Page 1059 - Week 03 - Thursday, 23 March 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Review of the operation of the Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008
A review of the operation of the ACT’s Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008 was presented to the Legislative Assembly on 5 April 2016. The review was performed by the scheme actuary with the factual findings of the review based on the claims and premiums experience over the 3 years to 31 December 2015.
The review report compared the ACT CTP system with other State CTP schemes, and provided factual findings in regard to the extent to which the CTP scheme objectives have been achieved.
The review report outlines a number of areas where progress has been made in achieving and improving on the objectives of the CTP Act. These include:
• the introduction of competition since July 2013 and reduced premiums; and
• an increase in early payment Motor Accident Notification Form (MANF) claims from 6% of all claims in 2009 to 13% of all claims in 2015. 2
The review report found, however, that the operation of the scheme is being impacted by the scheme design, with few qualifying thresholds or caps on some heads of damage (such as pain and suffering). This is because the scheme structure has a strong effect on claim costs, which flows through to high premiums. As a result, despite the recent decreases in premiums, the affordability of ACT CTP policies compares unfavourably with other jurisdictions.
The review report notes that the ACT’s scheme design relative to other Common Law Schemes, limits the potential for further premium reductions. In order to obtain significant premium reductions in the future, scheme reform would be required.
A comparison of the 2014-15 heads of damage with NSW and Queensland (the most comparable schemes to the ACT), shows that the ACT has a relatively high proportion of claims being paid out on pain & suffering and legal costs, compared with treatment and care costs. The report notes that the high pain & suffering and legal costs are to the detriment of treatment and care costs being paid to injured parties and/or to scheme premium levels, and are partly attributable to the CTP scheme design.
________________________
1 While the WA CTP scheme is a common law scheme, it differs significantly from the ACT, NSW and Queensland CTP schemes, in that there is only one insurer – the Insurance Commission of Western Australia (ICWA).
2 MANF claims comprise an early payment of up to $5,000 from the CTP insurer without the need for formal claim lodgement and without the requirement for legal representation. Such claims allow ‘fast track’ access to medical and treatment costs allowing the speedy rehabilitation of motor accident injuries, and represent lower cost claims.
Transport—number plate slogan
(Question No 81)
Mr Coe: asked the Minister for Justice, Consumer Affairs and Road Safety, upon notice, on 17 February 2017 (redirected to the Chief Minister):
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video