|
Debate resumed from 13 May 2009.
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [7.01 p.m.]: The purpose of the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Amendment Bill is to enable certain people who were injured before the commencement of the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme to buy into that scheme. The bill will also extend the period of interim participation in the scheme in the case of young children. It was only in the last sitting period that this House debated the Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill. In some respects, it would have been logical to debate these two pieces of legislation together. I do not intend to spend a long time speaking to the bill because a number of the issues were covered in that debate a couple of weeks ago. However, I will raise some key points that need to be addressed. The Coalition supports the bill and it understands what the Government is trying to achieve, but it is concerned about the crucial issue of the increasing cost of green slips and the impact that is having on families in New South Wales.
The Lifetime Care and Support Scheme is important because it ensures that people who are severely injured in motor vehicle accidents receive necessary treatment and ongoing support. That care is provided irrespective of who is responsible for the accident. The scheme commenced for children on 1 October 2006 and was extended to adults on 1 October 2007. Most people who enter the scheme do so in tragic circumstances, with either a spinal cord injury or severe brain injury. There are 227 seriously injured people participating in the scheme, including 199 adults and 28 children.
This bill will allow people to buy into the scheme even though they sustained injuries prior to its establishment. Participants in the scheme are required to use whatever lump sum payment they have received to buy in. The Lifetime Care and Support Authority will determine the buy-in amount that will fund the person's treatment and care requirements for the rest of their life. We hope that joining the scheme will assist people who receive large amounts in compensation to better manage those funds to ensure that they have ongoing care for the rest of their life. I understand that participation is voluntary. The objective of this arrangement is that it be cost neutral to the scheme.
The legislation also enables children who are under the age of three when they are injured not to have their lifetime participation in the scheme assessed until they are five years of age. This extends the current two-year limit at which an assessment must be made. That is in line with the recommendation made by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice in its first review of the scheme. The rationale for that recommendation is that it can be difficult to provide an accurate assessment of a child's needs, particularly a child with a brain injury, until their condition is stabilised, and that may take a number of years.
The Opposition's greatest concern is that increases in the green slip levy seem to go unabated and without any accountability or direct intervention by this Government. Although the buy-in arrangement is designed to be cost neutral, there is obviously a risk that the authority will mismanage the funds or miscalculate the cost of a person's care. I have met with senior managers and I think they are doing a good job. However, the risk remains and whenever this Government is responsible for finances and overseeing a long-term investment scheme, whatever it might be, we have real concerns. If the authority miscalculates it could be significantly out of pocket and might need to increase levies to cover potential losses. That would create a long-term stream of funding, similar to the stream of funding going into our unfunded superannuation schemes. As a ballooning amount of unfunded superannuation is paid out there is an increase on the State's day-to-day budget. We must also ensure that the authority does not take advantage of people who have been severely injured by trying to make a profit out of their buy-in contribution. Having met the authority's senior management team and understanding the objectives of this legislation, I am sure that that would not be anyone's intention. However, the Coalition wants to see fairness. This is not a moneymaking exercise; it is an opportunity for people who have been so tragically injured to buy into the scheme on a cost-neutral basis.
Unfortunately, I have significant reservations about the Government's ability to manage its finances. The green slip levy is a testament to that. When the Labor Government increased the cost of a green slip with the introduction of the Medical Care and Injury Services Levy (MCIS) in 2006 the community was told that it would cost motorists only $20. The Insurance Council of Australia confirmed today that the average cost of that levy across the State is $85. That is four times the amount promised by this Government. That is why it is appropriate to raise these concerns when the Government fiddles with these levies. We must highlight what it is doing and demand that it be truthful about the real financial impact. I have mentioned previously in the House the case of Amy and Hamish Plaister of Baulkham Hills and their children Amelia and Sebastian. They need two cars because of the lack of public transport and their MCIS levy, as part of the green slip scheme, has increased from $20 to $146.70. That is a good example of the Government's pushing costs on to families because it is not managing its finances properly. It should examine the scheme and be truthful about its costs. Can the Government guarantee that this legislation will not lead to an increase in the cost of green slips? I ask for an assurance that the cost will not increase and that the scheme will be cost neutral.
The Opposition supports giving people a choice, but we are concerned about this Government's inability to manage the State's finances. We also want an assurance that the money being raised will go directly to covering the cost of medical care and that this is not yet another opportunity to raise revenue or to build a surplus. The latest information I have is that the surplus in the fund is $250 million. Some of the early assumptions were incorrect, which led to the scheme collecting far more than it required. I understand that assumptions can change, but the authority should be doing all it can under the Government's guidance to ensure that if there is a surplus it is used to mitigate the cost of the scheme. In other words, reduce the cost of green slips. While the Opposition supports the bill and the financial certainty that it should provide to people who have been severely injured and who want to enter the Lifetime Care and Support Scheme, we must also watch that this does not turn into a revenue-raising exercise or, worse still, that the authority does not lose the money contributed by those who opt in. The people of New South Wales have already been hit with increases in the cost of green slips. Families across this State are struggling and every increase is hurting them more. We look forward to hearing a promise from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary in reply that the cost of green slips will not continue to rise and that the money raised through this scheme will be allocated to the care of the people who need this medical support. We again argue that in the short term any surpluses in the fund should be used to reduce the cost burden of green slips on families.
|
