Adjourned debate on second reading.
 
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I must say that I have something of a sense of deja vu in handling this legislation, and I certainly see some parallels with the way the Government initially set about handling workers compensation. We begin with a claim that costs are getting out of control and then, without debating too much the substance of that to start off with, the next assumption is, `Well, we have to straight away reduce benefits.' I really think that that is an incredibly simplistic approach to take. It does not beg the question as to whether or not levels of compensation are reasonable: it just simply says, `Well, it's getting a bit expensive; we'll have to reduce it.' It appears to me that there should first be argument about the levels of compensation and, if that compensation is at reasonable levels, it could then be the case that, in fact, levies might have to be raised. As with workers compensa-tion, the situation is far more complex than that.
 I note, for instance, that there seems to be little evidence that the Motor Accident Commission is involved in issues such as accident analysis, and that seems to be happening quite separately of the MAC; yet it should have a lively interest in those sorts of issues. Just as with workers compensation, our first goal should be reduction of accidents and reduction of the severity of accidents. Indeed, that is the approach we should be taking, even with something like this. I can find no evidence that the MAC has any interest in those sorts of matters.
 I understand that 10 per cent of all road deaths in South Australia are directly attributable to not wearing seat belts. Whilst the legislation seeks to reduce the compensation to people who fail to wear seat belts, where is the vigorous campaign to ensureó
 Members interjecting:
 The PRESIDENT: Order! There is too much conversation on my right.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Where is the campaign to ensure that compliance with wearing seat belts improves? We have to tackle this problem from all directions. It is also worth noting that, under workers compensation, the WorkCover Corporation itself has quite detailed analysis of treatments and those sorts of issues. SGIC, which acts on behalf of the MAC, carries out none of the detailed analysis that is conducted under WorkCover. I will return to those themes later.
 I have spoken with a number of people about the actuarial considerations, people who are in a position to know and to understand, and it is fair to say that the actuaries have been highly conservative, noting that some actuaries have been increasingly liable to action in the courts, so that might be understandable. My advice is that, in almost every regard, they have been highly conservative and it is most likely that the position of the MAC is nowhere near as bad as is being presented to Parliament at this time. I am not suggesting for a moment that there are no problems, but I am saying that it is overstated at this time.
 Many stakeholders have expressed concern at the total absence of any consultation with interest groups about the proposals for change now before us. I raised this with representatives of the MAC, and their response was, `Well, we consulted after it was brought into Parliament. We put it there so people could consult on it.' My view is that, with something as important as this, with as many contentious issues and, I would argue, with more than one solution available, at the very least a draft Bill should be consulted on outside Parliament before legislation is brought in. That simply has not happened and I believe it is a touch of gross arrogance.
 There is concern that the Motor Accident Commission and SGIC do not seem to have undertaken the sort of analysis and evaluation of service provision that is done by WorkCover to make sensible decisions on their operations. The Australian Physiotherapists Association (APA) considers that the proposed changes are a knee-jerk reaction from a monopoly that has not reviewed its own administrative systems or adequately consulted with service providers to effect any perceived required changes or savings. The APA has been advised by SGIC that it has never sent any material about the scheme or the expectation of SGIC and the MAC to physio-therapy service providers.
 It is intriguing that the MAC has had legislation introduced with draconian clauses in relation to service fees, yet until this point there has been no communication between SGIC on behalf of the MAC with physiotherapists of the type that has been going on in more recent times between WorkCover and practitioners.
 It is worth noting that WorkCover was pretty awful until probably the past two years or so, when it realised that it is much better to work in cooperation with groups than to attack them head-on. One must bear in mind that it is the service providers and not the Motor Accident Commission adminis-tration which assists motor accident victims to get back on their feet. I would encourage the Motor Accident Commission to undertake measures similar to those employed by WorkCover to educate providers about how to provide better service to their clients and to the system. I am not suggesting that WorkCover has got it all right, but at least it is starting to move in the right direction in this area.
 The Law Society, the Plaintiff Lawyers Association and others have said, and I agree, that the Bill will impact in a serious way on motorists of the State, and they describe it as `mean spirited'. Over the past two months the Law Society, the Plaintiff Lawyers Association and groups such as the AMA have met with many members of Parliament to alert them to the strength of concern and the very serious implica-tions of this Bill. Their major concern is that this Bill threatens to deny over 80 per cent of those injured in motor vehicle accidents any entitlement to compensation for pain and suffering for which compulsory third party insurance was designed.
 Those groups say that it will particularly hurt the less fortunate in this community: the aged, the unemployed, the infirm, children, pensioners and superannuants. In a submis-sion on this Bill, the Law Society says that the Bill will impact adversely on rural residents injured in motor vehicle accidents as a high proportion of motor vehicle accidents occur in rural areas and involve rural residents. These communities do not have easy access to appropriate services.
 The Law Society argues that the community has a right to expect that a fair and equitable compulsory third party bodily insurance scheme should provide to injured persons (a) an amount for economic loss, for example, loss of wages or salary; (b) an amount for pain and suffering and loss of amenity, that is, recognising non-economic loss; (c) an amount recognising the cost of medical and like expenses, including ongoing treatment incurred by the injured person; (d) an amount recognising that others, such as spouses or other family members, may be directly or indirectly affected as a result of the injuries suffered by the injured person; and (e) access to a fair, open and unbiased system to determine appropriate amounts of compensation.
 The Law Society believes that this Bill threatens seriously to diminish or abolish many of those expectations or rights. The Law Society has no quarrel with some aspects of the Bill, such as the proposal to cap economic loss at $2 million, or to impose penalties on entitlements for failure to wear seat belts or helmets, or in cases involving alcohol. However, it says that no sound case has been made for the abolition of the current entitlements for non-economic loss, which are currently capped at $91 200. It is worth noting that that amount is significantly less than in a number of other States. I believe that Western Australia has a limit of $209 000; New South Wales, $247 000; Victoria, $330 000; and Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT have unlimited entitlements.
 The Law Society says that the amendments will result in a loss of benefits for matters such as nervous shock and loss of consortium which, it says, shows a callous and economic rationalist approach to situations where compassion and understanding are required. It also states that the claim that the fund's solvency is under threat is not soundly based and cannot be used to rationalise the severity of this legislation. I certainly agree with that contention. It may be that the fund's financial investment performance can be improved, but that question of fund management can be addressed without implementation of this draconian legislation.
 The Law Society supplied several illustrations detailing examples of how people's benefits would be limited or non-existent under those changes. The Hon. Carmel Zollo read into the record a couple of those examples. In fact, some 10 examples were provided to me and, if members are interested in more, I would certainly make them available rather than reading them into Hansard now.
 The Brain Injury Network of South Australia has also raised concerns with me about this Bill. That community-based organisation provides information, informal support and advocacy for people with disability as a result of brain injury, their relatives and associates. The network is con-cerned about the reduced or removed entitlement for claims by parents, children or spouse due to the proposed changes to the Wrongs Act. It states that allowing the courts to be involved in deciding the amount of reduction to damages caused by a failure to wear seat belts, helmets and the like has the potential for increased litigation and associated legal costs.
 Concerns have also been raised by the group about the six month threshold required for serious impairment to be entitled to pain and suffering. It states that the Government's changes will cause increased stress due to increased litigation costs and time to settle claims. It also states that there is no statistical evidence to reliably estimate the impact of the proposed changes, which will reduce claims at a time when compulsory third party premiums are being increased.
 The Brain Injury Network believes that the proposed changes are likely to mean that some claimants with severe disability and long-term high support needs will have insufficient funds for their long-term care and that families and/or the community disability service sector will be expected to pick up the tab or provide the care. The result is a cost shift to families and/or the disability sector. The network supports a flat 25 per cent reduction in claims (non-accumulative) and the removal of the `or as determined by a court' provision, thus reducing the potential for lengthy, stressful and costly litigation. Concern has also been raised about the introduction of measures to turn a no fault-based scheme (namely, WorkCover) into a fault-based scheme, which the Motor Accident Commission is.
 The Australian Physiotherapy Association believes it is extraordinary that the Motor Accident Commission is equating a motor accident victim with a workers' compensa-tion victim, when the nature of the injury and the parties involved are completely different. The element of liability of the injured party is not a consideration under the workers' compensation scheme. It states that the introduction of the proposed changes will severely impact on the motor accident scheme. Service providers already treat motor accident victims at financial risk, as the treatment often occurs prior to the establishment of a claim with SGIC. The APA states that service providers may be deterred from treating motor accident victims if there is no clarity as to whether their fees will be paid or if there is the spectre of being challenged at a later date.
 I now wish to refer to specific concerns in relation to the Bill. In relation to clause 9, an amendment to section 124AC of the Act, the Government seeks to amend this clause to enable the Motor Accident Commission to deduct from a person's entitlement to damages any debt due to the Motor Accident Commission arising out of another accident. There is concern that this could also be used to reduce, and even extinguish, the right of a motorist who has infringed policy conditions (including a motorist who has overlooked renewing their driver's licence) to recover damages for injuries by off-setting against such damages amounts payable to others in the same accident. My amendment seeks to address this by adding the words `in relation to another accident'.
 Clause 11, page 5, after line 13 is an amendment to ensure a new subclause to allow any problems arising out of service charges which are deemed excessive to be solved through consultation if possible. We should try to ensure that problems are solved through negotiation, not litigation, so that the cost and time of court action can be avoided. In relation to clause 11, page 5, after line 18, I will be moving an amendment to introduce a sunset clause in relation to the whole of this clause.
 It seems to me that some of the problems that arise out of clause 11 are very difficult to fix through legislation. There is clearly a great need for a lot more consultation between the MAC and the representatives of the various health providers, and we need to put systems in place that work effectively. I had many proposals put before me for amendments, some of which I picked up but some of which I do not really believe that legislation per se will fix. My amendment inserts a sunset clause into the whole of this clause, and the sunset will be 1 October next year.
 The message that I hope to give to the MAC is to fix up the problems here, to negotiate with the AMA, the APA and the chiropractors, etc., and implement systems that work. If we have systems that work I will have no problem whatso-ever, in a little over a year, in allowing the clause to continue. However, if the systems cannot be fixed up, all bets are off. It seems to me that this might focus the MAC's mind more than it has been so far and challenge what I see as the very arrogant attitude which led to a Bill coming into Parliament prior to any of the representatives of affected groups knowing that it was coming or indeed knowing of its contents.
 As to clause 12, page 5, lines 25 to 27, an amendment to the Wrongs Act to limit the availability of this section, the Plaintiff Lawyers are strenuously opposed to the Govern-ment's amendment. They say that the Motor Accident Commission itself acknowledges that 83 per cent of claimants will not receive a non-economic loss component of their claims for pain and suffering as a result of this amendment. They are concerned that even claimants with major injuries could suffer a reduction in damages and only those who sustain catastrophic injuries would not have their entitlement to pain and suffering reduced.
 The Society of Labor Lawyers has also raised concerns about this measure, saying that the current entitlements are already pathetic by interstate comparison, as I have already noted. The society is also concerned that the proposed changes will have the unintended result of an increase in litigation due to the exclusion of non-economic loss provi-sions. The society says that more people would then be likely to claim on an economic loss basis for disruption to family life and the like and that this would give rise to costly and unnecessary litigation. With a tightening of journey claims provisions in the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act the society states:
 These latest proposals simply further erode the legal rights of South Australians.
The six months time frame was also raised as a matter of concern. The Australian Physiotherapists Association suggested that this extended period of time may delay rehabilitation of some injured people and raised concerns about over servicing. The RAA also expressed concern about this measure, and I quote from its correspondence, as follows:
 Under proposed changes the person's ability to lead a normal life must now be seriously and significantly impaired for at least six months. The medical expense minimum has been increased $2 500 and is to be indexed after 1999. While the RAA accepts that there is a need to review the current parameters for non-economic loss and that some change leading to a more stringent threshold for claims of this nature is justified, it is our view that the proposed amendments could in some circumstances be too restrictive. We are particularly concerned for the effect the proposed changes would have on those who sustain injuries of a permanent nature. Whilst the new param-eters may be accepted where a person recovers fully and suffers no lasting injury, instances may arise where there is some permanent disability, yet it is held that the ability to lead a normal life is not seriously and significantly impaired. By way of example, should a person lose a finger, this would presumably not qualify as eligible under new legislation. The ability to lead a normal life may not be seen to be seriously and significantly impaired, yet this person has suffered a permanent disability caused by another's negligence. It seems unfair that a permanent disability towards the lower end of the severity scale should not attract a payment for non-economic loss.
My amendment is in line with the Plaintiff Lawyers recommendation that an injured person's ability to lead a normal life was significantly impaired by the injury for a period of at least 21 days. The RAA supports this measure. I understand that was the original recommendation of SGIC, so how the MAC then fixed upon six months I do not know, unless it is just one giant ambit claim.
 As to clause 12, page 5, lines 28 to 35, there is a great deal of concern about this element of the Bill, which limits a claim for nervous shock to a person who is a parent, child or spouse who is either at the scene of the accident or who arrives at the scene of the accident shortly after it occurred. It wipes out the entitlement of a parent, child or spouse who suffers nervous shock as a result of seeing a grievously injured motor vehicle accident victim other than at the accident scene.
 There is concern that, if this law is passed, a mother who is called to hospital to assist a grievously injured child and who suffers a nervous breakdown from what she sees will not be entitled to claim for damages. She would succeed in a damages claim only if she was either at the scene of the accident or arrived at the accident scene soon after it occur-red. My amendment deletes the Government provision in paragraph (B).
 I now refer to clause 12, page 6, lines 1 to 5. This proposal is seen as unworkable by practitioners in the field. They say it creates a standard of proof that does not exist in the common law. There is a strong belief that it will engender unnecessary litigation and cause unnecessary stress to motor vehicle accident victims. By way of example, they raise the case of a 45 year old woman who is forced to give up work to look after her sick husband. If she is injured, she would be forced to argue that there is at least a 25 per cent likelihood that her husband will die, and she will be forced back on to the open labour market. My amendment leaves out para-graph (c).
 As to clause 12, page 6, lines 10 and 11, I understand that the Treasurer has stated that this clause will correct an anomaly in relation to a spouse receiving an award of damages for loss of consortium in excess of the injured person's entitlement to non-economic loss. There is concern that the Government's attempts to rectify this anomaly is draconian, and the plaintiff lawyers have suggested overcom-ing the problem by tying the spouse's entitlement to consor-tium to the same scale on which the victim's own entitlement to pain and suffering is based. My amendment makes the assessment of damages awarded for loss of consortium to occur in the same way as damages for non-economic loss are assessed.
 I now refer to clause 12, pages 6 and 7. These amend-ments to section 35A(1)(j)(ja) and (jc) of the Wrongs Act follow concern that allowing the court to increase the amount deducted from the damages to be awarded would cause unnecessary litigation and legal costs. The Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association says it does not oppose the suggested increase in apportionment against motor vehicle accident victims for alcohol or being under the influence of alcohol and the non-wearing of seat belts and helmets, but it does oppose the retention of the argument that the circumstances of the accident and the injury should cause a court to increase such apportionment. My amendment will remove the words `or such greater percentage as the court thinks are just and reasonable, having regard to the extent to which the accident was attributable to the person's negligence'.
 As to clause 12, page 8, line 29, it appears that this was a simple error. This amendment seeks to clarify an internal inconsistency by removing the reference to paragraph (jb) which, if left in, would contradict that paragraph. I have one further amendment in relation to section 127A(2), which I missed previously. It would have the effect of ensuring that the Minister would consult prior to excluding specific services. My amendment will require that the exclusion of specific services would have to happen by way of regulation. Again, I am tackling that issue of having due consultation before changes are made, and clearly the MAC needs to be pushed in that direction.
 I note in the contribution of the Hon. Angus Redford that the Treasurer was asked various questions and several other concerns were raised. These included issues such as expected savings to the Motor Accident Commission from the introduction of any of these tougher measurers and the average cost per claim per year being the lowest on record diminished every year and he was asked why there was pressure from the Motor Accident Commission for these changes. I also will be waiting for the Treasurer's response on those issues.
 The Society of Labor Lawyers has suggested that the Parliament also consider increasing the fixed amounts of solatium prescribed by sections 23A and 23B of the Wrongs Act. In 1974, the entitlements for solatium were fixed at $4 200 for a deceased spouse and $3 000 for a deceased child. These amounts have not been increased for 24 years, and the society believes they deserve amendment. I invite the Treasurer, in closing the second reading debate, to address this issue. At this stage, I do not have an amendment drafted, and whether I do will depend on the Treasurer's response. With a great deal of qualification, I support the second reading of the Bill.
 
 The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS secured the adjournment of the debate.