word "medical" from the definition of "MAC medical guidelines", whether the words appear in the bill as printed or in the amendment. I am unsure how to do that and I have been advised the Clerks that I should simply seek to amend the Government’s amendment. Should the Government’s amendment fail I will seek to amend the bill to delete the word "medical" from "MAC medical guidelines", which appears on page 4 of the bill. Clause 43 of the bill provides that the MAC may issue guidelines with respect to the appropriate treatment of injured persons. In Part 3.1 "treatment" is defined as:

(a) medical treatment, or

(b) dental treatment, or

(c) the provision of rehabilitation services, or

(d the provision of attendant care services, or

(e) the provision, replacement or repair of artificial members, eyes or teeth, crutches or other aids or spectacle glasses,

whether or not at a hospital.

In other words treatment applies to a range of matters, not merely medical matters. Clause 43 (1) (b) of the bill states:

(b) the appropriate procedures with respect to the provision of rehabilitation services for injured persons (including the circumstances in which rehabilitation services are required to be provided),

In other words, that is the procedure to follow for rehabilitation services. Clause 43 (1) (c) reads:

(c) the assessment of the degree of permanent impairment . . . .

That is probably medical. Clause 43 (1) (d) reads:

(d) the procedures for the referral of disputes for assessment or review . . .

Clause 43 (2) and (3) use the words "Motor Accidents Council" and clause 43 (3) and (4) use the words "Medical Guidelines", but the guidelines are not necessarily all medical. To make this clause simpler and more meaningful it is my contention that the word "medical" should be deleted from the Government’s amendments. If the Government’s amendments fail I will move that on page 4 of the bill the word "medical" be deleted from "MAC Medical Guidelines".

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [6.10 p.m.]: I wanted to discuss other matters during the course of debate on these amendments, but I will respond in fairly simple terms to the amendment moved by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti by saying that the Government does not accept or support his amendment. In essence, more than one set of guidelines is referred to in this bill. When the bill becomes an Act it will contain medical guidelines. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is seeking to delete the word "medical" so that there will be only guidelines.

The Act will contain guidelines for medical issues; guidelines for insurers in claims-handling procedures; guidelines for the conduct of two different assessment processes - the medical assessment process and the Claims Assessment Resolution Service process; guidelines for premiums; and guidelines for the conduct of insurance business. So more than one set of guidelines is being discussed and we need to know which set of guidelines is being referred to. Unless there is a more persuasive argument than the one I have heard from the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, the Government is not inclined to support his amendment.

The Hon. Dr. A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.13 p.m.]: I was looking for things that I could support in the Government’s amendments because I want to change this bill significantly. I want to meet the Government halfway, in the hope that it will accept more of my amendments. The Law Society pointed out - and I think it is right - that these amendments will give more power to the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA] and they will take power away from the council. The council should be a body that has a broad range of expertise and it should be representative.

We in society should attempt to give that power to the people who perform the relevant tasks. These amendments will do quite the opposite. Effectively, directors on the MAA do not have expertise in that field. The directors, who are appointed by the Minister, will have little or no control over these matters; the bureaucrats will have control. Input from the council might be highly sought after but, by the same token, it could be quite perfunctory. These powers must be given to the elected body.

I will move some amendments to change the composition of council to make it more representative of stakeholders. There is a great danger that this bill is all about dollars and not about caring for or treating people well. It would be a retrograde step if this power was taken away from the council, which at least has stakeholder
Page 1494
representation, and given to the authority. I cannot support these amendments. The authority will end up having to police these provisions and to provide resources for them. It does not make much difference whether council or the MAA has the power.

I am not persuaded by the Government’s argument in relation to these amendments. Council should have this power and the bureaucracy should support council logistically. We want these decisions to be made by people who do the job and who, although they have a variety of interests, have to work together to produce a realistic solution. These amendments, as a group, should be opposed.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [6.14 p.m.]: The Government’s amendments are not a matter of financial consequence; they relate to a matter of transparency, democracy and community involvement. I strongly oppose these amendments as they will take away most of the important powers and functions of the council and deliver them to a government body, the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA]. The council, as established by the authority, is well-balanced, with experts in many fields, including doctors, lawyers, insurers, and representatives from the insured and injured persons organisation. The council in this form is well-placed to develop guidelines. These amendments will take away those functions from council. The authority will not be required to obey or follow advice from council.

I cannot believe that the Government did not know what it was doing; it was aware of these issues. This is good legislation which enables people to be involved in this area. The Government has suddenly discovered that transparency and democracy are not a good idea and it wishes to take them away. In many ways the MAA still has the power to supervise the Motor Accidents Council. I strongly reject the suggestion that part-time advisers cannot do any good. The senates of universities, the Medical Board of New South Wales, of which I was a member, and the Ethnic Affairs Commission have done many good things. They have designed guidelines. It cannot be said that the people on those bodies are useless. The Government wants to put aside the advisers on the MAA and, therefore, do whatever it wants to do in this area. These amendments are ridiculous.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [6.17 p.m.]: The Government does not have some dark motive for moving these amendments. I respond to concerns expressed by the Hon. J. F. Ryan by saying that the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA] was established as an industry promotional body. It did not effectively exercise its regulatory powers and, in some cases, it totally ignored its regulatory capacity. Successive governments and MAA officers agree that the MAA has not been a good regulator, and the whole point of this legislation is to correct that. Let me give an example so that honourable members do not persist with the notion that somehow these amendments are meant to go easy on insurers. These amendments are to do with costs. In the end there will be a cost if there are not clear regulatory provisions and a clear regulatory process. That cost will eventually creep back into the system.

[Interruption]

I cannot cost it and I do not pretend to be able to. That is not the point I am making. I do not want the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti to make another dishonest interjection about that matter. Anyone who has watched the way in which bureaucracies and regulators behave in relation to schemes such as this would know that internal economics tend to favour cost increases. Buffers are built into the system. Courts, other bodies and professionals involved tend to make allowances and to put people slightly above any impairment, treatment or cost barriers. The way in which guidelines are developed was also referred to. It is possible - I do not suggest that this will always happen - that all service providers in a scheme agree to something which, in the end, will be contrary, first, to the public interest and, second, to the interest of stakeholders. In my view it is likely that that will happen from time to time.

There is nothing secretive about these amendments. The MAA’s regulatory powers are more open than the proposed powers for the Motor Accidents Council, or any proposal to give it powers. The MAA’s powers and regulations will be gazetted and they will be subject to disallowance, as pointed out by the Hon. J. F. Ryan, by this House or any other House. I will deal now with the way in which a regulatory process should work. We cannot put poachers in charge of the game. That is one of the problems that will be encountered by interest groups in a scheme. As well-meaning, well-intended and expert as those interest groups are, the fundamental underlying principle of this scheme is that it is must be balanced.

By way of interjection, the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti said that these things cannot be costed, and I agree. I do not pretend to be able to cost them. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans could have mentioned superimposed inflation and its
Page 1495
problems when he spoke about actuarial problems in measuring this scheme. The Hon. J. F. Ryan mentioned the origins of problems with inadequate regulatory powers. The MAA will have the power to fine insurers by way of civil penalty. There will be an onus of civil proof only, not criminal proof, for breach of a condition of a licence, guideline or regulation, including the claims handling guidelines and the making of reasonable offers. The transparency and regulatory powers of the MAA have been strengthened and for that reason I commend the amendments.

The Hon. J. M. Samios asked me to give an opinion on why the Government is presenting the amendments in their present form and why the original bill was drafted in that form. Honourable members would have become familiar with the process which involved all interest groups, following which we ended up with a number of legacies. One legacy was a continuing presence of regulatory powers residing with interest groups rather than the MAA, where it properly should reside. In fairness we consulted extensively with the relevant interest groups including the Bar Association, the Law Society, insurance companies and the actuarial consultants to the MAA.

The Government took the view that if we are going to add greater regulatory powers they should reside with the MAA not the Motor Accidents Council [MAC], notwithstanding the comments by the Hon. I. Cohen and the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans that the MAC has a substantial contribution to make to the desired culture change in the motor accidents insurance business. It would be a mistake for Parliament not to give stronger regulatory powers to the MAC rather than the MAA. It would be a mistake also not to build into the MAA the requirement of transparency, as has been built into the bill through these amendments.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [6.22 p.m.]: Did the Minister say that it would be more transparent, more democratic, to do things this way?

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: Yes.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG: That is very interesting. I strongly dispute that any advisory council is costly. We all know that the aim of councils - including the National Multicultural Advisory Council, the Ethnic Affairs Commission, and the medical board - is to minimise costs. The Government cannot provide one statistic to show that this would cost one cent more, yet it maintains that it would be costly. As the Minister knows from his experiences with the Ethnic Affairs Commission, we pay $125 a session, and I pay my locum $165 for a morning. This council still exists, anyway. To say that it would become more transparent is untrue. To say that it cannot be regulated properly is untrue. Most boards operate efficiently. I am not sure that the Government knew what this was all about, but suddenly it has discovered the more secrecy, the better.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.23 p.m.]: I can understand the Government thinking that the Motor Accidents Council may have had some value. However, when the Government has considered the operation of the council it should realise that the vested interests of the stakeholders could take away the need for responsibility and discipline within the scheme as to what the council may finally recommend. The Standing Committee on Law and Justice heard from senior barristers who argued from their own self-interest, without any question of the impact of the scheme or its premiums on the public. Some said that premiums should be $1,000; they did not take into account the ability of the community to pay.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: But $1,000 is probably not a lot of money to them.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: No, they were interested only in getting their legal fees. Interest groups cannot avoid taking care of their vested interests. The legal and medical professions would be making sure they could protect their interests - that is the danger with such a loaded council. In retrospect the Government has realised what would happen within that body. The crossbenchers have been lobbied heavily by the Australian Medical Association and the Bar Association.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: No, they haven’t.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Yes, they have. The crossbencher will make the decisions on this debate. Those professionals are concerned only with their point of view. Members of Parliament have to consider the overall public interest. We support the amendments.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [6.25 p.m.]: I dispute the remarks made by the Special Minister of State that this legislation generally massively increases the powers of the regulator over the insurance industry. The Minister cited two instances: firstly, that there is a capacity to impose monetary fines instead of cancelling a licence. That is a big step forward, but it hardly represents a massive increase in power by
Page 1496
the Motor Accidents Authority. The MAA had plenty of powers before regulation of the industry and it did not use them. We need a body such as the Motor Accidents Council to ensure that the regulatory regime has the right culture, and will use it. Members of the MAC will ask the MAA why it has not used its powers appropriately.

Secondly, what the Minister said may have had some substance with regard to various industry groups being able to lobby for the increase in costs, if he had addressed the fact that the decisions by the MAC do not require a simple majority but a vote of 13 of the 17 members. On that council five members represent the insurance industry, four directly and one representative of the NRMA, which, as I recall, runs 30 per cent of the insurance industry - that is five votes. If the insurers are worried about increased costs they need only send their group of five in to vote against it and the other 12 members, in the unlikely event that they all agree, would have enormous difficulty in trying to increase costs.

The council simply does not have the capacity to do it. In a hypothetical situation in which the council made a new regulation that had the danger of increasing benefits and costs, the Government has the numbers in the lower House to disallow that regulation under the requirements of the Interpretation Act. The field is covered; what are they frightened about? The only thing that the council can do that is terrifying in any way is to inform the public that a decision is to be made - leak the details to the newspapers and let the public discuss them. In my view there may be some difficulty for the Government in those sorts of decisions, but that is not a terrifying prospect.

In fact, the public might be better informed about when and why decisions are being made and what they will cost if the process becomes public, as opposed to a decision being made by the Government, or a regulation being created, following which a brave member of this House might move to disallow that decision or regulation. In that event we would be told, as we always are, that we cannot disallow that regulation because horrific consequences will flow on to costs. Of course, as has occurred through this debate, all the information will be resident with the Minister.

Members will have two choices: first, to take a risk and vote down the regulations, and we might be wrong; or, second, to warn the Government, but we will have to trust it. That is hardly an open arrangement. The original scheme has sufficient safeguards to prevent all the horrors that the Minister suggested. It requires a greater level of consensus than is required in this Chamber for the council to do anything disastrous at all.

Question - That the amendment of the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Bull Mr Oldfield
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Dr Pezzutti
Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon
Mr Corbett Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Dr Wong
Mr Gay
Mr Harwin Tellers,
Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Jobling
Mr Lynn Mr Moppett

Mr Breen Mrs Nile
Dr Burgmann Rev. Nile
Ms Burnswoods Mr Obeid
Mr Della Bosca Ms Saffin
Mr Dyer Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Egan Ms Tebbutt
Mr Hatzistergos Mr Tingle
Mr Johnson Tellers,
Mr M. I. Jones Mr Manson
Mr Macdonald Mr Primrose

Mrs Forsythe Mr Shaw
Mr Hannaford Mr Tsang

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment of amendments negatived.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Breen Mrs Nile
Dr Burgmann Rev. Nile
Ms Burnswoods Mr Obeid
Mr Della Bosca Ms Saffin
Mr Dyer Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Egan Ms Tebbutt
Mr Hatzistergos Mr Tingle
Mr Johnson Tellers,
Mr M. I. Jones Mr Manson
Mr Macdonald Mr Primrose

Page 1497

Mr Bull Mr Oldfield
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Dr Pezzutti
Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon
Mr Corbett Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Dr Wong
Mr Gay
Mr Harwin Tellers,
Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Jobling
Mr Lynn Mr Moppett

Mr Shaw Mrs Forsythe
Mr Tsang Mr Hannaford

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

[The Chairman left the chair at 6.40 p.m. The Committee resumed at 8.15 p.m.]

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.15 p.m.] by leave: I move my amendments Nos 3, 28 and 54 in globo:

No. 3 Page 4, clause 3. Insert after line 34:

Parliamentary Select Committee means the select committee of the Legislative Council referred to in Part 8.3.

No. 28 Page 59, clause 96, lines 1 and 2. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(2) The Motor Accidents Council may refer to the Parliamentary Select Committee any inconsistency between the regulations and the MAC Claims Assessment Guidelines and the Parliamentary Select Committee may review and make recommendations about the resolution of any such inconsistency.

No. 54 Page 120. Insert after line 27:

Part 8.3 Supervision of Authority and Motor Accidents Council

207 Appointment of Parliamentary Select Committee

(1) A select committee of members of the Legislative Council, to be known as the Committee on the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme, is to be appointed with terms of reference relating to the supervision of the exercise of the functions of the Authority and the Motor Accidents Council under this Act.

(2) The Parliamentary Select Committee is to be appointed as soon as practicable after the commencement of this Part and the commencement of the first Session of each Parliament.

(3) The Parliamentary Select Committee is to be comprised as follows:

(a) 3 members of the Government,

(b) 2 members of the Opposition,

(c) 2 members of the Cross Benches.

These amendments propose that a parliamentary committee have oversight of the scheme. I am mindful of the problems we have had in determining whether the scheme is working. A committee is needed to make sure things are working and to keep track of what is happening with the insurers. My amendments propose that the committee be made up of three Government members, two Opposition members and two crossbench members.

The committee would take evidence. The Standing Committee on Law and Justice has been examining this scheme for some years and has had a great deal of difficulty obtaining information. It would be nice to believe this bill will fix many of the problems. If it does not, we need to know what the problems are and what can be done about them, and we need to keep an eye on this system, which is controversial. The Democrats believe that accountability is extremely important in government. I commend the concept to Parliament.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [8.18 p.m.]: Mr Chairman, I seek your guidance. Is it your intention to conclude debate on these amendments and then move to amendment No. 41?

The CHAIRMAN: I note that, consistent with the Government's amendments having changed "Motor Accidents Council" to "Motor Accidents Authority", the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans' amendments also refer to the "Motor Accidents Authority". Therefore the Minister will need to move amendment No. 41 only if the Democrats’ amendments are not agreed to.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: The Government supports the proposition for a parliamentary select committee. When it was first proposed I had some small concern about confusion in terminology, but that has been addressed. You ruled that we should deal separately with amendment No. 41.

Page 1498

The CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans has changed "Council" to "Authority". However, if his amendments are not agreed to the Minister would then have to move amendment No. 41 to the original clause 96.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: The Minister should have moved that amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: No. He does not have to.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [8.21 p.m.]: The Opposition wholeheartedly supports amendments Nos 3, 28 and 54 moved by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, for the very clear reasons already enunciated.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.22 p.m.], by leave: I move Australian Democrats amendments Nos 4, 5, 6 and 7:

No. 4 Page 7, clause 5, line 33. Omit "affordable". Insert instead "under close public financial scrutiny".

No. 5 Page 8, clause 5, lines 1-5. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 6 Page 8, clause 5. Insert after line 9:

(h) to ensure sufficient benefit levels for the injured, so that benefits are maintained at the standard required for good private sector treatment, rehabilitation and continuing care,

(i) to ensure that the Auditor-General has access to such records as are needed to ensure that, given the privileged position of insurers with a compulsory insurance scheme, profit margins are reasonable and are available for parliamentary scrutiny,

(j) to recognise that private insurers are effectively given a part in the provision of a social security safety net and as such must recognise that they have a significant social role.

No. 7 Page 8, clause 5, lines 17-22. Omit all words on those lines.

I do not want to include amendment No. 8 because, although it is an object of the bill, it relates to the functions of the Auditor-General. I will move it in globo with amendments Nos 9 and 47. Amendments Nos 4, 5, 6 and 7 relate to the objects of the bill. The bill refers to money, and we all agree that saving money is important, but an insurance scheme is designed to look after injured people. We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Amendment No. 4 deals with clause 5 (d) which states that the premiums must be affordable. The amendment will keep the premiums under close financial scrutiny, which means something; whereas "affordable" means cheap.

If the objects of the bill stand, a judge dealing with someone who is injured and complaining about a lot of pain or problems will refer to the objects of the bill and see that the premiums have to be affordable, and that, according to the American Medical Association guidelines, the amount of compensation payable for non-economic loss in relatively minor injuries is limited. The victim may have suffered whiplash, like 38 per cent of other injuries that fall under the scheme, but under the definition the injuries are minor and the pain and suffering is minor. Under the objects of the bill, the judge has to look after the dollars and will have to send the victim home with a stiff neck.

Amendment No. 7 relates to clause 5 (2) (b), which deals with both the enacted law and the common law relating to the assessment of damages. It acknowledges the clear legislative intention to restrict the level of non-economic loss compensation in cases of minor injuries. Again, minor injuries are defined by the American Medical Association guidelines, which is how the Government wants them defined. Soft tissue injury is a euphemism for injuries that are hard to diagnose. The x-ray might look okay, the victim complains of a lot of pain, but the doctors in their wisdom, if that is the word for it, cannot find much wrong.

The American guidelines make no allowance for pain and suffering because it cannot be measured - and it is all about having precise measurement, even if the measurement has no precise meaning in practical terms, only in financial terms. Therefore the object of the bill is not to compensate people who are injured and not to allow the courts any discretion. Honourable members have to understand that it is all about money and not an insurance scheme. Amendments Nos 5 and 7 are my "delete" amendments.

Amendment No. 6 asks more of the bill in that it must ensure sufficient benefits to look after people who are injured. It is regrettable that that does not appear anywhere in the objects of the bill. It is extraordinary that I have to include it as an amendment. The Auditor-General and Parliament will maintain some scrutiny under the bill. The amendment recognises that this scheme is a sort of privatised welfare. It is like Medicare in that it looks after the medical aspects. Insurance companies must recognise that they have some social role, as they are providing some sort of social benefit, and there must be accountability.

Page 1499

If honourable members want this scheme to insure injured people, that is what it should do. The purpose of the bill should not be to save money by having no real commitment to maintaining a decent standard of care for injured people. The Government has waxed lyrical about the importance of balancing the needs of the injured with the so-called imperative to keep premiums low. But in the bill the imperative of keeping premiums low seems to be going ahead to the exclusion of the main purpose of insurance, which is to look after injured people.

My amendments Nos 4, 5, 6 and 7 redress that anomaly and give the courts more discretion to deal with injured people, which, surely, is at risk, and puts some balance back into the bill. The amendments will not immediately cause a cost blow-out, nor do they change the remainder of the bill. They merely ensure that the interpretation of the bill is in keeping with a bill designed to look after injured people and has as its duty to be accountable. If insurance is mandatory, insurance companies will assume they are on a winner: people will have to buy the product.

In what is effectively a guaranteed market, the money is not going to Medicare to provide treatment: it will go to insurance companies. If insurance companies receive large amounts of revenue from the public as guaranteed income, they also have a responsibility to be accountable, and this amendment seeks to include that responsibility.

I ask honourable members to support this amendment as a mechanism for providing a reasonable balance in the bill. I am surprised that a reasonable balance is not already provided in the bill. After all, insurance is a balance between how much people can afford to pay and how much can be provided to look after people who are injured. I am mindful of the emphasis placed in this bill on saving money. My intention in proposing this amendment is to keep matters in proportion. The proposed amendment may not create balance by providing for direct accountability, but in a philosophical way it provides balance in the objects of the bill. I dispute the claim that this amendment will increase expense. I think this amendment is philosophically correct and I ask honourable members to support it.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [8.31 p.m.]: I am attracted to these amendments because amendment No. 5, which seeks to omit the first five lines of page 8, reveals sleight of hand that honourable members have come to expect from this Government. It recognises recovery under a claim "for non-economic loss in cases of relatively minor injuries, while preserving principles of full compensation for those with severe injuries involving ongoing impairment and disabilities." It does not talk about full compensation for economic loss. We know that there will not be full compensation for economic loss; there will be only partial compensation for economic loss.

We also know that the amount will be fully calculated. People may not get any compensation for economic loss by the time costs associated with caring for an injured person of $2,500 a week are taken into account. I will be delighted to have this provision omitted because it was obviously a lie. Paragraph (e) was a lie from beginning to end. It is the type of sleight of hand which I am sure the Treasurer would have loved, but I will be pleased to see it omitted because it is simply dishonest.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [8.32 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendments moved by the Australia Democrats for the reasons already stated.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [8.32 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendments proposed by the Australian Democrats, although I am sympathetic to the sentiment underlying the position adopted by Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans. The Government supported some amendments moved by the Australian Democrats previously but the difficulty with these amendments is that, out of Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans’ own mouth, the balance is achieved sufficiently by the objects of the bill.

It should be understood - it is probably understood better by most honourable members than by me - that the objects of the bill are purely a device for judicial interpretation purposes and are not matters that are usually of major concern. However, it is important to focus on two matters. First, the matters which the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans asserts he was addressing, that is, caring for the injured and a compensable level of injuries, are clearly and comprehensibly dealt with in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the objects of the bill. I do not believe there is any need for additional objects to be inserted.

Second, it is extraordinary, if not absurd, to say that the object that relates to premiums remaining affordable will not be treated as one of the objects of the bill. It seems to me that at both a parliamentary and public level, that is one of the clear objects of the bill. In summary, I reiterate the Government’s view that one of the objects of the bill is that premiums should be affordable. It is
Page 1500
axiomatic that that should be the case. It also seems to me that paragraphs (a) and (b) of the objects of the bill are sufficient for the purposes described by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.34 p.m.]: It seems that the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans has confused what is affordable and what is close public scrutiny. Those two terms do not equate to each other. A premium can be affordable and can also be under close financial scrutiny. The purpose of the bill is to provide insurance that is affordable. If the premiums blow out to $800 or $1,000, they are not affordable and the whole scheme will collapse. Up until now, I gathered that "close public financial scrutiny" was the role of the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA].

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Yes, and they really do it, don’t they?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I believe that they do. I know that the Hon. J. F. Ryan does not accept that because he adopted that attitude on the Committee. The MAA performs that role and has obtained records and vital information from private companies.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [8.35 p.m.]: Let me put this nonsense to rest once and for all about the MAA properly regulating the scheme. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile supported recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice inquiry into the motor accidents scheme. Three recommendations were made which called for very significant enhancement of regulations pertaining to financial reporting. One of the recommendations that the Committee supported, about which the Government has done nothing, was recommendation No. 9. The report stated:

The Committee recommends that section 90 of the Motor Accidents Act 1998 -

that is the section of the old Act which outlined the functions of the Motor Accidents Authority which have been repeated in toto in the new bill -

be amended to require the Motor Accidents Authority to compile an appropriate analysis of the financial performance of the scheme to be included in a CTP Annual Review to be prepared by the Motor Accidents Authority and tabled in the NSW Parliament by the Attorney General. Once it is tabled in Parliament, the CTP Annual Review should be freely available upon request to the Motor Accidents Authority.

If one refers to the report, one will see the reasons for that recommendation. The committee did that because adequate attention was not being paid to the issue of accountability with regard to profits. We made that recommendation simply to address the position of the Motor Accidents Authority not having performed its task.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has agreed to sections of that report which make that plain. I have pointed them out in graphic detail for the benefit of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile - I am happy to cite the relevant page number - to show that in the Motor Accident Authority’s own report, provided by Ernst and Young, it is obvious that the authority had not performed its task. The authority had not even collected adequate data to perform its task properly. I have no objection to insurance companies receiving an adequate return for their financial risk. However, the special feature of third party insurance is that everybody must have a policy. As the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans pointed out, consumers have no option.

The insurers know that during the next year 3.5 million policies will be issued, regardless of cost. Irrespective of whether the premium is $100 or $1,000, 3.5 million policies will be issued, and it is not as though insurance companies have to compete for business. In return for that incredible market advantage that applies to very few other products, a level of accountability is to be expected. To illustrate the point I make, I cite the example of fire insurance. There is no requirement for people to have that type of insurance and consumers weigh up whether the cost of the premium is worth the piece of mind.

This is a decision that each individual has to make, and it would be my recommendation that everyone should have proper insurance for his or her house and contents. That is a transaction that is subject to the market principle, but this type of insurance is not. No matter how rich or poor a person is, this type of insurance is compulsory if a person wishes to put a vehicle on the road.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Affordability in Campbelltown.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Affordability is important and I do not quibble about that. The point is that the Government is designing a scheme that does not have to be affordable. The truth is that after the $330 premium has expired, if there is inadequate scrutiny by the Motor Accidents Authority, insurers can increase the premiums by $50 and people will have to pay it. There is really no choice. Although insurance companies have a privileged position in the market, I do not think they need to report publicly about their individual circumstances. I do not support that.

Page 1501

However, a regulatory authority - the Committee has agreed that it should be the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA] - should be able to obtain that detailed information and audit it properly. I have some reservations about the Auditor-General being involved in that audit but the principle is sound. Insurance companies should provide the information, but they have not done so to date.

I draw the attention of honourable members to page 53 of the interim report of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice dated December 1996, which has three recommendations relating to improved financial accountability in this regard. The Government has not taken up any of those recommendations. Under those circumstances I have some sympathy with the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans, although I might disagree with some parts of his amendments. The principle is reasonable, but as the amendments refer only to matters inserted in the objects of the bill I have a great deal of difficulty crossing t’s and dotting i’s in relation to including aspirational statements in Acts of Parliament.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [8.41 p.m.]: I know that that is what the Standing Committee on Law and Justice recommended in its report, and I supported that. However, the Hon. J. F. Ryan has dismissed the point that I believe the MAA had the figures. The standing committee simply recommended that machinery be established to enable the MAA’s figures to be made public through the Parliament. The information was already in the hands of the MAA, although I know that the Hon. J. F. Ryan does not believe that. I had many discussions with the director of the MAA, who indicated that the MAA had adequate information from the insurance companies when it had to set and confirm the premiums.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The MAA didn’t make the information public.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: But it was not public.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That is what the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans is trying to do.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: That is something we can look at later. I am simply saying that that is the reason for the recommendation, not that the MAA did not do its job in assessing the premiums.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.42 p.m.]: I have read the December 1996 interim report. I was not a member of that Standing Committee on Law and Justice but it seems fairly unequivocal that getting information about the financial affairs and how the premiums were arrived at was like pulling teeth. As to the issue of the words "under financial scrutiny" and "affordable" not being exactly interchangeable, the word "affordable" occurs clearly in clause 5 (2) (a) in chapter 1, which states:

. . . keeping the overall costs of the scheme within reasonable bounds so as to keep premiums affordable.

The word "affordable" is repeated three times in the objects, so I do not think that deleting it once will make any difference. I commend the amendments.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [8.43 p.m.]: For the benefit of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, page 46 of the standing committee’s report states:

A major gap in NSW CTP financial information exists in relation to CTP investment funds.

A gap means that the information is not available. The report continues:

This information would be crucial for the purposes of accurately assessing the profitability of the CTP scheme . . .

In correspondence received by the committee, Dallas Booth, the then General Manager of the Motor Accidents Authority, said:

It is, however, not possible to calculate CTP profitability for individual States . . .

The point is that the committee knew that that information was critical to calculating profitability. The insurance company said that it is not possible to provide that information as it is aggregated in the general financial statement. The MAA did not bother to investigate further; it took that at face value. Therefore, the information was not collected and the committee’s report, to which Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile agreed, has a considerable gap with regard to that information. Undoubtedly there is a gap and the Government has done nothing in this bill or in the amendments introduced at the end of 1998 to enhance that level of accountability.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Page 1502

Mr Bull Mr R. S. L. Jones
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Lynn
Mr Cohen Dr Pezzutti
Mr Corbett Ms Rhiannon
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Tellers,
Mr Gay Mr Jobling
Mr Harwin Mr Moppett

Mr Breen Rev. Nile
Dr Burgmann Mr Obeid
Ms Burnswoods Ms Saffin
Mr Della Bosca Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Tebbutt
Mr Hatzistergos Mr Tingle
Mr Johnson Dr Wong
Mr M. I. Jones Tellers,
Mr Macdonald Mr Manson
Mrs Nile Mr Primrose

Mr Hannaford Mr Tsang

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.52 p.m.], by leave: I move Australian Democrats amendments Nos 8, 9 and 47 in globo:

No. 8 Page 8, clause 5. Insert at the end of line 35:

, and

(d) that insurers, as receivers of public money that is compulsorily levied, should account for their profit margins, and their records should be available to the Auditor-General to ensure that accountability.

No. 9 Page 21. Insert after line 30:

28 Insurers to disclose profit margins

(1) A licensed insurer is required to disclose to the Authority the profit margin on which a premium is based and the actuarial basis for calculating that profit margin.

(2) The Auditor-General is to assess that profit margin, and the actuarial basis for its calculation, and to present a report on that assessment annually to the Parliamentary Select Committee.

No. 47 Page 102, clause 174. Insert after line 24:

(7) The Auditor-General may from time to time carry out an audit to determine the profitability of a licensed insurer and for that purpose may exercise the functions of a person appointed under subsection (1). The Auditor-General is to report on any such audit to the Authority and the Parliamentary Select Committee, on a confidential basis.

The three amendments basically relate to the proposition that the public has a right to know where the large amount of money involved under the scheme is going. The Auditor-General is accustomed to working in a confidential manner, so confidentiality is not in question. I think there were difficulties with the Motor Accidents Authority suffering some degree of regulatory capture. The group that is regulating becomes very close to the industry that is being regulated and effectively does not keep at sufficient distance to make certain that the public is getting a good deal.

In the public sector the Auditor-General, a free agent, looks at the books and makes sure that the public is getting a good deal. This scheme is almost public in that it is mandatory that premiums are paid. Effectively, it will inject a large amount of public money into an insurance and medical scheme which complements Medicare and the medical system. It is funded by the public through private insurers. The Standing Committee on Law and Justice reported that there were serious difficulties in getting figures from the companies. The amendments simply ask that the Auditor-General look at the insurance companies to see that things are being done properly and that we are getting value for money out of this insurance scheme.

It may be thought invasive to have the public Auditor-General looking into private companies but, given that these are mandatory contributions - the Government has said that people have to buy this product - and a public duty remains, it is sensible and reasonable to ask a representative of the public to look at the books and assure us that all is well and that we are getting value for money. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [8.56 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendment to clause 5 moved by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans on behalf of the Australian Democrats. The Committee just voted to increase parliamentary scrutiny of the operation of the legislation. We have given the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA] more regulatory powers to investigate and prosecute with a civil onus of proof
Page 1503
where a case of liable behaviour by an insurer is found. Frankly, we would be going a step further than we need to if we accept the amendment in relation to oversight by the Auditor-General.

It is claimed that as this is a compulsory scheme, the insurance companies should be treated as part of the public sector. Members of the Liberal Party took the initiative to introduce the private sector into the scheme. I challenge them now to state that they are serious in arguing that the Auditor-General, who traditionally reviews the operations of the Parliament and the public sector, has direct relevance to the operations of private sector companies.

If there is any need to make regulations about private sector operations that have a public duty in their operations, this would be dealt with more properly by the appropriate regulator, and I would argue that that is the MAA. Where necessary, appropriate oversight can be provided by the Parliament itself. There is absolutely no need to introduce the Auditor-General into the affairs of private insurers, whether they are participating in this compulsory scheme or any other compulsory scheme that the Government may introduce in the future.

The Auditor-General is governed by another Act of Parliament and if we were to adopt the amendment, we would both in practice and spirit have to amend a whole range of other Acts of Parliament, including the Act that governs the operation of the Auditor-General. This seems like cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer when the walnut is already cracked.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [8.59 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendments proposed by the Australian Democrats, for the reasons enunciated by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.00 p.m.]: This amendment, with one small exception with regard to the Auditor-General, closely mirrors a recommendation made by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice I read out only a few minutes ago. If "Auditor-General" were deleted from this amendment and "Motor Accidents Authority" inserted instead, the amendment would read, "The Motor Accidents Authority is to assess the profit margin and the actuarial basis for its calculation and present a report on that assessment annually to the parliamentary select committee."

That would then almost implement recommendation No. 9 of the interim report of the Select Committee on Law and Justice, which essentially recommended that section 90 of the Motor Accidents Authority be amended to require the MAA to compile an appropriate analysis of the financial performance of the scheme and table it annually in the Parliament. This would have the same effect. Therefore I move:

That Australian Democrats amendments Nos 8, 9 and 47 be amended by deleting "Auditor-General" and inserting instead "Motor Accidents Authority".

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.02 p.m.]: The Government does not oppose the amendment.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.03 p.m.]: I accept the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.03 p.m.]: Amendment No. 9 refers to a parliamentary select committee but there was no real discussion about the committee or who would be on it. The relevant committee should be the Standing Committee on Law and Justice and I am happy to move an amendment to that effect.

The CHAIRMAN: New clause 207, relating to the appointment of the parliamentary select committee, has already been agreed to. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile would need to ask that that clause be recommitted and move an amendment specifying that the law and justice committee handle the matter. The Committee will come back to that matter.

Amendment of amendments agreed to.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.05 p.m.]: A cursory reading of the last line of amendment No. 47 would indicate a drafting problem, because the amendment would read, "The Motor Accidents Authority is to report on any such audit to the Authority."

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.06 p.m.]: I move:

That Democrats amendment No. 47 be amended by deleting the words "the authority and".

Amendment of amendment agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [9.09 p.m.]: Minister, what is the impact in clause 15 "Risks not insured under third-party policies" of "A third-party policy does not extend to insure the
Page 1504
owner or driver of a vehicle against a liability to pay compensation under the Workers Compensation Act"? Will this legislation pick up workers compensation claims? How many third party claims would then be picked up by workers compensation?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.10 p.m.]: I ask the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti to repeat the essence of his question, as I may have missed some issues. I am not able to give details of the number of persons who would be affected by this provision. However, the provision is brought forward from the previous Act, so it is not a new provision.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [9.10 p.m.]: I am advised that the number of third party injuries which are eligible to be paid under the arrangements both for workers compensation and third party is about one-third of the current third party numbers. Therefore, depending on how it is done, a substantial amount of money could flow from one scheme to another. I seek clarification of this provision. I believe that it provides a way of moving money from one scheme to another.

There are incentives for people to move money from one scheme to another because of the different availabilities of compensation, workers compensation and damages. There may be benefits for the injured person, the various players and service providers in claiming moneys from one scheme or the other, depending on whether the person was injured when he walked down the street carrying a box as part of his job and was hit by a car. I want to know whether any moneys are changing hands as a result of this legislation.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.12 p.m.]: I have received advice and am in a position to advise the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti definitively. However, if the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is not prepared to proceed with this provision, I suggest that the Committee proceed with its business and that we return to this provision when I can satisfactorily answer the honourable member’s question.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I simply seek clarification.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: If the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is happy to proceed with the provision we will provide the answer subsequently -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I am concerned about the provision because it may provide an incentive for people to move between the two schemes because better payouts may be available for injury under the Workers Compensation Act than the third party Act. I am concerned about the threat to either scheme. I am advised that one-third of the third party claims are also able to be considered as workers compensation. I seek clarification of the provision.

If the Minister wants certainty, the community should understand what the certainty is. The fact that this provision has already been in the previous Act does not change my mind. I want to be certain that people are not able to pick and choose which scheme they are able to be in. This provision provides that a person who is injured on his or her way to work by being struck by a vehicle cannot be treated as a third party, which loads all of those claims into workers compensation.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: I will provide the answer in due course.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS [9.13 p.m.]: I do not know what the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is talking about. The purpose of clause 15, whose provisions are already in the Act - I think it is section 16 - is simply to provide that an employer who is liable to compensate an employee under the Workers Compensation Act does not evade that liability by using a third party policy. If the employee is injured on the way to work, he or she is entitled to make a workers compensation claim under the Workers Compensation Act. Of course, if negligence is involved, that person can also bring proceedings under the Act.

Clause 15 provides that the third party policy does not cover insurance for workers compensation. Obviously that is provided for under a separate policy. There are provisions in the Act which require that that money be repaid in the event that those proceedings are successfully prosecuted. People still have rights under workers compensation and third party. This provision simply provides that a third party policy is not extended to insure the owner or driver under the Workers Compensation Act. That is perfectly plausible, because that obligation flows under the Workers Compensation Act.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [9.14 p.m.]: I am advised that one-third of what could be called third-party claims are in fact paid for by the workers compensation scheme. The Hon. J. Hatzistergos is correct when he says that third party claimants have rights under the workers compensation scheme. But, equally, they have rights under the third party scheme.

Page 1505

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: This provision simply clarifies the status quo.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Exactly. However, the provision makes a scheme affordable by transferring some of those costs to the Workers Compensation Act, which is highly unaffordable in this State. It is a great shame that if an employer asks an employee to deliver a package, and the employee walks down the road to deliver the package and is struck by a car, the employer, and not the person driving the car or his insurer, has to pick up the responsibility. It seems that that is a crazy way to run a business. It may be the law. However, I simply say that that is an unfair weighting of cost onto employers.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: There are fewer benefits under workers compensation for journey claims.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: But the cost is borne by the employer, not by the owner of the registered vehicle. I simply say that that is one of the reasons why workers compensation is unaffordable in this State.

The Hon. P. J. BREEN [9.17 p.m.]: This issue is dealt with in my proposed amendment to clause 154. Perhaps the issue that the honourable member is concerned about could be dealt with when that clause is discussed.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.17 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 15, clause 17 (3), lines 23-27. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(3) If:

(a) an insured person under a third-party policy incurs a liability against which he or she is insured under the policy, and

(b) the insured person deliberately avoided paying the correct premium for the third-party policy by making a statement in connection with the issue of the policy that the insured person knew was false,

the licensed insurer may recover from the insured person as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction:

(c) where the money paid and the costs incurred by the licensed insurer in respect of the liability do not exceed $2000 - the amount of the money paid and costs incurred, and

(d) where the money paid and costs incurred by the licensed insurer exceed $2000 - $2000.

(4) The licensed insurer is not entitled to recover an amount under subsection (3) if the licensed insurer has recovered that amount in the exercise of any other right of recovery under this Part.

This amendment allows an insurer to recover a $2,000 excess from the owner of a vehicle where the owner deliberately avoids paying the correct premium for a compulsory third party policy by knowingly making a false statement. The insurer will be able to recover the moneys as a debt. This will discourage people from making false statements in order to obtain a cheaper compulsory third-party policy - a practice which leads to all other motorists paying relatively more for compulsory third-party policies. It is a more effective solution than making this practice an offence, as it is more likely to be enforced.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [9.18 p.m.]: The Opposition disagrees, on the basis that, although there is a rough parity between the maximum amount of penalty and the maximum amount which could be recovered by an insurer, it may be that the maximum penalty is not enforced often. However, it may be that the maximum recovery amount would almost always be enforced by the insurer.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.19 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 3 and 5 in globo:

No. 3 Page 20, clause 27. Insert after line 20:

, or

(d) the premium has been determined in a manner that contravenes section 29 (Maximum commission payable to insurers’ agents).

No. 5 Page 22, clause 29 (1), lines 21-24. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) For the purposes of calculating the amount of insurance premiums under this Part, the acquisition and policy administration expenses of a licensed insurer may not include, as the amount of commission or other remuneration payable to the insurer’s agent or agents for the issue of third-party policies by the insurer, an amount that exceeds 4% of the premium payable for policies.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [9.20 p.m.]: The Opposition supports Government amendment No. 3. The Opposition says that it is not apparent how it would be determined that a premium has been calculated in a way that would contravene the maximum payment allowed to be made to an
Page 1506
insurer’s agent. The Opposition also supports Government amendment No. 5, which states that the net effect of the provision would be that the insurers would pay an additional amount for their agents out of their own profits, assuming that the system worked properly.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.21 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 6 and 7 in globo:

No. 6 Page 22, clause 29 (3), lines 28 and 29. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 7 Page 22, clause 29 (4). Insert after line 30:

commission or other remuneration does not include payment for business expenses incurred by an insurer’s agent.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [9.21 p.m.]: With regard to amendment No. 6, if that provision were removed there would be no effective sanction forcing the insurers to comply with the clause and hence limit the amount paid to their agents to 4 per cent. A sanction is important to rein in the acquisition costs which have played a significant part in scheme costs. Considering that participation in the scheme is compulsory for all vehicles registered in New South Wales, there is little justification for insurers to be spending money taken from premiums on acquiring new business.

Such expenditure does not generate new business as the pool of business within the State is fixed but is merely used up in an exercise to try to grab market share. On this basis the money spent on acquisition costs within the scheme is best capped. For that reason the Opposition does not support amendment No. 6. The Opposition also does not support amendment No. 7 as it may be an attempt to get around the 4 per cent provision. If this amendment were allowed then it may lead to a tendency to classify all agents’ expenses as business expenses for the agent.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.23 p.m.]: I oppose these amendments because they will make the scheme more expensive.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.23 p.m.]: When the Government moved these amendments it did not exactly explain why it was doing so. Why is the Minister moving to omit what might be called the penalty clause that applies to insurers under part 7.1 of the Act which makes it a condition of the licence under part 7.1 that the insurer must comply with this section? One presumes that insurers who do not comply with that section and start charging their agents a greater amount than 4 per cent would be subject to absolutely no penalty whatsoever.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.24 p.m.]: I can answer both contributions in general and refer to all four amendments when they are considered together. The scheme acquisition costs will be identified as quite a considerable slab of the costs of the premium that is levied against motor vehicle CTP insurance. Acquisition costs, a sufficiently large component of the scheme, have probably gained a fair bit of close attention from myself, the MAA and obviously from those in the scheme who do not necessarily deal with it.

The difficulties in considering the way in which the acquisition costs operate as a component of the costs of the scheme are really twofold. All four amendments represent a compromise which does two basic things. First, it tries to get to that aspect of acquisition costs which are pure profit or pure gimme on the part of those who collect the commission. The scheme divides into two kinds of provider in the insurance component scheme. There are the comprehensive providers who have front-of-office provision.

I will not name private companies or mutual organisations in this House as they are obvious. They are the major advertisers of insurance products and they sell comprehensive insurances. They have offices in, if not every suburb, every second suburb across this State and indeed a number across the Commonwealth. A large number of significant providers do not have that infrastructure and provide their insurance by, for example, selling out of a well-known chain of pharmacists. The more common practice is to sell through motor traders of various descriptions, smash repair organisations and used and new car dealers.

Those are the commissions that the Government wants to attack. The Government wants to limit the potential abuses where commission agents charge unrealistically high components. Second, if the Government moves precipitously against acquisition costs, as was proposed in the first draft, the downside would be that the Government would massively discriminate against the non-comprehensive or the non-front-of-office insurer. In other words the Government would be massively discriminating against the smaller and medium size insurers who at the moment disfavour the scheme mostly by selling through commission agents rather than through their own shopfronts.

Page 1507

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [9.27 p.m.]: Clause 27 (8) of the bill talks about a premium fully funding a liability if the premium is sufficient to provide, inter alia, a profit margin. You do not talk about profit margin but about liability.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: It is not a medical one.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No, it is not medical. Liability is defined as an obligation, especially for the payment of a debt or pecuniary obligation for something disadvantageous. I do not know whether the insurance companies regard profits as disadvantageous but it is a curious way to describe profit to call it a liability.

The Hon. J. J. Della Bosca: It is not their profit, it is a profit of the agent.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It is. Clause 27 (8) (c) provides that a premium will fully fund a liability if the premium is sufficient to provide a profit margin in excess of all claims, costs and expenses that represents an adequate return on capital invested and compensation for the risk taken. That is a strange way to describe a liability. That goes to the issue of setting the premium and the premium risk. Can the Minister explain to me when a profit becomes a liability, except as it is described in this Act?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.28 p.m.]: In relation to these amendments the Government has sought to rein in this area of activity, because it has an overarching power that deals with the amounts of fines that can be imposed. It is at that level that the Government will ensure that the objectives it has put forward can succeed.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.28 p.m.]: I am not exactly sure what the Hon. I. M. Macdonald meant. I presume that as the Act was originally drafted the intention was that if an insurer charged out more than 4 per cent to their commission agent that would be considered to be an offence against their licence. The most likely action possible under clause 163 is that the licensed insurer would have been subjected to the imposition of civil penalty or censure.

If subclause (3) is deleted from clause 29, it will no longer be a condition of a licence under part 7.1 that a licensed insurer comply with that provision. No penalty will apply. A condition with no penalty will be placed in the Act. I ask the Minister: What penalty will an insurer pay if he or she exceeds the cap intended in the legislation? It is quite possible for agents to book up all sorts of expenses to the costs of premiums. This provision will provide the means whereby premiums may be increased phenomenally simply by charging additional costs to premiums.

The Government’s intention in this bill will be completely usurped by an important loophole if any financial penalty that is available to an insurer is deleted. I simply ask the Government what penalty it is intending to impose. These words are nothing more than rhetoric. Whilst the provision in the bill states that insurers should not do this, there is no penalty against their licence for doing it.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.30 p.m.]: The Committee has already adopted an amendment in the following terms:

For the purposes of calculating the amount of insurance premiums under this Part, the acquisition and policy administration expenses of a licensed insurer may not include, as the amount of commission or other remuneration payable to the insurer’s agent or agents for the issue of third-party policies by the insurer, an amount that exceeds 4% of the premium payable for policies.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: And if they do not do that?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: If they do not do that the MAA has a number of -

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: They have done it. You have deleted that.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: In what way have we deleted that?

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: Subclause (3) of clause 29 states, "It is a condition of the licence . . ." Unless it is made a condition of the licence the MAA has no powers.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: That is not correct. The MAA can reject a premium that is filed.

The Hon. J. J. Ryan: Indeed, it can reject a premium that is filed.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: We may be in Committee, but it is still appropriate that one member speaks at a time. The Hon. J. F. Ryan has been here long enough to know that.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister has the call.

Page 1508

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: We are talking about the powers of a regulator. We discussed earlier what powers the MAA should have. We are trying to concentrate proper regulatory powers under the MAA and we are trying to ensure that it has the capacity to make these processes transparent, given that there are private participants in the scheme. The answer to the questions asked by the Hon. J. F. Ryan and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is that a premium filed by an insurance company can be rejected by the MAA. The MAA is the ultimate and only sanction.

The previous scheme did nothing to keep acquisition costs under control. The scheme the Government is introducing will start to bring acquisition costs under control by enforcing real price competition between insurers so that people are not signing up, as honourable members keep saying, and making the public a milch cow for a private group of insurers. The Government is attempting to do the exact opposite. We will be forcing them, through these measures, to compete properly. The ultimate sanction for an insurance company which does not follow the provisions in this Act is that its premium filing will be rejected.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [9.35 p.m.]: When I first read these amendments, I thought that they were a political joke. First the Government insists on the maximum amount of the insurer’s commission as being 4 per cent, and then the Government states that that does not include payment for business expenses incurred by an insurer’s agent. The Government is imposing a sanction but it does not intend to enforce that sanction. I am fascinated by the Workers Compensation Act and this legislation. We have just agreed to impose a huge fine of $2,000 on a claimant or an insured person who breaks the law, but if an insurer breaks the law no penalty is included as a condition of his or her licence.

The point that was made earlier by the Hon. J. M. Samios and the Hon. J. F. Ryan was that this is something of a farce. Medical costs are at around 3 per cent and assessments are a tiny fraction of those costs. I was told that we cannot have a decent assessment system because it is too expensive. In this legislation we have acquisition costs of 15 per cent in a compulsory scheme - a huge amount of money which is having a big effect on premiums - and the Government is now saying that licensed insurers must pay 4 per cent to an insurer’s agent for writing the business, but that does not include payment for business expenses incurred by an insurer’s agent. These acquisition costs are much greater than all the medical costs, but we are nitpicking about medical costs. The idea that we are all acting on costs is a nonsense; we act on costs only when it suits us.

The Minister said earlier, "We are starting to get premiums under control. In a few years time, after the passage of other legislation, we might get costs under control. But at the moment we are just starting to get them under control and we would like the kudos for that, even though it is a bit of a bad joke." We have just dismissed the establishment of a decent medical system and we have ensured that anyone who says that his or her son does not drive a car very often is fined $2,000 if he or she made a false statement. We are now saying, "What is 11 per cent between friends?" People can lose their licence for such an offence. Effectively, people are saying that that is too great a punishment for the crime. In the old Act the only sanction was to take away an insurer’s licence. That penalty was always too great, so nothing was ever done. The Government’s amendments to clause 29 should be rejected.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.37 p.m.]: For the benefit of all honourable members, the new powers of the MAA include the capacity - and it is a civil penalty only - to impose a $50,000 fine for breaches by insurers of their licence provisions or any of the guidelines that are relevant to their practice, their claims procedures and their business guidelines. The MAA has new and unprecedented powers to regulate the way in which insurers go about their business. As the Hon. J. F. Ryan said, the cancellation of licences was always too big a penalty, but the MAA is in a position to reject a premium filing as another interim sanction for an insurer who persists with unnecessarily or unfairly high acquisition costs.

The current system does not allow for any kind of proper price competition between insurance companies. That is why up until now that analysis stood up. Insurance companies are, in fact, allowed to use the public as a milch cow. We are making sure that their advertising and all other costs, which at the moment are "gimmes" for the insurance industry, add up to genuine price competition between insurers. If we were to cut off the allowance for acquisition costs over and above the normal costs of business, overnight we would put all but two insurers out of the market. I will not name those insurers, even though the Leader of the Opposition named one earlier, but all but the two insurers who operate shopfronts will be out of business because they will not get agents to act for them.

Page 1509

Over time we can do better than we are doing, but we have to walk before we can run. We are now attempting to fix up a problem as acquisition costs for private operators are too large a part of the costs of the scheme. We cannot fix a problem like that overnight. I cannot direct one of the insurers to invest a massive amount of capital and open up 50 shopfronts across the State. No-one can do that, and no-one will do that. If we were to adopt this provision we would drive all but two insurers out of the business. Then we certainly would reduce the capacity for price competition.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [9.39 p.m.]: The Minister made reference earlier to a $50,000 fine. If insurers are found guilty of transgressing section 162 of the proposed Act, to which the Minister referred, that matter has to be referred to a special committee before any penalty can be imposed. I hope that the committee - which is to be comprised of the chairperson of the board of directors of the MAA, a nominee of the Insurance Council of Australia, and another member nominated by both the MAA and the Insurance Council of Australia - acts a little more openly than does the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations or some of the media operators about whom someone can complain if it can be proved that they have done something wrong.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Or the principal shareholder of Impulse Energy.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Something like that. It is just amazing that he could be found guilty, but not receive the penalty that the Minister is talking about because of a multiplicity of advice given by the Special Minister of State.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.40 p.m.]: Only if he is found guilty; it is a civil penalty. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti needs to understand that it has been said that the Government is too easy on the lawyers and insurers. It is introducing a fine that is substantial even to a company as big as some participants in this scheme, but the onus is a civil onus. They do not have to appear before a court and be found guilty. The MAA, through that special committee, can impose a penalty on a civil onus of proof. In another context that penalty would be regarded as a draconian provision. The Government has tried to keep a balance between the different components of the scheme and has achieved a reasonable balance.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.41 p.m.]: Has the Government costed amendment No. 7? If it does not include work conducted as part of the commission, what will be the total amount? Will it be 6 per cent or 7 per cent? What is the cap? How much will that cost - another $20 or $30? The scheme must increase by some amount, so how much will the amendment increase the cost of the scheme?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.42 p.m.]: Regrettably, I cannot provide a dollar figure. Probably there will be some costing. The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans spoke about the holistic problem of dealing with clients and victims. There is a holistic problem with the scheme. However, if we get this wrong in the first round we drive every insurer out of the scheme, except two of them, and we will end up with an oligopoly running the insurance scheme but be no further advanced.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: A duopoly.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA: A small number of providers. A duopoly means two corporations owning the same service. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.43 p.m.]: I will ask my question another way. Does the Minister suggest that despite the text of this bill there will be circumstances in which commission agents might be able to charge more than 4 per cent as a means of maintaining competition within the industry? The Minister nods.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.44 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 4:

No. 4 Page 22, clause 28, line 2. Omit "high risk".

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [9.44 p.m.]: The Opposition disagrees with this amendment. The purpose of the pooling arrangement was specifically for high-risk drivers rather than drivers in other categories. High-risk drivers pose a difficulty for the operation of the scheme on the basis that the scheme is compulsory for all motor vehicles and currently does not allow for a free-risk rating arrangement for insurers. That is, insurers are not allowed to rate the premium of the individual according to his or her measured risk, but can only adjust the premiums within tight and defined limits. The fact that insurers cannot charge high premiums to high-risk drivers, premiums which would match the risk level, means that such drivers pay a lower premium. The risk is
Page 1510
essentially subsidised by lower risk drivers. This makes taking on such risks unprofitable for insurers and creates a disincentive for them to take on these risks.

Considering that high-risk drivers appear to select their insurers on the basis of cost, insurers with the lowest premiums will tend to attract higher-risk drivers. As such, this is a disincentive against any insurer being the one in the market with the lowest premiums. Clearly, it would be advantageous to the scheme if a pooling or other arrangement existed which would allow high-risk drivers to be put into a separate category in which they would not prevent healthy price competition within the compulsory third party market. However, pooling arrangements for classes of drivers could be damaging on the basis that they may prevent competition. On this basis, the suggestion in the amendment to extend the pooling arrangement to other classes of drivers besides high-risk drivers should not be supported.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.46 p.m.]: I ask that the Government, when it moves its amendments, gives a sentence or two of explanation. It is not adequate to simply move an amendment. If the Government wants to delete the reference to high risk in clause 28 (1) (b), what other risks does it envisage will be pooled by the deletion of the term "high risk"? I know that the Treasurer has arrived and started to conduct his orchestra. He has instructed the Special Minister of State to not answer questions.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Questions from you, you silly little nerd.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I ask the Treasurer to withdraw that comment.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I withdraw that comment, it was most unworthy.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: This is complex legislation. I am sorry that the Opposition needs to ask reasonable questions, but if we have a Parliament in which we cannot ask reasonable questions and get answers from Ministers we may as well pack up and go.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You are just filibustering.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: We are not filibustering at all. If the Treasurer paid attention to the debate he would realise that.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You do not even agree with most of the points that you are putting.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I do agree.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You are just peddling the line that Chris Hartcher insists upon.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I do not understand what has got into the Treasurer. He seems to have instructed the Special Minister of State to not respond to questions. For example, earlier I asked the Special Minister of State whether 4 per cent of premiums might be charged by others as a means of maintaining competition, and he nodded in the affirmative but was instructed by the Treasurer to not respond. We are being delayed because of nonsense from the Treasurer. My question was reasonable. The Government is deleting "high risk", but the Minister has not yet explained what his amendment means. That is why I asked the question. If the Government intends to delete "high risk" from the pooling of insurance premiums, what other risks does the Minister envisage? What is he trying to facilitate with this amendment?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.49 p.m.]: Clause 28 of the bill relates to premium risk adjustment, which will allow arrangements to be entered into, thus making the market for green slips more competitive. This amendment amends the wording of the clause to reflect the true intent behind the clause. The amendment removes the words "high risk" in relation to policies regarding pooling arrangements. Pooling of premiums occurs when excess premium from low-risk vehicles is used to fund the unfunded premium of high-risk vehicles. Low-risk premium is pooled, not high-risk premium.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: I advise that Opposition amendment No. 2 is considered to be invalid because it is in conflict with Government amendment No. 9.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [9.52 p.m.]: Opposition amendment No. 2 deals with the medical guidelines of the Motor Accidents Council.

The CHAIRMAN: That amendment conflicts with decisions made by the Committee on Government amendments Nos 8, 9, 11 and 12, which have already been agreed to.

Page 1511

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Opposition amendment No. 2 does not merely propose to change the name of the title; it proposes to delete the entire clause. In other words, it deals with more than what has been covered in those Government amendments.

The CHAIRMAN: My advice is that the Committee has dealt with it.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It has not been discussed at all. I have been here the entire time and the issue of changing the name -

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I have ruled it out of order.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.53 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 10:

No. 10 Pages 30 and 31, clause 43, line 31 on page 30 and line 1 on page 31. Insert "or attendant care services" after "rehabilitation services" wherever occurring.

Government amendment No. 10 deals with matters relating to what is known as Stubbs case. It sets out the capacity of the Motor Accidents Authority to issue guidelines for the provision of attendant care services to the catastrophically injured. Attendant care services and home medical and nursing care relate to the maintenance of proper lifestyles for catastrophic victims of motor accidents. Sadly, in most cases, rehabilitative services are not required. It is important and axiomatic that the authority should have the power to develop appropriate guidelines. As occurs with other guidelines developed under the new Act, a level of transparency will be applied. The guidelines and their consequences will be able to be fully examined and dealt with by this Parliament and in the public arena. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [9.54 p.m.]: The Opposition agrees with the inclusion of attendant care services in the scope of the guidelines.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.54 p.m.]: This amendment relates to the inclusion of attendant care as part of any damages that are awarded. Clause 139 of the bill states:

Damages for the loss of services

No damages for the loss of the services of a person are to be awarded in respect of a motor accident.

I ask whether clause 139 negates Government amendment No. 10.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.56 p.m.]: Amendment No. 10 is a procedural amendment that, for example, prevents a business claiming under this Act for the loss of an employee. It does not relate to the usual provisions that would otherwise apply under the Motor Accidents Authority.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.56 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support this amendment. It was an important feature of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice inquiry that rehabilitative services should include attendant care services for catastrophic injuries.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [9.57 p.m.]: I advise the Committee that the Government will withdraw amendment No. 13 with the intention of supporting Australian Democrats amendment No. 10 as to medical guidelines. The Government is not in a position to support the other amendments to clause 43, but I will defer to the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans to move his amendment No. 10. On the basis that the Government will support Democrats’ amendment No. 10, will the Hon. Dr P. Wong withdraw his amendment?

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [10.00 p.m.]: Yes.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [10.00 p.m.]: I move:

Page 30, clause 43, from after the word "guidelines", to page 31, line 8, delete all words on those lines.

I move the deletion of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of clause 43 (1) because, although it is quite appropriate for the Motor Accident Authority [MAA] to issue guidelines, consistent with the Government’s intention to support amendment No. 10 to be moved by the Australian Democrats, we believe those guidelines do not need to be spelt out in the bill. In fact, it is not appropriate to set out guidelines for treatment. It is not appropriate to tell doctors how people are to be treated. That is the most important part of the proposed legislation: to set down the appropriate treatment of injuries for injured persons.

The definitions provision on page 30 of the bill says that treatment includes medical treatment,
Page 1512
dental treatment, the provision of rehabilitation services and provision of attendant care, et cetera. The authority should issue guidelines but those guidelines should not extend to the way a person is managed clinically. It is a total interference for the authority to issue such guidelines.

I most strenuously urge honourable members to delete that provision. The Government is prepared to amend the provision that the guidelines are not to be construed as requiring medical treatment to be carried out in accordance with the guidelines. How can the bill contain one clause requiring the MAA to put out the guideline and the doctors not being required to follow the guidelines on treatment of patients? I can understand paragraph (b) remaining if the provision is left at "guidelines" and the amendment proposed by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans is added. That is more than adequate to guide the MAA on how to write its guidelines. I strongly urge honourable members to look at this very carefully. If the Minister had consulted with the profession and with the service providers he would understand why they do not like that.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [10.03 p.m.]: I disagree with the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. In medical practice nowadays it is common to have guidelines, so long as they are not prescriptive. It is not unusual to have guidelines on heart disease, diabetes and female health - all sorts of guidelines. As long as they are descriptive and not prescriptive, that is fine.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [10.04 p.m.]: How does the Hon. Dr P. Wong know the guidelines will be about appropriate treatment? The indications I have are that the profession is utterly and implacably opposed to the MAA writing guidelines. It is quite different for medical bodies to evolve guidelines for treatment, but quite a different matter for the MAA to write them.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: It is not. The bill says "issue", not "write".

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Who says who is going to write them? The American guidelines are not something we would accept, and the Hon. Dr P. Wong would not accept them either. They are the interim guidelines that will be used.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [10.04 p.m.]: It is true that the Australian Medical Association [AMA] does not support in general strict guidelines. I have consulted the AMA. It said if there are any guidelines at all it would not object too strongly to them being drafted by doctors. Had the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti waited for the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans to move his amendment he would have discovered that the guidelines will be drafted by doctors.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS [10.05 p.m.]: With deference to what the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is saying, I think he is losing sight of the purpose of these guidelines. They will be clarified by the amendment to be moved by the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans. This is a damages Act, and one of the issues that often arises in assessing these cases is what treatment is reasonable and what is not reasonable. Ultimately claims assessors and courts will have to determine these issues. Medical guidelines from the MAA will help to clarify a lot of these issues, both for the assessors and for the courts, and will ensure that people get the benefits to which they are entitled. That is why these guidelines should be written into the Act.

This scheme is underwritten by compulsory insurance. When one is making frequent claims on that insurance for expenses, the existence of the guidelines will assist in the resolution of disputes before the Claims Assessment and Resolution Service, and before the courts in the event of appeals. Although the guidelines are not prescriptive of treatment they will help clarify those disputes when they arise.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [10.06 p.m.]: It is totally unacceptable to the Australian Medical Association that guidelines be issued as to the appropriate treatment of injured persons, the provision of rehabilitation services and the assessment of the degree of permanent impairment, by a council or an authority that would have the power to overrule clinical advice by medical practitioner members of the council. Additionally, with respect to treatment guidelines, it would be totally improbable that the multifaceted range of treatment expertise required in the case of a moderate to serious injury would be widely available. A limited number of clinicians would be available to the council with such a breadth of medical knowledge and a well-defined, high-quality expert input to the imperatives of clinical management enabling a medical service of excellence to the injured person.

The view of the Australian Medical Association (New South Wales) Ltd is that the same concerns apply to rehabilitation guidelines. From its own experience, the Motor Accidents Authority would be well aware that moderate to serious
Page 1513
injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident can encompass major internal injuries to vital organs, brain injury, psychiatric injury, impairment arising from disabilities caused by loss or serious injuries to limbs and eyes. Effective rehabilitation of an injured person needs to be specifically focused, with appropriate specialist input from relevant clinicians.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.08 p.m.]: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti seems to be concerned that the medical profession is not involved with the guidelines. The Government just announced it will accept amendment No. 10 to be moved by the Australian Democrats, which says that the MAA medical guidelines must be developed in conjunction will all the relevant medical colleges: physicians, surgeons, general practitioners - the whole works. What more can one have? They must be developed in consultation with them.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.09 p.m.]: Paragraphs (a) to (d) of clause 43 (1) are not all the same. Paragraph (a) refers to the appropriate treatment of injured persons, which suggests it is a medical decision. Obviously the AMA does not like non-medical bodies making medical treatment guidelines. The efforts of WorkCover to advise people how to treat their backs and knees have degenerated into farce, because by the time the bureaucracy has worked out who is going to write the guidelines, who is going to be paid for them, who will update them and who will be legally liable for anyone who adheres too closely to them, it becomes something of a joke.

In a sense paragraph (a) probably has some problems, although if, as a result of my foreshadowed amendments, the guidelines have to remain in a fairly general form, no harm can be done. So far as paragraph (b) is concerned, some of the procedures will be clinical and some will be administrative or legal. I would argue that the Motor Accidents Authority may well make guidelines without upsetting the American Medical Association. The degree of permanent impairment referred to in paragraph (c), although I am not greatly enamoured of the concept - as was evidenced earlier tonight when I was considering other ways in which to assess disability - is not entirely a medical issue. The procedures in paragraph (d) for the referral of disputes may be more legal than medical. They are called medical guidelines, but my understanding is that the word "medical" was taken out.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: No, we didn’t. We kept it in.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: We lost the vote, sorry. You cannot turn a cat into a dog by calling it Rover. In this case the guidelines are not entirely medical, except for paragraph (a). If we wanted to delete something it would be reasonable to delete paragraph (a). But as the Government has said that it will accept my foreshadowed amendment No. 10, it is sufficiently qualified and it is not a problem.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [10.11 p.m.]: I will not move Unity Party amendment No. 2.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.12 p.m.]: I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 10:

No. 10 Page 31, clause 43. Insert after line 17:

(5) MAA Medical Guidelines:

(a) are not to be construed as requiring medical treatment to be carried out in accordance with MAA Medical Guidelines, and

(b) are to be consistent with a high standard of medical care, dental care, rehabilitation, aftercare and continuing care as exists in the community at that time.

(6) MAA Medical Guidelines must be developed in consultation with relevant medical colleges, including the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Australian Orthopaedic Association, the para-medical professional associations and other relevant colleges and associations.

In deference to the amendments passed earlier tonight all references to "MAC" have been replaced with "MAA". The amendment ensures that guidelines are consistent with good medical practice and a high standard of care in consultation with the relevant bodies.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.13 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendment.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.13 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.14 p.m.]: I move my amendment No. 1:

Page 1514

No. 1 Page 31, clause 44. Insert after line 22:

(2) Any such MAA Medical Guidelines are to be issued within 3 months after the commencement of this Act.

This amendment will ensure that the Motor Accidents Authority develops impairment guidelines within three months of the proclamation of the Act. The bill states that the MAA may issue impairment guidelines to determine the degree of permanent impairment suffered as a result of an injury sustained in a motor accident. These guidelines are particularly important because they will assist in determining whether a person has reached the 10 per cent impairment threshold required to be eligible for compensation for non-economic loss. Until such time as the Motor Accidents Authority has issued its own guidelines and until such guidelines are in force, the fourth edition American Medical Association guidelines will be used.

The American guidelines have been criticised by numerous legal and medical experts, including the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association [APLA], which has noted in correspondence to me that the American Medical Association guidelines are complex and rigid, and fail to take into account significant factors such as adverse changes to lifestyle, pain, individuality, demonstrable psychological-psychiatric injury and disability as opposed to impairment. The American Medical Association guidelines make a clear distinction between impairment and disability. Impairment has tended to be an objective medical measure of the severity of an injury. Disability, on the other hand, is defined as a consequence of impairment for that individual.

Under the American Medical Association guidelines the loss of range of motion in back and neck injuries is measured, and these measurements are in turn used to arrive at a level of impairment. However, these measurements take no account of strength or lifting ability, the degree of pain involved in obtaining the measure or degree of mobility, or the ability to work a full shift. The American Medical Association guidelines are used in the United States not only for motor accident schemes but for workers compensation schemes. The Plaintiff Lawyers Association has drawn my attention to a study in the Workers Compensation Monitor Volume 7, No. 4, July-August 1994, which shows that the level of an injured worker’s impairment where assessed in accordance with the American Medical Association guidelines did not correspond with the worker’s loss of quality of life.

In fact, the study found that the American Medical Association routinely underestimated the severity of injuries, particularly the effect of an injury on a worker’s quality of life. For this reason I hope that the MAA guidelines are not identical to the American Medical Association guidelines and that due consideration is given to establishing protocols and guidelines provided by Australian medical experts. The MAA guidelines should consider, for example, guidelines for injuries of the back, neck and pelvis published in the Australian Medical Journal in 1992 by the Australian Faculty of Rehabilitation.

This guide was published after three years consultation in a direct response to recognised deficiencies in the American Medical Association’s guidelines. My amendment cannot affect the content of the medical guidelines issued by the MAA, and whether they would be an exact replica of the fourth edition of the American Medical Association guidelines. It will ensure that the independent guidelines issued by the MAA are produced within the three-month time period from the commencement of the Act and, therefore, that the American Medical Association guidelines are not used ad infinitum.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [10:17 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.17 p.m.]: I note that the Government has accepted the amendment. Is it physically possible to have the guidelines prepared within three months?

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [10.18 p.m.]: The officers of the authority advise me that it is possible, yes. We are going to try.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [10.18 p.m.]: In the running sheet Opposition amendment No. 1, which relates to clause 43, was flicked over because it was assumed that when I handed in some extra amendments the running sheet was no longer operative. In fact, the running sheet is operative. That amendment is consistent with what is being moved with clause 44 and to make it consistent with clause 44 (4). Therefore, I move Opposition amendment No. 1 on the running sheet, although it is not No. 1 on my amendment sheet:

No. 1 Page 31, clause 43. Insert after line 17:

(5) Section 40 (Notice of statutory rules to be tabled) and 41 (Disallowance of statutory rules) of the Interpretation Act 1987 apply to a guideline under this section in the same way as those sections apply to a statutory rule.

Page 1515

The CHAIRMAN: Order! As the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti explained, there are two Liberal Party or Opposition sheets containing amendments. The Clerks had assumed that one overruled the other, but that is not the case, as the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has explained. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has moved the original amendment in running sheet No. 1 to page 31, clause 43.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: This amendment provides for disallowance of the rules in clause 43.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [10.20 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition, I point out that this amendment would allow the Parliament as well as the Motor Accidents Authority [MAA] to have an important say on the issue before them as provided by the scheme. The Government amendments will effectively sideline the MAA and cancel itself from participation in the process of making guidelines affecting the operation of the scheme. In such an instance, the safeguard of the MAA as a stakeholder entity for the scheme would be removed. It would be essential that a checking mechanism remain in the form of the Parliament to ensure that the guidelines issued for the administration of the scheme were consistent with the objects of the scheme, including those providing adequate compensation for all injured road users.

The Hon. J. J. DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer) [10.21 p.m.]: The provision outlined in the amendment proposed by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is already contained in clause 44 of the bill. The Government does not oppose the proposition in principle. I merely note that the Government will be resisting amendments designed to delete clause 44. Mr Chairman, I am in your hands as to how to proceed. I assume that the appropriate way to address this is for the Committee to note support for the proposition on the assumption that we will continue to support the provision contained in clause 44.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [10.22 p.m.]: The reason the amendment to clause 43 was moved is that the Opposition intends to oppose in toto clause 44 and divide the House on its exclusion. Therefore, there is a reason to put an amendment to clause 43 (a) to add a subclause (5) that reflects what is in clause 44 (4).

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.22 p.m.]: I seek guidance from the Chairman. We can hardly accept an amendment based on the Committee voting to accept clause 44, and that is what this amendment would mean. If it is accepted, we would have two parts of the bill stating the very same thing. I do not think we can vote on an amendment on the basis that it may delete clause 44.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.23 p.m.]: That is not the reason I am supporting Opposition amendment No. 1. We discussed this. That provision, which is already contained in clause 44, should be in clause 43. It is very important for this Parliament to be provided with an opportunity to disallow the guidelines if we think they are outrageous. I do not believe that the Opposition will be successful in removing clause 44 anyway, so the Government can stay with its earlier statement of supporting that provision being passed in clause 43.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.23 p.m.]: Would it be helpful, in assisting the Committee to make its decision, if the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, who moved Opposition amendment No. 1, additionally moved that clause 44 be deleted and that the clause be considered as a whole?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [10.24 p.m.]: Mr Chairman, I have been advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that I can oppose clause 44 only, and not move for its deletion.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: You can delete it.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No. The advice I received from the Parliamentary Counsel is simply to oppose it.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.24 p.m.]: I propose to move Australian Democrats amendment No. 11. Obviously, if the Opposition amendment is to delete the clause, my understanding is that we should fix the clause before we delete it. Alternatively, should we attempt to delete it and, if it stands, then modify it?

The CHAIRMAN: My advice is that Opposition amendment No. 1 should be dealt with first. If that is successful, the Opposition will oppose clause 44. If it is unsuccessful, the Opposition can still oppose clause 44.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [10.25 p.m.]: We want to leave (5) in, whether we are able to delete clause 44 or not, because it is the only way that we can do it. If we end up with two - a clause 43 (a) (5) and a clause 44 (4) - perhaps it will be redundant, but I do not want
Page 1516
to take the risk of losing both of them. We just need to have a method of ruling out these guidelines if either House of Parliament thinks that they should be ruled out as regulations. We need to include it, whether clause 44 survives or not.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.26 p.m.]: Earlier the Government moved to change a number of things, including the fact that the Motor Accidents Authority will have responsibility for issuing these guidelines rather than the Motor Accidents Council. As I understand it, those amendments were accepted. As I read the bill, the only role for clause 44 is to provide a means for the Motor Accidents Council to make decisions. The council is no longer making decisions. I ask: Did the earlier Government legislation effectively delete clause 44 anyway? What is left of it as a result of the Government’s earlier amendment to remove the Motor Accidents Council’s authority to issue that? I would not be surprised if the provision has already gone.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [10.27 p.m.]: I make the point that this is a consequential omission of a provision dealing with 10 per cent permanent impairment, as we stated. It gave way to damages for non-economic loss which is to be removed if clause 128 is voted down, and that is in the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I propose to put Opposition amendment No. 1 moved by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti.

Amendment negatived.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.
Motion by the Hon. M. R. Egan agreed to:

That this House do now adjourn.