Page 1410 - Week 04 - Thursday, 4 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I acknowledge that this is unfortunate. It is a feature of all the other schemes that use WPI and it is something that the three-year review should seriously look at. I anticipate that it will not be a significant problem before the three-year review because people who have injuries will be treated as defined benefits recipients up to five years, but at three years we should have some idea of where this is going to track.
One of the Greens’ primary concerns was that the scheme was weighted too far in favour of well-resourced insurance companies potentially raising the barriers faced by individual victims seeking entitlements. Insurance companies do not have a good reputation, probably for good reason. There are plenty of examples around about the actions of insurers causing immense difficulties to claimants. Insurers are obviously running a business; they are in it for the profit and this profit can collide in a really nasty way with the needs of victims trying to get help and treatment to put their lives back on track.
Some changes have been made to the bill to address these concerns. As a starting point, a motor accident injuries commissioner and commission will replace the existing regulator. The commissioner will have strong enforcement powers and, I am assured, adequate resourcing to exercise proper regulation and supervision of insurers and insurer profits, obtain and publish adequate information and respond adequately to complaints.
The Greens have raised concerns about the possibility that insurers achieve profits at the expense of accident victims and in fact all the people who pay CTP. The bill includes clauses to require insurers to specify their profit margins and it also includes the ability for the motor accident injuries commissioner to cap the profits or sue for profits from insurers in the situation where actual net profit differs from reasonable industry net profit. This is an important broad power waiting to be used if needed.
Another improvement is that all defined benefit decisions will now be able to be appealed through ACAT. A new division of ACAT will be established. Insurers cannot be the final arbiters of decisions about people’s care and benefits, and it is important that these matters will be able to be resolved through an accessible tribunal like ACAT.
The Greens have also asked for improved advocacy support for claimants to help them navigate the system. Advocacy services will include community legal but also broader advocacy groups such as ADACAS and COTA and health groups such as Health Care Consumers Association.
I also draw the Assembly’s attention to the amendment to section 34 of the bill to reduce the possibility of insurers rejecting claims because of late lodgement. It provides the example of a reasonable excuse for not lodging on time being a person injured in the motor accident who did not receive accurate or timely information about the application process. This will not only allow the injured person some leeway but incentivises the insurers to disseminate information about the CTP process. This is an important outcome. We want people to have clear and accessible information about what they need to do to make their CTP claim.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video