Wednesday, 18 February 2026

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (14:25): I want to make a statement at the start of this just to put on record for full transparency that I have a perceived conflict of interest on this matter and will be sitting out the debate and will not be voting on the matter, so I will be abstaining. That conflict relates to a family member having a role at the TAC that may be relevant to the subject matter of this motion.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:26): I move:

That this house requires the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into, consider and report, by 11 August 2026, on issues related to claims made through the Transport Accident Commission, including but not limited to:

(1)   processes around legitimate claims, including disputed claims;

(2)   circumstances and systems related to fraudulent claims; and

(3)   interactions with other services, such as the national disability insurance scheme.

When a motorist pays the registration on their car, part of that registration goes to fund their insurance through the TAC. I think even libertarians agree – I would hope – that if you are going to drive a car on the road and you have an accident and someone gets hurt, there must be some means of rectifying and fixing that harm. That is what happens through the TAC. It is a bit different to other states. In New South Wales they do not have a monopoly running it, but nevertheless in Victoria we have a monopoly that runs it. I also expect that when motorists pay this fee through their registration, the legitimate claims that are made when an accident does happen – unfortunately accidents do happen – are paid out promptly and fairly to rectify whatever problem has happened. I do not doubt that in the majority of cases that is exactly what happens. But unfortunately sometimes there are problems for people either through dealing with the TAC itself or through dealing with the interactions between the TAC and other services such as the NDIS, which is also part of this motion. Many of these people have problems with things like claims that they feel are legitimate being denied or claims being challenged, which takes up a large amount of effort in what in many cases can be extremely traumatic circumstances or incidents. It can be that maybe they have a claim which is legitimate for a period of time but then, for reasons, the TAC decides that it is no longer going to pay out. Or in some cases it can be simply that someone is shuffled from case manager to case manager to case manager for a long period of time, and every time they need to explain their situation to the new case manager and this can be a problem.

This was brought to my attention by a group of people. Many of these people that have these problems feel alone and feel isolated. They feel distressed, they feel traumatised and they feel alone. What many of these people have done – as people do when they feel alone – is seek out others who might be in a similar situation to themselves. In fact that is what has happened: a group of people, some of whom are in the gallery with us today, decided to share their experiences with each other, and they decided to approach my office and ask for assistance. I met with them last week – my office had met with them earlier – to hear some of their stories. Some of their stories are indeed tragic and awful and you would not wish them on anyone. Firstly, there is the accident itself and people being involved in these accidents, but then there is the retraumatisation of having to go through these very difficult processes that have unfortunately happened.

I do not think that these sorts of things are insoluble. I think that it is possible through the format of an inquiry to air these problems, identify them and hopefully come up with recommendations – constructive recommendations – from the committee that the government and the TAC could potentially act on to improve this situation, stop this trauma that happens to people and make it easier for people who have legitimate claims. I think that this is a very worthy thing for the Legal and Social Issues Committee to be looking at, because I am convinced by this group that organised on social media. I am informed that there are over 180 people in this group – certainly a significant number of claimants.

I obviously have not gone through every one of their stories, but I have certainly heard enough to convince me that there is a problem worth looking at. So that is what I am asking this chamber to do – to refer it to an inquiry and to refer it to the committee.

There are also many people who are injured through accidents. These can cause lifelong disabilities, and of course that can mean that you end up with interactions with other services such as the NDIS, and something that has been brought to my attention is that interface between the state and federal government services. This is a common thing, especially in anything to do with health: you end up with these sorts of problems with the interface between federal and state government services. I think that it would be very worthwhile for Victoria to look at what these problems are, and maybe we can fix them. I would like to thank the government for their constructive approach on this with me. They have actually suggested some other federal and state government interfaces, and I believe the government will be moving amendments to that effect. I am supportive of this. I actually think that they are constructive amendments that identify other issues, and indeed we have socialised that with the group of people that we are working with, and they also agree that these are constructive amendments. So we do not object to expanding the scope of that at all, in fact we think it is a good thing.

Some of the other things that we have put in this motion are circumstances related to fraudulent claims. Unfortunately not all claims are legitimate; in fact there was a recent IBAC report about medical practitioners fraudulently making claims on the TAC. I do not think anyone in Victoria wants that. I think that is something else that the committee can look at, because we do not want funds of the TAC being drained and used for fraudulent purposes. I think everyone in Victoria would prefer that those funds and resources are used for legitimate claims for people who are victims of accidents – car accidents or other types of accidents.

I have spoken about the TAC before in the past, and maybe one thing that the committee might look at is the issue around capital repatriations. I am a motorist myself, as I guess most people are in here, and I think that most motorists, although they may not like paying their registration fee, feel that if they are paying for this insurance it should be used for that purpose. I think that the idea that registration would keep going up or legitimate claimants would not be paid out whilst the government is repatriating capital from that fund is not what we expected. I would expect that most motorists would think that if all of the legitimate claimants are being paid out and there are excess funds in there to cover projected future claims, then maybe those savings could be returned to motorists through a cheaper registration, but that is another issue altogether.

I think that with these stories of these people – and I would like to thank them for bringing this issue to my attention and sharing their stories with me and indeed bravely sharing some of these stories with the media also this morning – I will not detail their stories individually, but suffice to say that these are serious enough that I think they warrant investigation, and therefore I urge the members of this house to support this investigation into what I think is a very worthwhile and hopefully constructive act through which we can improve this system for Victorian motorists and victims of accidents.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (14:34): I am pleased to speak on motion 1252 brought my Mr Limbrick, and I thank Mr Limbrick for bringing this issue into this chamber. I would like to endorse his appreciation of those who have shared their stories as well. I share the concerns that it is important that this vital work of the Transport Accident Commission is done as effectively and efficiently as possible and with respect for the people making claims. The economic and social costs associated with road trauma make the issue of road safety a major concern for our community, and it certainly has been for decades. I think what we are increasingly starting to talk about is the further burden caused by complex systems and across different levels of government et cetera that can actually make the recovery process even more difficult than it already is.

As a regional MP the cost and social impact of car accidents is certainly of particular interest to me. The Victorian government’s lives lost summary for 2024 found that rural roads accounted for 50 per cent of our annual road deaths, even though only 24 per cent of Victorian drivers live in rural areas, and 36 per cent of serious injuries occurred in rural or regional areas. The work of the TAC for my electorate is incredibly important, and for all regional electorates. Much of the work also happens in my electorate because of the TAC being based in Geelong. In 2024–25 the TAC supported 43,255 clients and funded $1.87 billion in healthcare recovery supports and compensation to help Victorians injured in a transport accident get their lives back on track. The no-fault scheme is purposefully designed to ensure that it can provide care to injured Victorians for as long as they need it, from those with short-term needs to those who experience lifelong consequences from their accidents. Just as important is their work to prevent accidents happening in the first place. Again from a rural perspective, I am sure that many of us in this chamber will still vividly remember the very first early TAC television advertisements on road safety in the 1980s and 90s. The second of those ads featured a young driver on country roads with a group of friends, cheerful and distracted, and it showed an accident occurring – well, not the accident, of course.

The number of lives lost on our roads each year across Victoria is less than a third of what it was back in 1989, and the way they measure that is through deaths per 100,000 in population. In 1989 there were 18 deaths per 100,000 in the population, and in 2024 there were four deaths per 100,000 people. If you think of the number of deaths in 1989 and you consider how many more cars are on the road in 2024, that is why they measure it that way. The TAC’s work has been a major contributor to this. In fact the Victorian Transport Accident Commission has really led the way in road safety strategies. I think some of us remember the introduction of seatbelts in the late 1970s, and I think we were the first in the world to do that. Again, that was on an evidence base, and it has been proven that that works. These reducing figures of deaths per 100,000 are really result of a lot of work and a change in cultural attitudes across our entire community. We have all got a lot to be proud of, I suppose, in that regard.

In 2024–25 the TAC invested $11.8 million in sponsorship and community engagement activities to broaden its reach and promote road safety messaging through community-led avenues and voices. A number of these were in my region and across the entire state. The L2P program – most people would know about that program, I think – is a TAC-funded program. It matches learners from 16 to 21 years of age with a fully licensed volunteer driver, and they get to practice driving under supervision. Again this is another small contribution to the reduction. For young people, particularly in regional communities where they have no choice and they have to drive to work or to study, this has proven to be a really important program. There is sponsorship of different clubs as well. I think there has been sponsorship of AFL clubs, if I remember rightly too – maybe Richmond or Collingwood; I am not sure. Locally, participating clubs have been Port Fairy Football Netball Club, North Warrnambool Eagles Football Netball Club and Portland Football Netball Club, but there are many, many more.

Mr Berger, when he gets to speak, will be putting an amendment. It will not be me, but Mr Berger. This will broaden out the investigation to make sure that it looks at the cross-government approach. I think these conversations have been had between the different federal and state governments and also regarding that interaction with the NDIS. I think that is a really positive augmentation. I think there have been good discussions to make sure that that can happen.

The procedural burden for those navigating the system can be very stressful and lengthy. In this chamber, in this place right here, I have acknowledged the impact of the judicial system on survivors of sexual assault and family violence. It is almost just as bad, again, the judicial process, and I think this is a phenomenon that happens across sectors and across judicial systems and entities. I will be very interested to hear what the inquiry comes up with in that space, because I think the trend is for it to be more referred to as ‘system abuse’ – you know, does the system abuse further?

Just before I finish up, I want to say that I appreciate those that have been advocating in this space. As I said earlier this morning, not everybody can speak up. It can be very distressing. For those in a position to speak up and tell their story, that is very much appreciated by this chamber but also by the community of other people in similar situations who do not feel in a position to speak up for one reason or another.

In closing I thank Mr Limbrick for raising this issue and thank those that came to his office and raised the issue. I think it is a really important issue, and I am very interested in the outcome achieved through the inquiry as it progresses.

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:44): I am pleased to rise on Mr Limbrick’s motion 1252, a motion which I support and which requires the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into TAC claims, legitimate and disputed claims, fraud and intersections with other systems of government, including the NDIS. I think it is one of those edifying occasions where a community concern – an acute community concern – has found its way. We are not going to solve anything today, but we are at least making a constructive step, and you can see that the system actually works, to some degree, and that we can move things forwards.

In essence the TAC exists for a pretty specific set of purposes: to support Victorians injured on our roads to recover, to get treatment, to get care and to rebuild their lives. When the system works, it is one of the state’s most important institutions. When it fails, people who are already injured are forced into a second injury, a bureaucratic one.

An inquiry is warranted for three reasons. First, because the claims pathway increasingly looks like a system under strain, not only in volume but in conflict. Second, because fraud, while it may represent a small fraction of overall claims, corrodes trust and drives harder rules that punish honest people. Third, because the boundary between TAC supports and other schemes, particularly the NDIS, is complex enough that confusion becomes a cost in itself for injured Victorians, for providers and for taxpayers.

This motion is properly scoped in my view. It does not assume outcomes. It asks Parliament’s committee system to do what it is meant to do: examine how a system behaves in practice, where it fails and where reforms are required. I think that is a good thing. I think that is exactly the kind of pointed examination Council committee inquiries should seek to do. I know that we have something of an amendment, an incremental amendment, to the motion. We will get to that later, but I think that is a solid incremental amendment.

There are legitimate claims and disputed claims. The TAC itself acknowledges that people have multiple avenues when they disagree with a decision: complaints, internal reviews and dispute pathways. That is normal for any scheme. The question is whether those pathways are working as a fair and timely safety valve or whether they are now becoming a parallel system of friction within the system. The TAC’s annual reporting shows that the dispute load is material and rising. In 2024–25 TAC reported 2278 dispute applications lodged under the no-fault dispute resolution protocols, up from 1753 the year prior. That is a 30 per cent increase in a single year. For an injured person a dispute is not a number. It is time without certainty, time without treatment approvals, time without a plan. The annual report also shows a substantial volume of review activity. There were 583 requests for informal review in 2024–25. That is up by just under 100. It took an average of 62 days to resolve informal reviews. It also reports that the TAC’s original decision was maintained in 62 per cent of the informal review cases.

None of those figures prove wrongdoing, but they do prove something important. Dispute and review pathways are heavily used, and for many people the first decision is not the end of the matter. The committee inquiry should test in a sensible and evidence-led way what categories of claims are most likely to be disputed and what the main failure points are – evidence requirements, clinical reports, internal thresholds or inconsistent decision-making. Are the dispute pathways being used as intended to resolve issues quickly, or are they becoming a slow second lane of the system? Do delays in dispute resolution produce avoidable downstream costs – worse recovery, a longer time away from work and a greater need for care? That is not theoretical. If disputes are rising, and the stats say they are rising and increasing, Parliament has an obligation to understand why.

The second limb of this motion is fraud. Fraud exists in every compensation system. It is not the dominant story of the TAC, but it has an outside consequence because it shapes public confidence and drives higher compliance settings. Here the inquiry needs to be a little bit careful. The goal is not to inflate fraud or demonise claimants. The goal is to make sure the system can detect and deter fraud without increasing friction and suspicion for the honest. The TAC annual report provides some detail on fraud case load. As at 30 June 2025 it reported 22 matters before the courts alleging fraud of just over three-quarters of a million dollars, plus 15 matters where the prosecution was endorsed but not yet progressed representing another quarter of a million dollars. That is not good, but again this is not the dominant cost line of the scheme. But it is enough to justify some scrutiny of the systems and the incentives that allow fraud to occur and the systems that detect it, which is probably the most important thing.

The committee should examine where fraud occurs most often – claimant fraud, provider billing irregularities, organised fraud or weak controls; whether detection is proactive or reactive; how the TAC balances fraud control against claimant experience so the honest are not treated as suspects; and whether the system has proper information-sharing mechanisms with relevant agencies while respecting privacy. Fraud hardens systems. If we do not address it intelligently, the cost is not only a dollar cost but a trust loss, and the burden is almost inevitably shifted onto legitimate claimants.

The third limb of the interaction is the interaction with other services, particularly the NDIS, and the TAC itself states plainly that the NDIS does not change arrangements for Victorians injured in transport accidents. Compensation for transport accident injuries remains the responsibility of the TAC. That is the principle; in practice the boundary can still be very, very messy as to who funds what support and what happens when the person is on an NDIS plan – what recovery rules apply when accident compensation and disability supports overlap. Separately the National Disability Insurance Agency’s own guidance does attempt to make clear that where compensation is involved there can be recovery or adjustment mechanisms, but it is not simple, so the inquiry should look at where the most common gaps are and what the overlap boundaries are between them.

I have only got a couple of minutes left, so I am going to push forward a little bit. The state scheme is only sustainable if it retains public confidence, and public confidence depends on three things: legitimate claimants are treated fairly and disputes are resolved in a reasonable time; fraud is detected and deterred without punishing the innocent; and the boundaries with other systems do not create gaps, delays or cost shifting. The TAC’s own reporting tells us the system is dealing with substantial dispute volumes and complaints: 647 formal complaints a year – that is two a day. That is probably two too many a day. So it is not a criticism, it is a systems signal.

When a system touches tens of thousands of lives friction points matter, and if we ignore them, costs rise and legitimacy falls. At the end of the day when a compensation scheme becomes politically fragile, reforms tend to come in the form of blunt instruments with less nuance, tougher thresholds, narrower entitlements and longer delays. It lands equally on fraudsters and the honest – it lands on them both equally – which is not fair. The inquiry is the opposite of a blunt instrument; the inquiry is actually a precision tool, we can say. It is Parliament doing oversight before crisis and before bad policy, so it is good management.

We support the motion because it is responsible and proportionate. It does not assume the TAC is broken; it asks whether it is operating as it should across critical dimensions: legitimate claims and disputes; fraud; and system interactions, particularly with the NDIS. If the system is working well, an inquiry will validate that and strengthen confidence. If there are weaknesses – and many people believe there are – the inquiry will be the best way to identify reforms that protect injured Victorians and protect the sustainability of the scheme. For those reasons we will support Mr Limbrick’s motion.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (14:54): I rise on behalf of the Victorian Greens to speak in support of Mr Limbrick’s motion calling for an inquiry into the Transport Accident Commission. The Greens support this inquiry because we want to ensure that people who are injured in transport accidents are well supported in their medical care and their rehabilitation as well as provided with income support. It is important that all clients of the TAC are offered appropriate and timely care and resources, and we must ensure that the claims process is straightforward and patient focused.

As I am sure many of us in the chamber have, I have received a number of emails from people who are struggling to seek support currently through the TAC. There have been really concerning stories of the challenges that people are facing, and I thank them for contacting their representatives and for some of them being here today. People have mentioned having to fight every step of the way for their basic needs to be met or fight tooth and nail to secure and maintain basic support from the TAC. People have told us that having their claims denied has significantly impacted their ability to move beyond the trauma and the stress of the accident and has also contributed to hindering their recovery as well as prolonging distress and, in some cases, adding to trauma from the process itself.

These stories go on, and once again I want to thank people who have had the courage to persist and want to see a change not only for themselves but for future claimants under this scheme. We want to make sure that this is a scheme that completes its important role and continues to provide a service to the people of Victoria. That is a really important one. We want to see a system that is working for those who have endured transport accidents and for their families. We want a system that can identify and refuse fraudulent claims where those are occurring but also one that treats those who are coming in good faith with legitimate claims with the care and the respect that they deserve. I will conclude my remarks there. We are supportive of the motion and look forward to the issues that will be explored in the inquiry, and we commend the motion to the house.

 John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:57): I rise to speak on the motion to refer to the Legal and Social Issues Committee an inquiry into the TAC. Road trauma is something that no-one expects to affect them personally, but we know the profound impact it can have on individuals and communities. The Allan Labor government recognises the critical role played by the Transport Accident Commission, the TAC, in supporting every Victorian injured on our roads. Prior to entering this place, as many of you already know, I served as a branch secretary and national president of the Transport Workers’ Union. In those roles I worked across the transport sector with drivers, operators and logistics workers throughout Victoria and nationally. Transport workers, including truck drivers and couriers, spend long hours on Victoria’s road network. They are the most exposed to road accident risk. I closely worked with workers who had experienced serious transport accidents and were navigating recovery, compensation and return to work. That experience provided me a practical understanding of the importance of effective injury support systems, timely rehabilitation and strong road safety frameworks. I saw regularly how policy decisions relating to road safety enforcement and injury support intersected.

In this vein, whilst the government is very supportive of Mr Limbrick’s inquiry, we believe there is scope for the terms of reference to be strengthened. My amendments will ensure that the committee can consider a broader health disability ecosystem, which the TAC operates within, as well as provide opportunities for Victorians to advocate to the Commonwealth on actions that can ensure that all TAC clients receive the care and support they deserve. I ask for my amendments to be circulated to the chamber. I move:

1.   Before paragraph (1), after ‘Transport Accident Commission’, insert ‘(TAC)’.

2.   After paragraph (2), insert the following new paragraph:

‘(3) private provider discretion to set fees exceeding the Medicare Benefits Schedule rate;’.

3.   In paragraph (3) omit ‘Scheme.’ and insert the following in their place:

‘Scheme (NDIS), and how TAC clients have been impacted by federal reforms to:

(a) the National Disability Insurance Agency and the NDIS; and

(b) restrictions on health privacy and information sharing between state and federal agencies.’.

The TAC is a statutory authority established under Victorian legislation. It is responsible for supporting people injured in transport accidents and contributing to road safety initiatives aimed at preventing such injuries. In 2024–25 the TAC supported 43,255 clients and funded $1.87 billion in healthcare recovery support and compensation to help Victorians injured in transport accidents to get their lives back on track. The scheme covers drivers, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists and other road users. Eligibility and entitlements are determined in accordance with the Transport Accident Act 1986 and associated regulations. The powers of the TAC include the authority to assess claims, determine eligibility for benefits, fund medical and rehabilitation services and manage long-term care for individuals with serious injuries.

The scope of the TAC’s support is broad and encompasses a range of benefits. Early access to treatment and coordinated support is a large component of the TAC improving long-term outcomes for injured workers. The TAC works with healthcare providers, rehabilitation specialists and employees to support recovery and, where possible, facilitate return to work. This focus reflects an understanding that recovery encompasses not only physical healing but also social and economic participation.

The TAC was established with the passing of the Transport Accident Act 1986, with operations commencing in 1987 under a Victorian Labor government, instigating a shift towards a no-fault compensation system for transport accident injuries in Victoria. The creation of the TAC introduced a more structured and accessible system designed to provide support regardless of fault, promoting rehabilitation and recovery. The move to a no-fault system reflected the policy objective of ensuring that individuals injured in transport accidents would have timely access to medical treatment and financial support, purposefully designed to ensure that it can take care of Victorians for as long as they need it from those with short-term needs to those who experience lifelong consequences. The introduction sought to reduce uncertainty for injured persons while also improving efficiency and predictability within the compensation system.

Despite significant advances in vehicle safety and road design over recent decades, road trauma continues to have a profound impact. Forty-three lives were lost on Victorian roads last year and many thousands more individuals sustained serious injuries requiring medical treatment, rehabilitation or ongoing support. These figures underscore the importance of both prevention and effective recovery support. Prevention forms a significant component of the TAC’s work. The TAC develops and delivers public education campaigns addressing high-risk behaviours such as speeding, drink and drug driving and driver distraction. It also contributes to research, data analysis and initiatives aimed at reducing road trauma across the state. The TAC works in partnership with transport agencies, law enforcement and community organisations as part of Victoria’s broader road safety strategy. This collaborative approach recognises that reducing road trauma requires a coordinated action across multiple sectors. The number of lives lost on Victorian roads each year is less than a third of what it was back in 1989. Victoria now has one of the best road safety records in the world.

Since its establishment nearly four decades ago, the TAC has evolved in response to change, community expectations, medical practice and transport patterns. In 2024–25 the TAC implemented a range of programs to support improved client outcomes. The injury support program was piloted in a partnership with Honeysuckle Health designed to complement the client’s existing treatment and support by applying values-based healthcare principles to deliver better outcomes. It addresses barriers to recovery and gaps in care, providing proactive, evidence-based care coordination while building a client’s capacity to self-navigate the health system. As of June last year, more than 700 clients have completed the program, reporting improved recovery outcomes and high satisfaction levels. Administrative and digital improvements have been implemented to streamline claims processes, improve accessibility and enhance communication with claimants. A new client connect service was implemented in November 2024, with the aim of improving client outcomes through TAC’s phone channel. As a result, real-time feedback scores from clients improved from 6.9 to eight out of 10. Eighty-four per cent of clients reported that their claims adviser demonstrated a clear understanding of their needs.

The TAC also invests in a range of programs to achieve the best client outcomes, including more than $700,000 in grants to improve autonomy and healthcare outcomes for patients after a transport accident and to improve the lives of TAC clients and Victorians living with a disability. The TAC has powers relating to the collection and management of funds required to sustain the scheme. These powers are exercised within the legislative framework set by Parliament and are subject to established review and oversight mechanisms. Funding for the TAC scheme is derived primarily from compulsory charges included in vehicle registration in Victoria. These funds are directed into the transport accident scheme and used to meet both current and future liabilities.

The TAC has an obligation to review all requests for treatment and benefits for liability, reasonableness and whether it is clinically appropriate. Because of this, the TAC relies on cooperation and information from a range of external agencies and health professionals such as hospitals, doctors, allied health providers and federal agencies, including the National Disability Insurance Agency, NDIA, and Medicare.

This means that claim decisions can be affected by factors outside the TAC’s control. This may cause delays to occur due to incomplete or missing documentation and the need for additional clinical advice for highly complex cases.

Many private providers also continue to charge well above the Medicare benefits schedule, leading to TAC clients receiving medical bills above the TAC’s rate, which aligns with the MBS. The TAC is actively working to improve the flow of information between clients and providers; however, recent federal reforms to the national disability scheme and the health information sharing and privacy rules impact the TAC’s ability to best support their clients. My amendments seek to empower the committee to consider the broad range of federal health and disability reforms impacting on TAC’s ability to support Victorians injured in a transport accident in a timely and efficient manner.

TAC makes around 9000 decisions every month relating to client services support requests. Seventy per cent of these decisions are made within 10 business days. I wish to also note I have carefully read the emails I have received from my constituents in my community of Southern Metro, and I acknowledge those views and experiences that have been shared with my office. Public safety, specifically on our roads and transport networks, remains a matter that I hold with high importance. I appreciate those in my community taking the time to reach out to me and share their stories. The Allan Labor government has committed to deliver actions towards Victoria’s long-term road safety, and with that I will conclude my remarks.

 Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:06): I also rise to support Mr Limbrick’s motion requiring the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into TAC claims, including legitimate and disputed claims, fraud and interactions with other systems such as the NDIS. Having had this as part of my portfolio a couple of years ago, I know how important the work of the Transport Accident Commission is but also that this is a particular area in which we have a surplus of funds. The Transport Accident Commission is not merely another statutory authority, it is a lifeline for Victorians that are injured on our roads. For thousands of Victorians the TAC provides stability after trauma, funding for rehabilitation, medical care, income support and long-term assistance. This profound responsibility demands the highest standards of integrity, transparency and accountability – standards that are currently under question.

The TAC is funded by compulsory premiums paid by Victorians when they pay their motor registration. It is a social insurance scheme built on trust that legitimate claimants will be supported, fraud will be pursued and the system will operate efficiently. Today I want to focus on three critical dimensions: legitimate claims and disputes; fraud; and system interactions, noting that this is inclusive of the use of the NDIS.

On legitimate claims and disputes, for those with spinal injuries, traumatic brain injuries or life-changing injuries, the TAC is central to recovery, yet concerns persist about delays in approvals, growing administrative burdens, disputes and the need for legal intervention to access entitlements. The scale of injury highlights the importance of a responsive system. In the 12 months to June 2025, for instance, 296 people lost their lives on Victorian roads – a 3.1 per cent increase from the previous year; and 279 fatal crashes occurred – 14 more than the prior year. For serious injuries requiring hospitalisation in the 12 months to December 2024, there were 5299 TAC claimants that were admitted within seven days of a crash – a 4 per cent decrease from the prior year; and 675, at 12.7 per cent, stayed more than 14 days – up from the previous year. Every delay provides risks for poorer recovery outcomes and higher long-term costs. The purpose of the TAC is recovery, not resistance.

In terms of the fraud and scheme integrity, fraud by claimants, providers or organised networks threatens the scheme’s sustainability. Allegations of improper billing or exaggerated services must be investigated transparently.

Fraud diverts funds from genuinely injured Victorians. It can lead to an increase in premiums for motorists, and it erodes public confidence. In the TAC’s annual report there is some detail on its fraud caseload, with figures as at 30 June 2025:

Throughout 2024–25, the following enforcement action was taken:

•   Seven prosecutions that were finalised through the Magistrates Court resulted in a finding of guilt. A total restitution amount of $300,326 was awarded to the TAC.

•   At the end of the financial year, 22 matters remained before the courts, with the TAC alleging fraud against the scheme totalling $785,377.

•   There were 15 matters where prosecution was endorsed and yet to be progressed within the courts, totalling $254,541.

•   There was one matter related to a TAC client wanted on warrant with charges yet to be served. The total fraud amount outstanding is $27,373.

•   In cases that did not meet the prosecution threshold, 33 warning letters were sent for breaches of the Transport Accident Act 1986, which related to fraud and clients providing false information to the TAC.

Robust auditing, clinical oversight and enforcement are essential, but anti-fraud measures must not create unnecessary hurdles for legitimate claimants. Suspicion should never outweigh support for those genuinely in need.

In terms of system interactions, particularly with the NDIS, the interface between the TAC and the NDIS is increasingly complex. Issues include cost shifting between schemes, delays due to judicial disputes, duplication of assessments and participants caught between systems. The TAC is a no-fault accident scheme; the NDIS is a disability support framework. Without clear coordination, injured Victorians face confusion, delays and uncertainty. Effective collaboration requires clear responsibilities, transparent cost sharing, streamlined assessments and coordinated participant experience. These three dimensions – claims, fraud and system interaction – are central to the TAC’s sustainability. Delayed claims worsen recovery and costs. Unaddressed fraud raises premiums and erodes trust. Poor system coordination drives inefficiency and undue stress. The TAC must remain financially sound, operationally independent, transparent and focus strictly on its statutory purpose. Motorists pay their registration premiums in good faith and expect that funds support injured Victorians and prevent road trauma – nothing more, nothing less. Safeguarding legitimate claims, preventing fraud without harming the innocent and ensuring seamless system interaction preserves the TAC’s integrity, and Victorians deserve nothing less.

Before I finish up, the question must be asked as to whether Victorian motorists are getting value for their hard-earned dollar, especially when premiums costs are increasing during a time of cost-of-living hardship. I think it is important to remind the Allan Labor government that this is not its own personal piggy bank or cash cow to fund other government desires. What is more, after visiting over the summer parts of regional Victoria where my colleagues Mrs McArthur, Dr Heath, Mrs Broad and others in this chamber are from I could see firsthand what many of my colleagues in the opposition say about regional Victoria’s road safety issues. I can say that even as I drive around in parts of the South-Eastern Metropolitan Region which I represent there is more money that needs to be spent to keep Victorians safe on our roads.

With that, I want to finish up and say that this is an important motion. We do need to have this inquiry. I stand in support of Mr Limbrick noting that the TAC needs to be looked into. We need to be keeping our eyes on what is going on, and we need to do what is fair and right and reasonable for Victorians who need to access that money and access it in a hurry.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:14): I am very pleased to rise to speak on Mr Limbrick’s motion seeking a referral to the Legal and Social Issues Committee of the Council to make inquiries into the operation of claims made through the Transport Accident Commission, including around claims processing, fraud and, because of the nature of the scheme and what it provides, how it interacts with other schemes that provide other forms of insurance, including the national disability insurance scheme.

Obviously we know that road trauma has significant impacts on those who are affected. Successive governments in the state of Victoria have taken a range of often, at times, world-leading measures to reduce the harm from road trauma, and at its core the Transport Accident Commission has an incredibly important dual function of both supporting prevention of further harm but then also providing, through the insurance principles at the heart of the scheme, support to those who do find themselves harmed and injured as a result of accidents on our roads. The advent of the Transport Accident Commission and the TAC insurance model here in the state of Victoria has provided an incredibly important piece of support through the insurance scheme that underpins the TAC and provides assistance with a range of costs, including but not limited to medical, rehabilitation and other support services, and is an exceptionally important part of the social safety net of supports that exists in the state. I think we should recognise that the principles that underpin the TAC, providing that sort of no-fault insurance arrangement, are really important to our community, and they are valuable and should be valued because of the reassurance that they should provide to those who are injured and the capacity that they provide us collectively to ensure that supports are available.

I think that one of the reasons that we know that the TAC is so important is that road trauma is something that we hope will never happen to us and that many of us think will never happen to us, but the reality of our lives is that we spend a lot of time on and around roads and that accidents happen as a result of being transported around on our roads, which is critical. There is a cost to the individual, but there are broader economic and social costs associated with road trauma, and the insurance model that underpins the TAC is an important part of addressing that. Reductions in road trauma, reductions in death by road trauma but also reductions in serious and other injury by road trauma are important parts of keeping our whole society and our whole community healthier and safe, and the efforts to reduce, particularly the lives lost on our roads, have been considerably successful over the course of a generation. Whilst it is an ongoing task and we have got to get towards that zero figure, we have made significant progress.

In underlining the importance of the TAC as a no-fault insurance scheme, we cannot ever be blind to the issues that emerge in its administration. It would be foolhardy of us to expect that in every circumstance, in every instance, an insurance scheme, even one that is as valuable and important to us as the TAC, acts and treats every individual with the kind of care, support and respect that individuals deserve. It is a good scheme, but it is not always perfect. I think what Mr Limbrick, in sending this proposed terms of reference for an inquiry to the Legal and Social Committee, is really attempting to do is for us collectively, as members of this place, is to examine ways that we can understand where the fault points are in the no-fault scheme and figure out how we can improve them, both on the claims-processing and claims-handling side, to ensure that those individuals who suffer trauma and do have legitimate claims are given the support they need in a timely manner, and that it is adequate support, but also that the system is robust enough to have sufficient protections against fraud, misuse and abuse.

Over the course of the scheme there have been some very notable examples of where, unfortunately, people who seek to make personal gain out of collective good have taken advantage of the scheme. There is always a task for the TAC to ensure that fraud is not part of the scheme. We have seen some particularly high-profile cases in the past where significant action has been taken to address practices that have undermined the integrity of the scheme.

Mr Berger, on behalf of the government, has moved some amendments relating to a range of matters, particularly where the TAC is funding medical costs. A large part of the support that the TAC provides to victims of road trauma is with assistance in their medical costs so that the cost of road trauma is borne by the contributions paid into the insurance scheme by road users rather than solely having to be paid for by the public health system and the public hospital system in particular, funded out of consolidated revenue. That means, however, that obviously there are interactions between the way that the Transport Accident Commission operates and how those other funding arrangements for health care work. In particular what Mr Berger’s amendments to this set of proposed terms of reference seek to do is examine a little further some of those interactions, particularly with those on Medicare benefit schedules and rates. They also, particularly on the claims handling side, seek to examine the interaction on a range of health privacy and personal privacy information and how that operates between Commonwealth and state and the impacts on TAC clients of changes being made to the national disability insurance scheme. I think that it is very clear that at a systems level this is a set of quite complex interactions that can exist and can operate. You have got state-based insurance models that provide benefits largely in the healthcare and rehabilitation spaces. Then you have got their interaction with how the public hospital system works, funded by the state health department, and the role of the federally funded Medicare benefits schedule and federally funded, now, disability insurance services. They are complex systems, and their interaction in particular is something that will be important for this inquiry to get to.

At its core, what I hope comes out of this inquiry – and I am sure this is what is at the core of motivating Mr Limbrick and others – is to make sure that the experience of those who need to rely on the TAC because they have been injured on our roads is a high-quality one, one that is free from unnecessary administrative burden and one that is free from unnecessary and burdensome interactions that traumatise victims. I know that there will be quite a lot of work in there. The TAC is a very important part of our system of care in this state, and I commend the motion.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:24): I rise as well to support Mr Limbrick’s motion, which requires the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into, consider and report on issues related to claims made through the TAC. I just want to start by stating the obvious about why this matters so much and why we need to get this right. I think, unfortunately, just about every one of us has been touched in some way, shape or form by road trauma. One of my most vivid memories as a child was hearing my dad talk about his brother dying in a car accident. It is like life was just going one way and then it just changed in the blink of an eye. It absolutely gutted his life and sent it in a different direction.

[NAMES AWAITING VERIFICATION]

I remember, as a young teenager during the school holidays, my friends were coming home from their caravanning trip and one of them did not make it home, Justine, and her sister Libby has lived with incredible and horrific injuries ever since. Life has never been the same. I remember hearing my aunt talk about how she was in a car accident with her mother. She walked away and she is okay, but she never got to grow up with her mum.

I just want to put on the record exactly why these things matter and why it is important to look into and inquire into how this system is working, because your life can be heading in a certain direction one day and then you might need life-changing care or help the next. That is something that we must get right. I think it is a core business of government to try to keep our citizens safe, and that includes having decent roads, decent road maintenance and investment into our road system, because that is the state’s biggest asset. The biggest asset is not our hospitals, not our stadiums, not any of these things; it is our road system, and it is one that is failing at the moment.

At a time when there are rising complaints, rising disputes and unfortunately a rising road toll, the government has ripped $900 million out of the TAC over two years. That is not because the situation is getting better. They have not ripped that $900 million out because the roads are safer than they were before. No, the roads are worse than they were before. They have not ripped that money out because there are less people getting killed on the roads than before. No, in fact that is not the case. And they have not ripped it out because there are less disputes and complaints. No, that is not the case. The reason they ripped it out over two years was to give the illusion of a budget surplus, and I believe this is something that needs to change. I think the government has ripped money out of this area to give the illusion of a budget surplus. They have put in one of the most crippling taxes, the emergency services and volunteer tax, that they had to do to cover up a mess of a budget. This just has to stop happening, because when the government cannot manage money it is everyday Victorians that pay the price and it is things like this that begin to fail.

The Labor government has drained the TAC surplus for budget repair purposes rather than reinvesting it into road safety and keeping lower premiums. Victoria recorded 295 road deaths in 2023. That is 295 stories like my friend Justine, whose family has never been the same, and like my friend Libby, whose life has never been the same and who never went on to achieve her childhood dreams because of road trauma. It is devastating to see that number. Even though there was the highest road toll in 15 years, sadly, the road toll has remained elevated ever since. The TAC’s mission includes reducing road trauma. It invests nearly $100 million annually into marketing and road safety campaigns. It invests this amount because it has a goal of reducing road fatalities by half by 2030. That is four years away – to reduce them by half. Unfortunately the trajectory is going backwards. It is going the other way.

I am going to use this time, as a regional MP, to talk about the state of our roads in the regions. It is not bad here. It is probably a balance of infuriating and entertaining when city MPs talk about the state of their roads.

I think maybe they should, as Mrs McArthur would say, get outside the tram tracks and see what the rest of the world is like. The reality is that chronic underfunding of road maintenance has contributed to the elevated road toll and the TAC’s infrastructure contributions have been completely insufficient to compensate for that. I just want to put a few things on record because this is a very important issue, and it is important because at the end of this issue there are human lives, and that is exactly why we have to get this right. We want to reduce road accidents and we want to be able to make sure that if that situation has not been avoided, people that are involved in road accidents and are involved in road trauma receive the care, the support and the assistance that they need. Whether that is the medical care they need or whether it is the in-home support and adaptations that they need for their house, we want to make sure that those things are covered. I commend this motion to the house.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (15:31): Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise and make a contribution on this motion brought forth by Mr Limbrick regarding a proposed inquiry into the Transport Accident Commission. At the outset of my contribution I would like to acknowledge and thank the many people who have taken the time to reach out to my office to share their personal stories of recovery and trauma and their interactions with the TAC. These stories are often deeply personal and serve as a vital reminder of why we must ensure that our support systems are as robust and efficient as possible.

No-one thinks road trauma will happen to them, but we know the horrible and often permanent impact it can have on individuals, their loved ones and the entire community. Just this year so far 33 people have lost their lives on the road, and last year 290. It is because of this impact that our government recognises the vital work performed by the TAC in supporting every Victorian injured on our roads. The TAC’s no-fault scheme is designed purposely to ensure care is available for as long as it is needed, whether that is for short-term recovery or for those facing lifelong consequences following an accident. The scale of this support should not be overlooked. In the 2024–25 financial year alone the TAC supported over 43,000 clients and funded over $1.8 billion in health care, recovery supports and compensation. This funding represents a direct investment in helping injured Victorians get their lives back on track. From the hardworking staff down in Geelong to the various providers across the state, the focus remains squarely on the best possible support for those impacted by road trauma.

Beyond individual support, the TAC holds the unique and vital role in also promoting road safety. The economic and social costs associated with road trauma are major concerns for the community, and rightly so, because preventing crashes does more than just save lives, it significantly reduces injuries and provides savings to Victorians. Its record is clear: the number of lives lost on Victorian roads each year is now less than a third of what it was back in the late 1980s. This progress is due in part to the TAC’s ongoing commitment to education, community engagement and the reduction in road trauma. It is thanks to that work that Victoria now has one of the best road safety records in the world and that every year thousands of Victorians receive life-changing support.

This government will support this inquiry, and we believe it provides an important opportunity to examine the broader health and disability ecosystem in which the TAC operates. Our proposed amendments, which I believe were moved by Mr Berger earlier in the debate, seek to empower the Legal and Social Issues Committee to investigate how federal health and disability reforms are impacting the TAC’s ability to support Victorians in a timely and efficient manner. The TAC, as is known, is a state-owned enterprise funded through the transport accident charge collected via Victorian vehicle registrations. As such, it has a clear obligation to ensure that all requests for treatment and benefits are viable, reasonable and clinically appropriate. To do this effectively the TAC relies on cooperation and information sharing with a range of external agencies. These include hospitals, doctors and federal bodies like Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Agency.

We know that recent federal reforms to the NDIS and changes to health information sharing and privacy rules are currently impacting the TAC’s ability to support its clients. When decisions are delayed, it is often due to factors outside of the TAC’s control, such as incomplete documentation or the need for additional clinical advice in some really highly complex cases. On top of this, we are concerned that many private providers continue to set fees well above the MBS, or the Medicare benefits schedule, and their assigned rates. This leads to TAC clients receiving medical bills that exceed the TAC’s funded rate, which is aligned with the Medicare benefits schedule. This inquiry will provide a platform for Victoria to advocate to the Commonwealth for actions that ensure that all TAC clients receive the care and support they deserve without facing unreasonable and often very damaging financial gaps.

It is also important to highlight that the TAC has implemented several innovative programs to improve client outcomes. We have seen the pilot of the injury support program, which applies value-based healthcare principles to coordinate proactive, evidence-based care, and it is designed to complement a client’s existing treatment and support and to address barriers to recovery and gaps in care, while building their capacity to self-navigate the health system. As of June last year more than 700 clients have completed the project. We have also seen the introduction of the Client Connect service, which has improved the TAC’s phone channel responsiveness. Additionally, there are trials of proactive approaches to joint medical examinations, which have allowed the TAC to make decisions up to six months faster in some cases, while collectively saving over $800,000 in fees. This scale-up of the restorative justice program has also provided a pathway for healing and closure for those affected by road trauma, with 101 client referrals recorded by mid-2025. The TAC continues to invest in a broad range of programs aimed at ensuring the very best client outcomes, including with more than $700,000 in grants dedicated to improving autonomy and healthcare results for patients following a transport accident, as well as improving the lives of Victorians living with a disability.

It is because of these investments that the TAC is reporting significant performance improvement through the financial year 2024–25, including, very pleasingly, a reduction in client wait times for decisions on complex matters, such as surgery requests, by up to six weeks. The commission has recently reduced duplication for 40 clients per month through an improved referral process and has decreased the effort required to manage dispute resolution by 40 per cent. But there is still more work to be done, and that is why I join with other members in this chamber in welcoming this inquiry. You see, in addition to direct client support, the TAC’s investment in community safety is essential. In 2024–25 the TAC invested $11.8 million in sponsorship and community engagement to promote road safety messaging. Another $3.5 million was awarded in grants to local governments, clubs and local organisations that target safety-on-the-roads initiatives. These include the popular club rewards programs, which work with local football and netball clubs across the state to raise awareness about the dangers of driving while fatigued, speeding and drink and drug driving.

The TAC’s commitment to integrity is also important. Appropriate and compliant billing practices are critical to protecting the public revenue and ensuring that payments are correctly made to eligible clients and providers. While the TAC does have robust controls to identify billing irregularities, it is worth acknowledging that in reality some providers may deliberately attempt to defraud the system. The forensic group at the TAC monitor payments daily, and they take appropriate enforcement and recovery steps whenever noncompliant invoices are discovered. Specifically regarding surgeon billing, the TAC is currently working with the Department of Health to reform how services are funded in Victorian public health services. You see, this reform is a direct crackdown on noncompliant billing by individual providers. It is not a reflection on the high quality of clinical care provided by the vast, vast majority of medical professionals who bill appropriately, rather it is about ensuring these funds are used ethically and responsibly.

The range of supports in fact provided by the TAC under the act is extensive. Any Victorian injured on our roads can apply for assistance with medical treatment, ambulance transport, allied health and mental health services. Support extends to family members for travelling and counselling as well as home modifications, income support and return-to-work services. The TAC even funds driving modifications, education support and specialised rehabilitation programs like pain management. I would like to reiterate the story shared by those affected by road trauma and that they reinforce the need for a system that is delivering the very best possible care, transparency and equitability. By supporting this inquiry and these amendments, we are ensuring that the TAC can continue to provide life-changing support that Victorians depend on while navigating a complex and changing federal landscape.

I again thank Mr Limbrick for bringing this motion before us calling for this important inquiry. I join with others in commending this motion to the house with the amendments as tabled earlier by Mr Berger.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:41): I am also pleased to speak on this motion, which has been put for us today by Mr Limbrick. It is a certainly an important topic, and I do thank him for bringing it to the chamber’s attention. It is a topic that we have discussed many times in this place when it comes to road trauma, and I think it is probably timely that we do have an inquiry along the lines that is being proposed into the TAC. We have come a long way from the staggeringly high levels of road trauma in the 1970s, but that is of course cold comfort to the many thousands of people who are still faced with the tragic consequences of road trauma, fatalities or injuries in our state each and every day.

As of the last financial year, I understand that the TAC had an active rota of 43,255 clients, and just in the financial year before that alone, 5617 people were injured on our roads in Victoria and required support through the TAC. It is a very important body because it does provide that guarantee of care to everybody and anybody who is injured on our roads, and it is important that it is part of, for example, the registration payments or other various costs that we all pay each year so that we can have that system that guarantees that cover for everyone.

I do want to acknowledge as well that there has been a large number of people who have been advocating for this inquiry, and I want to thank them for raising their concerns in this place through Mr Limbrick. I also want to thank them and acknowledge them for reaching out to, I presume, all of us, but I have received a number of emails from many people. I have not yet had the chance to respond to each of them, but I have read each and every one of them over the past few nights, and each and every one of these cases is a very troubling story. As Mr Limbrick said in his opening remarks, this is not to say that every case before the TAC has issues, but there are certainly a large number of people who are having great hardship with their approach and what they have found as an outcome of dealing with this scheme. So, as with any scheme, it is appropriate that from time to time we do take a bit more of a step back and do a full appraisal of it – look at what is working of course too, but in particular look at what is not working, what can work better and what we can do to make it work better.

For me, apart from supporting constituents in various cases, I have not had a great deal of interaction with the TAC, and not in my previous life. However, in my previous life as a union organiser, I was in near constant contact with the WorkCover scheme, and I do see some parallels – though of course circumstances are different – with representing my members who were dealing with issues, be it with case managers, case managers changing or in some cases not getting back to people for extended periods, being unaware of appointments, being let down by the system and falling through the cracks. In the same way that I could very easily identify hundreds of issues at that time with the WorkCover system, there are no doubt countless examples that we have now seen in the TAC. With that parallel in mind I am very much alive to the fact that when these issues happen, it is not just as simple as saying, ‘Oh well, this was missed. I will get back to this or try and fix this another way.’ These have or can have profound impacts on people’s lives – not just on their recovery but on their emotional and mental wellbeing as well.

For people in WorkCover and people in TAC, in some cases the determination or the success or otherwise of a particular small decision, or what might be a regular or routine decision for case managers, no doubt many if not most of whom are exceedingly professional, a particular outcome of what to one person might be a routine or mundane decision can have life-changing and profound effects on others. So it is important that we take that step back to examine this properly.

I do want to acknowledge those people who have reached out to me and I know no doubt to others as well and those who have engaged in this process and who are attending the Parliament today. I also note that for many people, whether it is an issue with TAC or WorkCover or another service that they have dealt with, often when they come into this place with these issues they are rightly seeking for it to be fixed for themselves or for their loved ones, but so often we see that they are actually bringing it in to be fixed for the next people who will have to deal with it. It would be great if we could go back and retrospectively fix these things, but we cannot always do that. But what we can do is be better, is to learn, is to learn from people’s experiences and to listen when people talk to us and to use that to inform better outcomes for others in the future. I sincerely hope that that is what this inquiry will achieve.

As has been touched on by Ms Watt and I understand by previous speakers as well, my colleague Mr Berger in this place moved some amendments earlier today, and I will also be supporting those amendments, in particular as they relate to the TAC’s relationships with the federal scheme, whether it is Medicare or whether it is with the NDIS, which of course was not a scheme when the TAC was established. It is much, much more recent. We need to be ensuring that where there are those multi-agency approaches to cases people are not falling through those cracks, and there will no doubt be things in that relationship that we can look at and I am sure recommend to the TAC that they do their job better in managing that relationship. I am quite sure there will be some things that we will identify that will be the responsibility of those federal agencies or others outside the remit of state government to be fixing. Even if we cannot make that direct recommendation to government, we can certainly highlight and put sunlight on that issue so that that can inform government’s advocacy or indeed the Parliament’s advocacy to our federal colleagues for them to fix those issues as well. Having that holistic approach I think is very important, and I welcome those amendments.

As a member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee I understand that I will be one of the ones diving into this issue, and I am very much looking forward to it. It is a very important issue. I will note – and I have flagged my concerns privately with this too – that I do believe that the appropriate committee for this referral is actually the Economy and Infrastructure Committee. It is that committee that previously did an inquiry into a bill amending the WorkCover scheme in this term. Many committee schedules are already very full, and I understand that there is a need to find a way to get this through, but I think perhaps it is a discussion for the next or for a future Parliament to be considering the demarcation or the break-up between these committees to ensure that we are doing them as evenly and as appropriately as possible. Nevertheless, the proposal in the motion that is before us today is for the Legal and Social Issues Committee to look into it, and irrespective of the technicalities of whether we are the right committee or not, fundamentally this is an important inquiry that in my view, from the conversations that I have had and certainly from the emails that I have read over the past few days, clearly should take place by whatever committee should do so irrespective of the original intention of that committee.

I do wish to again acknowledge and thank Mr Limbrick for bringing this to the chamber. And again, for those people who have raised this to the Parliament, as a member of that committee I certainly hope that we can do our best for you, in the limited time that we do have this year of course, to make some substantive and substantial recommendations to further improve and reform the TAC.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:49): I would like to thank everyone that contributed to this debate today: Ms Ermacora, Mr Welch, Ms Copsey, Mr Berger, Mrs Hermans, Mr Batchelor, Dr Heath, Ms Watt and Mr Galea. In particular I would like to thank Mr Berger for putting forward these amendments. I think that these are very worthwhile and legitimate expansions of the scope of the terms of reference for the inquiry, and I think that these are good things.

I would also like to very much thank the people that have brought this issue to my attention. Members of Parliament would be very aware of the fact that when people approach MPs’ offices, sometimes they are at the end of the line. They have gone through all of the other channels and now they seek political action. But I think what is commendable, as Mr Galea has pointed out, is that these people are not just trying to solve their own problems. My belief is that they want to solve these problems for future people so that other people who are unfortunate enough to be involved in car accidents, have some sort of road trauma and become claimants can have an experience that is as good as it can possibly be.

It is in the interests of all Victorians that this scheme has the confidence of the public. It is in the interests of motorists who pay the insurance that covers this, and it is in the interests of everyone that the scheme is run efficiently, that the experience of claimants is as good as possible, that it is financially prudent and that fraud, whether it is on a provider or claimant side, is minimised to the maximum extent possible. I am glad that the committee will have the opportunity to look at these issues. I look forward to taking part in that committee as a participating member when this inquiry goes ahead.

Amendments agreed to; amended motion agreed to.