Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. Nick Xenophon:
 I. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be appointed to inquire into and report onó
(a)the activities of the Motor Accident Commission, its policies, financial affairs, board composition and the incidence and management of claims against the Compulsory Third Party Fund;
(b)the level of compensation payable to victims of road trauma in South Australia;
(c)the current and future roles and responsibilities of the Motor Accident Commission in relation to road safety and injury reduction; and
(d)any other related matter;
 II. That the committee consist of six members and that the quorum of members necessary to be present at all meetings of the committee be fixed at four members and that Standing Order No. 389 be so far suspended as to enable the Chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only;
 III. That this Council permit the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it thinks fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being reported to the Council; and
 IV. That Standing Order No. 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.
 (Continued from 4 November.)
 
  The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The Democrats support the establishment of this select committee and, in so doing, I indicate that I am prepared to serve on the committee. If I ever saw a need for this select committee, it was during the processes in which we were involved in the last session during debate on the Motor Accident Commission. The Government sought to change the Act in a way that was morally reprehensible. With those amendments, the Govern-ment said, `This is costing us too much. We will reduce benefits and payments to people who have been injured.' There was no debate from the Government about whether or not the level of benefits was reasonable. The debate was entirely about the fact that the Government wanted to lower the price of insurance.
 If insurance covers the cost of one aspect of driving, it is user pays, which the Government has talked about on many occasions. However, the Government said that it wanted to reduce the cost of insurance and it did not enter into debate about what was a fair and level reasonable level of compensa-tion. Indeed, it sounds like the workers' compensation debate that we have had in this place. Without entering into the debate about what is fair and reasonable for people who have been injured and who should take responsibility for it, the Government simply said that insurance costs must come down. The sorts of proposals it made were absolutely reprehensible.
 The more I looked at it, the more I became convinced that the Government was failing in another area, and that is road safety. When talking about compensation, one is talking about injury, and the more important questions concern why people are being injured and what we can do to reduce the injury rate. Precisely the same questions should be asked in workers' compensation, but it is still not being adequately addressed in that area.
 There has been no serious attempt in workers' compen-sa-tion to reduce accident levels to a lower and achievable level, and I am not convinced that we have anywhere near scratched the surface in achieving what we can in terms of reduction of both the number and severity of the sorts of injuries that occur on the road. I was even more horrified to find that the Motor Accident Commission saw it as being irrelevant to its considerations. That was certainly the feeling that I got in discussionsó
 The Hon. Diana Laidlaw interjecting:
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: `It': the question of road safety.
 The Hon. Diana Laidlaw interjecting:
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am sorry, the flavour and observations that I picked up from discussions I had were along the lines, `We are receiving money from insurance and we are having to make payouts.'
 The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: The Motor Accident Commis-sion is part of the Government's Road Safety Consultative Group.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It may well be but, as an organisation, I am saying that I feltóand I may be wrong and this committee might show something differentóthat road safety was not important to it and that it was balancing how much money was coming in with how much money was going out. The commission said, `Look, we are paying out this much and we are not getting quite enough in. Either we have to increase the insurance or we reduce the payments.' There appeared to be no serious question being asked, such as, `Is there something else we can do?' The most obvious answer should be `Road safety.' The question then to be asked is: what role should the MAC play in road safety? It might turn out to be nothing, but I must say I would be surprisedó
 The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: It has now agreed to help fund taxi drivers attend a further training course.
 The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am encouraged to hear that and I do not know how much of that came out of some things that were said in some meetings during that previous debate. If the Minister has played a role then I congratulate her for that, too. I hope this particular committee will not be one that meets for an extended period of time, but I believe there are some important issues. In response to the Hon. Nick Xenophon approaching me, representing the Democrats, and asking about my likely position, I would say, `Look, I need another committee like a hole in the head', as is probably the case with other members in this place. However, by the same token, if large numbers of people are dying and being injured on our roads and the solution offered in this place is that we must reduce levels of payouts to people who either are injured or die, then clearly there is a problem that must be addressed. It is for that reason that I am supporting the motion to establish a select committee, and I am prepared to serve on it.
 
 The Hon. CAROLYN PICKLES secured the adjournment of the debate.