|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [4.26 p.m.]: It is always interesting to follow the member for Wollongong and to listen to the great policy insights she provides to members on this side. We support the major tenets of the Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill 2009. We would like to make a couple of changes, one in particular that we foreshadow we will move in the upper House. Certainly we have some advice for the Government about the way it administers green slips. We draw a huge amount of discomfort from the member for Wollongong telling every family in New South Wales that they should be happy that the cost of their green slips is going up and that it is okay because the cost in real terms is less than it was 10 years ago. I can tell her that families are telling us day in, day out that it is not okay. It is not okay that the cost of green slips is going up and the Government needs to do a lot more than accept the advice of someone in the public service that the cost is down in real terms. Families are hurting and the Government should be doing something about that. The objects are of the bill are as follows:
(a) to extend the early payment scheme (for treatment and lost earnings of injured persons) and bulk billing arrangements under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 to all injured persons (including those who are at fault in a motor accident);
(b) to allow greater flexibility in the adjustment of the Motor Accidents Authority Fund levy by allowing the Authority to vary the period in respect of which contributions to the Fund are to be determined—
we have an issue with that, which I will refer to later—
(c) to make provision for refunds, on a pro rata basis, of amounts that are contributed to the Motor Accidents Authority Fund and the Lifetime Care and Support Authority Fund in certain circumstances.
I think that alludes to some of the concerns we have had previously about this legislation, particularly in relation to the Lifetime Care and Support Authority Fund. I will touch on that shortly. The main change that we foreshadow we will make in the upper House relates to schedule 1 [9], which creates an unfettered opportunity for fees and levies to be adjusted. We believe that adjustment on a yearly basis is more than adequate and that there should be more ownership by this Government of the way fees are being passed on to consumers. We do not support giving unfettered access to adjust the fees. We will move in the other place for this schedule to remain as it is. The responsible shadow Minister, Greg Pearce, will talk about that in detail in the other place.
The purpose of the Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill 2009 is to further reform green slip policy and third party insurance. The member for Wollongong said earlier that at-fault drivers would receive hospital and ambulance cover that currently applies only to those who are not at fault. Anyone involved in an accident will have access to bulk-billing arrangements, which will ensure that people receive ongoing and necessary medical care. That provision will remove a huge administrative burden from hospitals. This follows the Government's announcement in last year's mini-budget relating to the extension of the green slip scheme. It would be remiss of me not to point out that the word "mini-budget" has been lost from the vocabulary of Government members. In particular, Graeme Wedderburn said that the mini-budget should not be mentioned in any way, shape or form, and that we should pretend it did not happen.
Mr Gerard Martin: Let's talk about what they are saying about you.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order!
Mr MIKE BAIRD: Graeme Wedderburn said that we should talk only about the earlier budget that referred to an amount of $56 billion. This bill will give the Motor Accidents Authority greater flexibility in adjusting the Motor Accidents Authority Fund levy to cover the cost of bulk-billing arrangements. An area of great concern, and something that should not be sneezed at, relates to the increased financial impact on those paying green slip levies. If $30 million is released into the health system—which is what this bill purports to do—this Government can rely on only what it is given. What will it do with those funds? This Government is releasing $30 million into the health system without establishing where is it going and for what purpose it will be used. The Government is not even sure whether that $30 million exists as it is missing from this bill. I look forward to being provided with some answers by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. What will the Government do with these funds to help front-line hospital services?
Mr Gerard Martin: That has nothing to do with this.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: It has everything to do with this. The Government will be saving $30 million as a result of this process. What does the Government plan do with it? I think it is relevant to establish the use to which the Government wants to put that $30 million. Currently, the green slip scheme pays the public hospital and ambulance costs for people injured in accidents through a bulk-billing arrangement. However, that cover does not extend to at-fault drivers or motorbike riders, such as the member for The Hills. As a result, the public health system largely covered the cost of those who were at fault. I welcome back to the House the member for The Hills. I am delighted to see him in the Chamber and I extend to him my best wishes.
At the end of the day that cost is passed on to the taxpayers of New South Wales. As taxpayers are already paying for the health system through their green slip levies, this bill will only shift the administration of that system. I will talk later about the problems that are caused by those green slip levies. Currently, at-fault drivers are not eligible to be reimbursed under the early accident notification safety net arrangements that allow up to $5,000 for medical treatment, rehabilitation expenses and lost earnings. The bill will also extend the green slip early payment scheme and safety net for treatment and loss of earnings and bulk-billing arrangements to all people injured in motor vehicle accidents, irrespective of who is at fault.
A number of benefits will be derived as a result of the extension of this green slip scheme. The major beneficiaries will be the more than 4,000 people injured in motor vehicle accidents in New South Wales each year who currently are not covered by the scheme. This will ensure that people who are injured seek the required medical treatment rather than avoid receiving adequate care because they previously did not have access to the bulk-billing scheme. It will also mean that the cost of these services will be transferred from the State. In addition, the provisions in the bill will be changed to enable people to receive a pro rata refund of their levy payment when a vehicle registration is cancelled. The Government has estimated that the savings from these reforms will be $30 million in 2009-10 and $30.75 million in the following year.
When Labor increased the green slip levy as a result of the addition of the Medical Care and Injury Services [MCIS] Levy in 2006, Morris Iemma clearly stated that it would cost members of the community only $20. We have been inundated with stories about that levy costing more. I have referred before to a case in Baulkham Hills. Amy and Hamish Plaister of Baulkham Hills have two children—Amelia and Sebastian—and they are struggling. Amy has had to take on an additional job to increase the family's income. That family does not pay $20 for its green slip levy; it pays $146.70. Before coming into the Chamber I checked my green slip levy, which is payable in three weeks time. My Medical Care and Injury Services Levy is $89.55, not the $20 about which Morris Iemma spoke.
One of the objects of this bill is as follows: (c) to make provision for refunds, on a pro rata basis, of amounts that are contributed to the Motor Accidents Authority Fund and the Lifetime Care and Support Authority Fund in certain circumstances. The Government should take that issue on board. At the moment there is a surplus of $250 million in the Motor Accidents Authority Fund and the Lifetime Care and Support Authority Fund. Actuarial assessments for future estimates would be difficult, but estimates that have been made to date are low and we have a surplus of $250 million in those funds. If the Government is seeking to assist consumers to pay their green slip levies it should be looking at that fund and saying, "Our assumptions were wrong. In that respect we can provide funds to mitigate the cost of green slips at this time." The member for Wollongong said earlier that the Opposition has no policies. However, I ask the Government to take into account that policy suggestion.
This Government must hold insurance companies to account and reduce the costs of the green slip levy. This bill will facilitate some of the issues relating to the green slip levy, but it is not an open chequebook. Families across this State should not have to bear those costs, which in some instances are increasing by 100 per cent to 200 per cent. I call on insurance companies to act responsibly in this area. Every insurance company in this State has an opportunity to build a loyal customer base for the long term. Insurance companies are using the current financial climate as an excuse to put up fees to cover their costs. I understand the basis for that, but it should not be used to exploit members of our community.
I call on the Government to ensure that insurance companies act responsibly. Insurance companies must not increase those green slip charges, as it will impact on families that are already hurting. The Minister must take responsibility for what Morris Iemma said at the time—that is, that the Medical Care and Injury Services Levy would be only $20. Industry has informed me that, on average, the levy costs most people $85. In these difficult financial times the surplus in those funds should be used to mitigate the cost of those green slips. Families in this State do not need another cost burden. There is no doubt about the significant cost of this scheme, but I believe that the Government should be able to spread that $30 million across this State.
I seek an assurance from the Government that these costs will be capped. I ask the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to keep an eye on these costs, to ensure that they are properly managed, and to ensure that green slip prices remain low. How will that money be spent in the health system? We are saving $30 million a year, but how will that be applied and used throughout this State? The Opposition supports this bill—an attempt by this Government to show some form of financial management, which is a welcome change. As I said earlier, the Opposition will move amendments to the bill in the upper House to ensure that this levy is not increased in the immediate future.
The Opposition believes that an annual levy increase is sufficient as it affords us the required scrutiny and accountability. I call on the Minister to protect the interests of families in this State. Constituents in the electorates of many of my colleagues are hurting as a result of this levy. The Government has promised to keep down the price of green slips, but that is not what is occurring at the moment. We have heard from many families in our electorates that green slip levies have increased, not by 5 per cent or 10 per cent but by 100 per cent and 200 per cent, which is unfair. This issue should be an urgent priority for this Government. Rather than assuring us that things are okay, the Government has a responsibility to ensure that it does all it can to minimise these costs. We will be watching to make sure this scheme delivers benefits to injured motorists while not inflicting unnecessary financial pain on families through green slip price increases.
|
