STATUTES AMENDMENT (MOTOR ACCIDENTS) BILL

 In Committee.
 Clause 1.
  The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: I would like to make a comment in relation to what my Leader said in response. I am grateful for the Treasurer's undertaking to provide the information I have sought as outlined in my speech on 9 July last. I propose to write to the Treasurer in the next day or so confirming the questions, and I would be most grateful if we could have the answers at some stage prior to the Houses going into conference, which seems to be the inevitable end result of this process.
 Clause passed.
 Clauses 2 to 5 passed.
 Clause 6.
  The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Does clause 6 mean that the insurer has no responsibility for any additional damage or aggravated damage to a previously injured person? If this is the case, how will these people be able to afford medical care for aggravated injuries one would assume were not covered by any other previous claim, as the injury had worsened due to involvement in a motor vehicle accident?
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am told that the fund will not be required to pay but that the injured person will be able to seek payment from the negligent driver. I am told also that these circumstances are rare and that there are not too many examples of such claims on record.
 The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: In relation to this clause I understand that the concept that any aggravated damages or exemplary damages which might be awarded arising from the conduct of the insured person should not be paid by the insurance company, being in this case the MAC. On my reading of this clause it would seem that there may be occasions where exemplary or aggravated damages might be awarded because of the conduct of the MAC itself in the management of a claim. In that regard I would be grateful if the Treasurer could advise whether or not any such award has been made. In other words, has an award been made for aggravated or exemplary damages because of the way in which the MAC, previously the CTP department of SGIC or, indeed, any other personal injury insurer in any other contextóand the Minister may not be able to answer that last questionóconducted its affairs?
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the MAC is not aware of any such example.
  The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Further to that last point, I would have thought that the new section, which only prohibits the recovery from the insurer of punitive damages caused by or arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, would have no operation at all in respect of punitive damages that might be awarded from the conduct, for example, of the MAC in litigation.
 The Hon. NICK XENOPHON: I indicate that I oppose clause 6. Will the Treasurer indicate how many claims there have been over, say, the past three financial years involving aggravated, exemplary or punitive damages; the sorts of payouts that have been made cumulatively for that period; and the largest payout for those types of damages?
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that we do not have that information with us. We are happy to take that question on notice. Let me assure the honourable member that he will have another opportunity to explore the answers to the question.
  The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: This is a matter that had not been brought to my attention previously, so I thank the Hon. Carmel Zollo for raising it by way of question initially. On the surface, it seems that, in terms of cost to the scheme, there would be virtually nothing in it but, in terms of a person who may be injured, this may be the only real protection they get. However, in any case, given the fact that it has been raised at this late stage and that it involves some issues of some meritóand recognising that we are going to a conferenceóthere is no harm in keeping the issue live for now; and in this case `keeping it live' means opposing the clause but recognis-ing that it may be brought back in its original form at a later time.
  The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I indicate in my first contribution that we will go along with the strategy proposed by the Treasurer; that is, we try to speed up the Committee stage as much as possible. I think the action suggested by the Hon. Mike Elliott and the Hon. Nick Xenophon is perhaps the prudent one. Let us delete this clause now. We can look at it in the conference and iron out any problems then.
 Clause negatived.
 Clauses 7 and 8 passed.
 Clause 9.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:
 Page 3, line 24óAfter `Part' insert:
 in relation to another accident.
This clause allows the Motor Accident Commission to reduce an injured person's entitlement to damages as a result of a debt due to the Motor Accident Commission arising out of another accidentóat least that appears to be the intention. It has been put to the Opposition that the clause could possibly be read to involve a debt due to the Motor Accident Commis-sion by the injured person as a result of the same accident in which the person was injured. Therefore, I am moving the amendment to clarify the position.
 The CHAIRMAN: I point out to the Committee that the wording of the Hon. Mr Holloway's amendment is the same as that of the Hon. Mr Elliott's circulated amendment.
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that the Govern-ment is sympathetic to the amendments and will not stand in their way.
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clause 10.
 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: In relation to compulsori-ly acquiring a vehicle, what occurs in the case of a write-off situation where a vehicle may be insured comprehensively or for third party property damage and the vehicle is made the property of that insurer? Would the insured be required to re-acquire the written off vehicle or comply with the section?
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The legal advice provided to me indicates that it is the insurer who will have to hand over the vehicle to the Motor Accident Commission.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: In relation to this clause in general, it might be helpful if the Treasurer could explain to us why the Motor Accident Commission actually needs this power. In what circumstances would the Motor Accident Commission exercise this power? One can envisage a situation where a person had loaned a vehicle to another person and that person is involved in an accident. They could find that their vehicle is subsequently compulsorily acquired by the MAC. One would hope that such a situation would only apply in very rare situations. I guess it would be useful for the Committee to know exactly what those rare situations might be.
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that it is for evidentiary reasons. The investigations might well have to determine issues such as whether or not the seat belt was being worn or whether the nature of theó
 The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You need to have the vehicle to look at itóor whether the nature of the damage to the vehicle is consistent with the claims being made. I am advised that there are a range of other evidentiary reasons like that as to why this provision is required. I am also told that it is very rarely used. It is one of those fall-back provisions that, I presume, with commonsense very rarely has to be used. I presume that these sorts of information evidentiary arrange-ments are able to be accommodated without actually having to use this provision. But I gather that, on rare occasions, this particular power may well be required.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Obviously if there is an accident involving serious bodily injury one would expect that the police would be involved in that and make their own investigation of the circumstances of the accident for their own purposes. One would ask the question: why would they not be able to do it at the same time if the police have impounded the car, or whatever the case might be? How does this power relate to police investigations which, presumably, would occur in most, if not all, motor accidents involving serious injury?
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am told that, whilst obviously there is some overlap, the police are looking for different things when they are investigating the cause of the crash. Obviously, they are not looking at it from the point of view of all the detail that might be required from an insurer in terms of the interests of the insurer and the insurer's fund. For those reasons, I guess there are different reasons for needing to have access to the accident vehicle. It is as simple as that really: different purposes for which the investigation needs to be undertakenóin one case for the police which is to determine the cause of accident; in the case of the insurer, it is in relation to issues with respect to insurance and claims that might be made on the fund. I am advised that, substan-tially, it is meant to be an anti-fraud provision.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I do not know what difficul-ties there have been in access so far. I do not understand why there is not a clause in terms of guaranteeing access to the vehicle in some way, rather than acquisition. There then seem to be further implications. If the insurer then becomes the owner of the vehicle, what does that say about access for persons representing the injured party?
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that access is normally all that is required but in some cases extensive testing and other things need to be undertaken by the fund and they need more than just access to the vehicle. They need the vehicle itself and, clearly, their having access to the vehicle to do significant testing may well be a significant inconvenience to the owner of the vehicle. As I said, it is intended that this provision will be used very rarely and it is a fall-back provision in certain cases.
 The Hon. NICK XENOPHON: What does the Treasurer envisage would be the right of access to the vehicle by solicitors or experts for other interested parties? My concern is that this clause, if enacted, would prevent access to the vehicle by other interested parties. If the vehicle has already been acquired by the insurer, this would prevent other experts from looking at it.
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the provision would allow denial of access but that it would not be in the interests of the commission to deny access to others.
 The Hon. NICK XENOPHON: Is the Treasurer saying that the commission has an absolute discretion in terms of allowing access to the vehicle?
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is a reasonable interpreta-tion of what I have just indicated based on the advice given to me.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: To short circuit this discus-sion, I will adopt an approach similar to that which I adopted in respect of clause 6 and, for the time being, oppose this clause. This matter deserves further attention even if, ultimately, it remains in the Bill. At this stage, on behalf of the Democrats I oppose the clause.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The course of action outlined by the Hon. Michael Elliott is sensible at this stage. We will deal with this matter later.
 The Hon. NICK XENOPHON: I endorse the approach of the Hon. Mike Elliott and the Hon. Paul Holloway.
 Clause negatived.
 Clause 11.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:
 Page 4, lines 15 to 18óLeave out the definition of `prescribed limit'.
This clause relates to the control of medical services and charges for medical services to injured persons. As I indicat-ed during the second reading debate, the Opposition accepts that there is a need for some sort of intervention in this area. However, we are concerned about some of the problems that are being created. It is my understanding that negotiations are going on between the various medical fraternities as to the best way of dealing with these problems. I regard this amendment as a test case on this clause. If it is carried, I think there will need to be further debate later on clause 11. I envisage that when this matter is debated in conference we will probably come up with something along the lines of the amendments of the Hon. Nick Xenophon and the Hon. Mike Elliott.
 Clearly, we need a lot more work in relation to this question about how we limit fees and charges levied by the medical profession. As I have said, this amendment is a test case. I guess when this conference eventuates we will have more discus-sions about how we can clarify all these issues and come up with better arrangements that are fair to the medical profes-sion and the victims of motor accidents and also ensure that there is no abuse of the system or overchar-ging.
 The CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Nick Xenophon also has an amendment.
 The Hon. NICK XENOPHON: I have discussed this matter with the Hons Paul Holloway and Mike Elliott, and it is my understanding that this amendment could still be considered at the conference without necessarily being put at this stage.
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The honourable member is correct: if the Hon. Mr Holloway's amendment is successful the issue will be up for grabs at the conference and an amendment or further amendments along the lines of the Hon. Mr Xenophon's or a new amendment arising out of the conference will be possible at the conference.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I will indicate how I will approach clauses 11 and 12 at this stage so we can move through them reasonably quickly. I will be persisting with only a couple of my amendments at this stage, just to keep life simple. It seems to be acknowledged that the Bill will go to conference, so in the circumstances the amendments moved by the Hon. Paul Holloway are the direct opposite of what the Government is proposing in parts of clauses 11 and 12. The amendments which I and the Hon. Mr Xenophon have on file, which are really compromise amendments, are capable of being addressed in the conference itself.
 I have seen the Hon. Nick Xenophon's amendments only today and have not yet had an adequate chance to give them the consideration I would like to give them. I am not express-ing a preference for his or my amendments at this stage, and other possibilities may come out of the conference. In general terms, I indicate that some matters in clauses 11 and 12 cause me some concern, and I raised them during the second reading debate. The amendments I have on file give some indication of the way I was thinking of handling them, although I can also see some merit in the approach taken by the Hon. Nick Xenophon. But, with a few exceptions, for the most part I will support the Hon. Paul Holloway's amend-ments and will move only a few of those which I currently have on file.
 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I have not seen the Hon. Nick Xenophon's amendments; are they on prescribed scale and prescribed services? Do they relate to the same issue and perhaps the disinclination of medical practitioners to deal with motor accident victims because of the scale that is currently tied in with workers' rehabilitation?
 The Hon. NICK XENOPHON: That relates partly to the reluctance of some practitioners and the difficulties in dealing with victims of accidents because of the scale under section 32; and using the same regime as the Workers' Compensa-tion Act is using is undesirable. The amendment has been based on submissions from the Australian Physiotherapy Associa-tion, which simply seeks to have an average rate of fees based on the market over a three year period so that there is no surcharge in the fees but simply a fair rate of payment.
I will not proceed with my first amendment on the basis of the Treasurer's indication that it can be considered at the conference.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. NICK XENOPHON: I move:
 Page 4, lines 19 and 20óLeave out `for the purposes of section 32 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986' and substitute:
 By notice under subsection (2).
This amendment deletes reference to section 32 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and simply inserts a new paragraph prescribing the limits and scales of charges for the purposes of the section. Basically, it steers away from the model of section 32 of the Workers Rehabilita-tion and Compensation Act and seeks a rate based on limits to be prescribed but based on fair market rates for treatment.
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Government is opposing the bulk of these amendments unless we indicate that we are sympathetic to or supporting individual amendments. Obviously, the numbers are such that this amendment will be successful, but I am advised that in the past day or two the Government has reached agreement with the AMA in relation to this issue and, probably by the time of the conference, we will be able to share with members what might be a sensible compromise amendment agreed between the Government and the AMA.
 The Hon. P. Holloway: It's not just the AMA, is it?
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, but it is obviously a key player in all this. The amendment can always be further amended at the conference. The Government has continued what we believe to be fruitful discussions with the AMA and, by the time we reach a conference, we hope to have at least an amendment agreed to by it and perhaps others as well, I am not sure, and a letter acknowledging an agreement.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am pleased that progress is being made with the AMA. It is always preferable if these sorts of things can be negotiated, and it is unfortunate that there was not a draft Bill outside the Parliament when negotiation occurred before it was introduced, and these sorts of things should have been capable of resolution. One bit of concern I have is that the AMA is not the only party. Privately, I have been a little concerned that the AMA, obviously, has been making sure that it does not have a problem, but the sorts of amendments it proposes do not work particularly well for the physiotherapists or a number of other service providers. In drafting my amendments, I tried to ensure that all the relevant health providers were adequately covered under the legislation.
 I would be saying very strongly to the Government now, whatever is ultimately taken to the conference, to please make sure that it does not just look after the AMA, which is perhaps one of the strongest unions in Australia, but that it also looks at the legitimate concerns of other health provider groups, which have concerns that are very similar to those of the AMA. The draft I saw earlier particularly addressed the narrower concern. It is a legitimate concern, but the legisla-tion must cover all health provider groups in similar fashion.
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We will be delighted to try to accommodate as many people as we can. The reality is that in this sort of legislation it is not always possible to please everyone, and eventually the conference, in the first instance, and then the Parliament will need to make a decision as to whether we will be able to accommodate everyone. If we cannot, we will accommodate as many as we possibly can. The Government's intentions are pure in relation to this: we are happy to further consult and try to get as many people into agreement as possible, but my experience in these matters over many years is that it is not possible to please everyone. If it were, it would be a pretty simple life being a member of Parliament. We will do our best and, if the honourable member has a drafting provision with which all members are delighted, the Government will be happy to productively and coopera-tively explore that amendment in the conference.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I would have thought that this amendment was contrary to the Hon. Mr Elliott's amendment seeking to making it a regulation, and I am not sure whether the two can run together. I will clarify that matter, but I do not believe it is worth wasting too much time on this. I would have thought that the Hon. Mike Elliott's amendment to line 23 would be more potent in that sense.
 The Hon. NICK XENOPHON: I seek leave to amend my amendment, as follows:
 By deleting `notice' and inserting `regulation'.
 Leave granted; amendment carried.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I move:
 Page 4, line 23óLeave out `notice' and substitute `a regulation made'.
The intention of my amendment is to ensure that, if services are to be excluded from the application of this section, it should not just happen by notice but should happen by regulation.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I move:
 Page 4, lines 24 to 26óLeave out subsection (2) and substitute:
 (2) The Governor may, by regulationó
 (a) prescribe scales of charges for prescribed services for the purposes of this section.
 (b) exclude specified services from the application of this section.
There was another amendment on file from the Hon. Nick Xenophon that is basically the same as my paragraph (a) but it does not include the need for it to happen by way of regulation. What we have tried to do is merge the two amendments into one. It is important that, where there is to be a scale of charges, it comes by way of regulation. We realise that there is a lot of political contention within this matter. It is a case that the Parliament would like to keep within its own purview.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. NICK XENOPHON: I move:
 Page 4, after line 26óInsert new subsection as follows:
 (2a) The following provisions govern the prescription of scales of charges for prescribed services for the purposes of this section:
 (a) the scales of charges must be based on three-yearly surveys of the average charges for the services in the State;
 (b) changes to the scales of charges are to be made annually between surveys to reflect changes in the cost of providing the services;
 (c) no scales of charges are to be prescribed or changed except following a process (to be prescribed by regulation) under which the scales are to be agreed between the Minister and professional associations representing the interests of providers of the services or, failing agreement, determined through arbitration.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:
 Page 4, lines 31 to 33 and page 5, lines 1 to 4óLeave out subsection (4).
As I indicated earlier, we will probably end up with a final form that is somewhat different from that. However, just to hurry it along, I will move my amendment, and we will deal with the consequences at a conference later.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:
 Page 5, lines 5 to 13óLeave out subsection (5).
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I will not be persisting with my amendment to insert a new subsection. It is a matter that we might want to reconsider during the conference, depend-ing on how some of the other matters are handled. I now move:
 Page 5, after line 18óInsert new subsections as follows:
 (7) This section expires on 1 October 1999.
This amendment and the one to be moved by the Hon. Nick Xenophon are not competing amendments. My judgment is that it will be difficult at the end of the day to get right via legislation precisely how negotiations, etc., may occur between the AMA, the APA, various other interested health groups and the MAC. At the end of the day, a lot of the matters can be resolved only if people sit down and talk their way through them. It is a process that took a long time with WorkCover. For years, they did not talk with the various groups, and they had all sorts of problems. Somewhere along the line they had this bright idea of sitting down and talking to each other, and I understand that amazing progress has been made. No matter how much you try to handle things by legislation, at the end of the day what is really important in terms of how we go about handling injured people and how we will handle those sorts of matters is capable of being worked out in an administrative sense.
 So, the purpose of my amendment is to say, `Well, on 1 October 1999 we will look back and see whether these things have been worked out,' and, if they have, clause 11 should cause us no further concern. But, on the other hand, if they have not been worked out, we may have to revisit a lot of issues and try to solve a lot more by legislation than perhaps we might decide to do at this time.
 The Hon. NICK XENOPHON: I move:
 Page 5, after line 18óInsert new subsections as follows:
 (7) Proceedings may not be commenced for an offence against subsection (6) in respect of prescribed services provided in relation to bodily injury caused by or arising out of the use of a motor vehicle unless liability to damages in respect of that injury has been accepted by or established against an insured person or the insurer.
 (8) Proceedings for an offence against subsection (6) may be commenced at any time within 12 months after liability to damages has been accepted or established as referred to in subsection (7).
 The Hon. M.J. Elliott's amendment carried; the Hon. Nick Xenophon's amendment carried.
 The Hon. NICK XENOPHON: I am pleased to say that I will move this amendment without any further amend-ment. I move:
 Page 5, before line 19óInsert new section as follows:
 Prompt handling of claims
 127B. (1) Where, in accordance with this Part, notice has been given to the insurer or the nominal defendant of a claim for damages in respect of death or bodily injury caused by or arising out of the use of a motor vehicle and, in the case of notice given by an insured person to the insurer, the insured person has furnished the insurer with any information reasonably required by the insurer, the insurer or nominal defendant must as soon as reasonably practicable and, in any event, within 90 days, notify the claimant and the insured person (if any) whether liability to damages is accepted or rejected by the insurer or nominal defendant in relation to the claim.
  (2) Where, on receipt of an account for the payment of a charge for prescribed services (as defined in section 127A), the insurer or nominal defendant does not dispute liability to pay the charge, the insurer or nominal defendant must pay the charge within 30 days.
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clause 12.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:
 Page 5, lines 23 to 27óLeave out paragraph (a).
As far as the Opposition is concerned, this is probably the most important of the amendments. This relates to the loss of non-economic benefits, in other words, the pain and suffering clause. The Government proposes to extend the current seven day requirement out to six months. We believe that is a very unsatisfactory situation. It has been covered extensively in the second reading debate. We understand that it would reduce the number of potential claimants under this clause by over 80 per cent. Therefore, this amendment ensures that the current situation remains.
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I repeat: in relation to these amendments to clause 12, obviously the Government will continue to oppose them, but it acknowledges that the numbers in both Houses are against the Government and therefore it will re-enter the debate in the conference that inevitably will follow. I indicate to the honourable member that, in relation to the second reading explanation, the 83 per cent figure has now been corrected and the figure is actually 52 per cent of claims. Whilst the estimate of savings remains at $10 million rather than the $7 million to $10 million, the actuaries have now done a more precise calculation based on 1997-98 figures and that figure is $10 million. When we get to the conference obviously this will be a key issue.
 If there are to be savings, this is by far and away the most significant area for savings. Unless there is something reasonable in terms of a compromise achieved at the confer-ence, it is highly unlikely that the savings package will achieve any reasonable level of savings at all. As I said, that will be a judgment for the conference, the Parliament and then for me ultimately as Minister regarding whether or not the Government believes it should continue with the Bill. Obviously, this is a key issue. The Government acknowledges the concerns that have been expressed. As I have indicated previously, the Government is always infinitely flexible in relation to any reasonable proposition that is put, and we look forward to exploring it at the conference. I indicate without entering the debate on all the subsequent amendmentsóand I hope there are not too many amendments to the amend-mentsóto this clause that the Government maintains its position but will not extend the Committee stage by entering the debate on each amendment.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I also have an amendment which would overlap the honourable member's amendment, but I will not be moving it at this stage. Clause 12 causes me some concern in that what we are talking about is not whether people are getting unreasonable amounts of compensation but what will happen to the cost of car insurance. Surely, there is the argument about what is reasonable and fair compensa-tion and then you ask, `How can we provide it most efficient-ly?' Ultimately, it is user pays. If part of driving a car means that there is a risk of having an accident and a risk of accident means that people may be injured and we need to give them fair compensation, then I thought the user pays principle might demand that you may, in some circumstances, have to pay more. But we have not really heard any debate about what is fair and reasonable: what we have heard is that we need to save some money in this area.
 The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: No, I am not. I can see that there is the potential in this area that seven days would bring in a large number of, I suppose, fairly minor claims and probably, at the end of the day, with legal costs and every-thing else, you are not a long way in front. I would certainly entertain perhaps a 21 day period, which I believe was the original proposal from the SGIC. But any suggestion of six months is quite amazing and is not in the ballpark at all, as far as I am concerned. At this stage, I have not seen any cost assessment on the impact of these various levelsóand I suspect that the difference between 21 days and six months will be nowhere near as dramatic as going from seven days to 21 days, even though I have said that the issue of cost in itself really should not be a prime consideration.
 The Hon. NICK XENOPHON: The claims affected with the amendment to section 35A have gone from 83 per cent to 52 per cent, which is quite a dramatic turnaround. Is the Treasurer prepared to provide all documentation relating to thatóincluding the basis upon which it was calculated and the likely savings? As I understand it, the likely savings were between $7 million to $10 million when 83 per cent of claims were affected, but now it is $7 million to $10 million with only 52 per cent of claims being affected. Perhaps I have misunderstood that. Could the Treasurer clarify that?
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Certainly. There are a number of changes. You are now working on 1997-98 figures, as opposed to 1996-97 figures. The estimate of savings is now more preciseóit is now an estimate of about $10 millionówhereas the estimate which was originally done was a ballpark estimate of $7 million to $10 million. So, the actuary has now come down, I am told, closer to the $10 million mark, and there is an acknowledgment, as I indicated in the second reading, that there were errors in the original calcula-tions undertaken by SGIC which gave that figure of 83 per cent. I believe that a number of people were quite surprised by that figure of 83 per cent when it was originally calculated. My colleague the Hon. Angus Redford, who is most assiduous in relation to these matters, raised a cynical eyebrow about this 83 per cent figure. It was as a result of that that further clarification has been sought. Some expense has been incurred in relation to an actuary's estimate, and we now have the figure of 52 per cent.
 At this stage, I am not prepared to provide all documenta-tion. I will be happy during the conference stages of the debate to provide details of the background of the informa-tionóhow the calculations have been undertaken and that sort of detailóto provide further information which will assist in the calculations and consideration by the conference of these issues. I assure the honourable member, as I have assured other members, that I am happy to try to provide as much information as I can in relation to the accuracy of the information. I am reliant on the accuracy of the calculations that are done, in the first place, by SGIC and then by actuaries. Let me assure members that, unlike the conferences I have entered in the past, the conference will not be going back to the first principles of being able to redo calculations, in the conference stage of the debate. That is, of course, not something that is generally within the skill base of members of Parliament, in terms of actuarial calculations by members of Parliament.
 I am happy to assist as best as I can. I will take some advice and see what information I can provide to the honour-able member prior to the conference as to the assumptions made by the actuary and how the new calculations have been arrived at, and the 1997-98 information. Certainly, when we get to the conference, I am also happy to further explore in detail any questions that any member might have during the conference stage of this particular consideration.
 The Hon. NICK XENOPHON: If I could borrow the Hon. Angus Redford's cynical eyebrow referred to by the Treasurer, will the Treasurer provide the actuarial calcula-tions prior to the conference so it can be independently scrutinised by independent actuaries?
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will take advice on that. Certainly I am happy, as I indicated, to provide information about some of the assumptions made by the actuary on the information provided. Whether or not I will provide all the detailed workings that the actuary has undertaken is an issue I will need to take up with the Motor Accident Commission. At this stage I give a commitment that I will provide as much information as I can. I know that the Hon. Mr Xenophon is raising a cynical eyebrowó
 The Hon. Nick Xenophon interjecting:
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: óMr Redford's cynical eyebrow in relation to this. Can I assure him that there is nothing to my knowledge I am knowingly concealing from the honourable member. I am just relaying to him information that has been provided in relation to the calculations, quite openly acknow-ledging the error of the original 83 per cent figure and indicating it is a 52 per cent figure. I think that is just an indication that the Government is endeavouring to be as frank as is possible in relation to this particular issue.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I do not want to drag this out but I would certainly like to see the numbers before we go into conference. A conference is a not a place where you receive new information. A conference is a place where you try to sort your way through the various amendments, etc, to try to get something that basically works and on which agreement will be struck. It is not a place for new information to come in and particularly complex actuarial information. I indicate very strongly that I would like to see costing impacts well before going into conference.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:
 Page 5, lines 28 to 35óLeave out paragraph (b).
This paragraph deals with the issue of nervous shock. This paragraph would, if passed, take away any entitlement that a close family member may have because of witnessing the injury caused to a loved one at a place other than the accident scene. We believe that that clause is most unnecessarily mean-spirited, so we oppose it.
 The CHAIRMAN: Mr Elliott has an amendment in the same wording.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I withdraw my amendment.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:
 Page 6, lines 1 to 5óLeave out paragraph (c).
This clause relates to the loss of earning capacity. It is not easy to understand. Subparagraph (ca) provides:
 In assessing possibilities for the purposes of assessing damages for loss of earning capacity, a possibility is not to be taken into account in the injured person's favour unless the injured person satisfies the court that there is at least a 25 per cent likelihood of its occurrence.
I think that is likely to lead to a rather large amount of unnecessary litigation.
 The Hon. M.J. Elliott interjecting:
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That's right. What it really says is that there must be at least a 25 per cent likelihood of a loss of earning capacity before the court makes a finding in this area. I would have thought that that creates a standard of proof that is totally artificial, to say the least. So, this paragraph is opposed by the Opposition.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I indicate support for the Hon. Paul Holloway's amendment as I have an identical amendment on file.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:
 Page 6, lines 9 to 11óLeave out paragraph (e).
This paragraph is opposed. It limits a claim for loss of consortium to four times State average weekly earnings. We believe this is an unnecessary restriction.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I will not move my amend-ment at this stage. This matter may be raised again during the conference.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:
 Page 6, lines 28 to 30óLeave out `or such greater percentage as the court thinks just and reasonable having regard to the extent to which the accident was attributable to the injured person's negligence'.
This is the first of the cumulative amendments, the first of which relates to persons who drive with above the prescribed concentration of alcohol in their blood and therefore contri-bute to their liability in respect of an accident. The Opposi-tion supports the fact that a 25 per cent factor should be introduced by way of contributory negligence for a person who drives with over the prescribed concentration of alcohol in their blood. However, we do not believe that we should go further and enable the court to increase liability beyond that proportion.
 As my colleague the Hon. Ron Roberts pointed out earlier, there is some argument as to whether one should even go as far as 25 per cent in terms of contributory negligence. However, we believe that if the figure is set at 25 per cent for all these mattersóand we will deal with a number of them lateróthat should be the end of it. If a 25 per cent liability factor is deemed appropriate by the court, that should be the end of it, and no further penalty should be involved.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:
 Page 6, lines 34 to 37óLeave out `or such greater percentage as the court thinks just and reasonable having regard to the extent to which the proper wearing of a seat belt would have reduced or lessened the severity of the injury'.
My next three amendments have a similar effect in that they do not allow the court to reduce the percentage of contribu-tory negligence beyond 25 per cent in the various cases involved.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:
 Page 7, lines 9 to 11óLeave out paragraph (e).
It is a similar amendment.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:
 Page 8, lines 2 to 5óLeave out `or such greater percentage as the court thinks just and reasonable having regard to the extent to which being within the compartment would have reduced or lessened the severity of the injury'.
Again, this is a similar amendment.
 Amendment carried.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I have an amendment on file to leave out subclause (3), but I have had some discussions with Parliamentary Counsel about the effect of this, and I would like the Minister to clarify exactly what this clause is meant to achieve. We have just dealt with clauses which apply a contributory negligence factor of 25 per cent where a person is not wearing a seat belt, is over the prescribed blood alcohol limit, is not wearing a helmet and so on. The clause that we are now discussing prescribes that these reductions due to contributory negligence are cumulative.
 Some concern was expressed to us that if this clause was read in a particular way it may have the effect of greatly reducing benefits. For example, if a person is found to have contributed to an accident by having breached a couple of those provisions by, say, not wearing a seat belt or being over the limit, even if those factors had not contributed to the accident, nevertheless that person could have their payments deducted. If you add it up one way it could be 25 plus 25, making a 50 per cent reduction in their payment for economic loss. However, I understand that the intention is that in fact that should not be the case and that the way this reduction applies will not in fact reduce the benefits for people injured in accidents. I would like the Treasurer to clarify how this clause will apply in relation to a person who may have been found to be negligent in relation to the previous paragraphs, and how this works in relation to a deduction in their claim for economic loss.
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The advice that has just been provided to me is that this provision applies to all heads of damage. As an example, if in a particular accident someone has failed to stop at a stop sign or failed to give way at a give way sign, the damages might be reduced by 10 per cent from 100 per cent to 90 per cent; and, if they were not wearing a seat belt, they might be reduced by 25 per cent of the 90 per cent which, I am advised, will take them back down to 67.5 per cent. I am told that in some cases the courts, because this is not entirely clear, have interpreted a similar example as meaning that the damages will be reduced by 10 per cent, and then the 25 per cent seat belt reduction will mean that they will be reduced to 65 per cent. So, in some cases the Hon. Mr Holloway is adoptingó
 The Hon. P. Holloway: Only some cases?
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not know whether it is all or some, but it is certainly in some cases. The Hon. Mr Holloway is adopting a tougher position than that of the Government; that is, he is seeking by way of his amendment to endorse a position where, in the examples that I have given, the damages would be reduced to 65 per cent, whereas the Government's position is to make quite clear to the courts that it would be 67.5 per cent, and the Government is also seeking to reduce the opportunity for legal cost and legal argument, I am advised, as part of all this. Whilst the Government is happily rolling over and being amended out of its very existence, I thought I would point out to the honourable member and his supporters on this matteró
 The Hon. M.J. Elliott: I didn't move this one.
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I am saying to the honour-able member and his supportersóhis gang of threeóthat we are a little surprised at this amendment and the Opposition's position on it.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: In view of the Treasurer's explanation, I will not proceed with the particular amend-ments, although I would feel a little more comfortable if the Treasurer would assure me that no cases would arise where someone may be better off if this clause were deleted. He has indicated that in some cases people could be worse off if we deleted the clause, therefore we would not wish to delete it for that to happen. However, I would like his assurance that there could not be a situation where the reverse applied.
 The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I can only give the assurance that I am given, that is, that the case will either be worse off under the Opposition's amendment or the same: it will be 25 per cent of 90 per cent or 25 per cent off the original 100 per cent. I share with the honourable member the advice which I have received.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: In view of that advice, I will not proceed.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:
 Page 8, line 29óLeave out `subsection (10(i) or (jb)' and substitute:
 subsection (1)(i)(iii) or (jb)(ii)
This is a rather difficult amendment to describe. I did it at some length during the second reading stage, so I will not canvass it again. It is purely to correct what could be an anomaly within the Bill.
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clause 13 and title passed.
 Bill read a third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT