Tuesday, 25 August 2026

 Joe McCRACKEN (Western Victoria) (13:28): Pursuant to standing order 23.22, I table the report on the inquiry into claims made through the Transport Accident Commission, including an appendix, from the Legal and Social Issues Committee, and I present the transcripts of evidence. I move:

That the transcripts of evidence be tabled and the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

Joe McCRACKEN: I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

I think one of the most powerful aspects of this report is that it gives voice to the people that have had many significant challenges when dealing with the TAC in various circumstances. We as a committee heard some incredibly compelling and heartfelt and sometimes distressing evidence given about experiences that people had had with the TAC, and to every witness that appeared and to every person that made a submission: I want to thank you, because it was worth it. I also want to acknowledge the committee staff, who did an excellent job assisting the committee to do their work. Particularly I want to pay tribute to Mr Limbrick, who was the original mover of the motion to establish the inquiry. So thank you, Mr Limbrick, and indeed all the members of the committee, including Mr Galea, who is in the chamber as well.

I want to draw people to some parts of the report that I think are quite pertinent. Finding 3 talks about the TAC having mutual clients with other service providers at state and federal level, including the NDIS. The report certainly talks a lot about the interface between those two organisations and quite a lot of the challenges that have been experienced as well, and navigating that system was incredibly difficult for a lot of people. Finding 9 talks about the complexity of the administrative requirements of the TAC compensation scheme, and it increases proportionately as the complexity of a person’s situation increases. For some people – for example, those that have had brain injuries – it is a burden that they have found incredibly challenging to deal with, and so there was discussion about the supports and the adequacy of the supports that are in place to help someone navigate that process.

Medical service providers who do not take on TAC clients listed the extensive administrative requirements that the scheme has as a major reason for not taking on those clients. That is at finding 15, and that was an incredibly important part of the inquiry as well. It goes on at finding 20 to talk about TAC clients in regional areas finding it incredibly difficult to have access to services when a lot of those services are not provided. With a lot of the operators there might only be one or two in a small regional town, and if they do not want to provide a service through the TAC, then you get nothing. So it is a gap that exists, and it is real.

Finding 22 states:

Complex legal, insurance and administrative processes can be overwhelming, confusing and distressing for TAC clients …

It was even found that that can add secondary trauma. That is significant as well, and a lot of the witnesses that we heard from explained that very clearly.

Recommendation 6 is:

That the Victorian Government review surviving spouse and legal guardian payments in the situation where a child is orphaned and a new guardian is appointed.

It was such a sad story that we heard, but it is a very real story and a situation that we would never wish on anyone. I hope that when the government take on this report they give serious consideration to that particular aspect.

Recommendation 7 is:

That the TAC review its current claims management process to identify ways of constantly improving the disability‑centred and trauma‑informed practices …

I think that is a huge one as well, because a lot of witnesses came forward and said they found dealing with the TAC a huge, huge challenge. To be fair, that was a large proportion of the submissions that were put forward. I really do hope that this inquiry makes a difference to those in government that read it and they take it upon themselves to implement some of the recommendations that have been put in this report. We would never wish for someone to have to deal with the TAC, but when they do, we would hope that they are supported in every possible way they can be so their recovery is assisted so they can get back on with living their lives. We hope that this report can help people to do that.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (13:34): I am pleased to rise to share a few words on this, and I welcome the tabling of this report today. At the outset I would like to also acknowledge our chair Mr McCracken for measuredly and studiously guiding us through this inquiry and acknowledge all other committee members, including Mr Limbrick, whose initiative it was for us to do this inquiry, and the very hardworking staff with Patrick O’Brien and his team. This was an opportunity to look at the TAC through a couple of snapshots, the first being through the macro lens. We did receive a large amount of evidence about the TAC’s role, whether it be in terms of catering to more than 40,000 cases and claims on an ongoing basis each year or some of the work that is being done, such as the TAC protocols, which do show some promise in avoiding some of those more protracted and litigated disputes where they occur. It is also good to acknowledge that the TAC’s proactive engagement with our committee certainly assisted us, and in terms of some of the reforms that they signalled to their client management systems, we very much look forward to seeing them and the effects that they will have.

Very importantly, as the chair was pointing to, this is also an opportunity to look at the scheme at the individual level, and I do really want to acknowledge the vast majority of people who came and spoke to our committee and who shared their evidence with us under great difficulty in many cases, including – and this is not meant to be exhaustive – Michael and Tamara Tesseyman, Kerryn Airs, Melita Parker and in particular, touching on what the chair commented on, Bernard and Michelle Robertson, a couple who tragically lost their daughter in a road traffic accident. Their daughter was a single mother, and Bernard and Michelle have taken custody of their grandchild. Due to a fault in the legislation, they are not eligible for the same spousal payments had there been a surviving spouse, and recommendation 6 of this report very much goes to that legislative change that is required. I look forward to talking more on the report at a future date.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (13:36): There are times when you cannot help but be cynical about what goes on in Parliament, but this is not one of those times. The tabling of the report on the inquiry into claims made to the Transport Accident Commission is a great example of how things should work here. An accident victim first contacted my office back in February and organised a meeting with TAC claimants, many of whom were connected through a Facebook group. When I heard their stories, the seriousness quickly became apparent, and I moved to set up an inquiry. But it was sheer luck that I was able to do this in a timely manner after winning a draw to get a slot to debate the issue. To the credit of everyone here, this motion was supported, and I would like to thank the staff and the committee members, in particular the chair and deputy chair, who are here also. I think everyone can be proud of their involvement in this inquiry.

The inquiry heard how our lives can unravel through no fault of our own at any time. This report will not end the challenges faced by victims of road accidents, but it offers hope that we can fix the safety net. I am not here to criticise individuals at the TAC, who do difficult jobs and help many people, but I am here to say that all of us need to be held accountable and all of us need to remember who we serve. The heroes are here in the gallery and those who came before the committee. So many of them have amazing stories of perseverance. None of this could have happened without their advocacy, lobbying or openness. For many of them I know that that suffering is not over, and their advocacy will continue to be important. This report is not the end of a process; it is just the beginning. But there will be no more suffering in silence.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (13:38): I join fellow members of the committee to rise and make a reflection on the tabling of our final report on the inquiry into the Transport Accident Commission, and what I want to say before I begin is my thanks to Mr Limbrick for bringing this to me but also to our chair Mr McCracken for the way he managed what was an incredibly challenging inquiry. From the very beginning it was clear how deeply road trauma impacts our community. No-one expects to be involved in a serious accident, and when the unthinkable happens Victorians rely on support systems to be there. When we first debated that motion back in February, the number of lives lost on our roads this year was 33, and as of only a couple of days ago that has risen to 158. That is why I express my deepest personal appreciation for the many people who bravely reached out to share their personal stories. Reliving trauma is never easy, but your willingness to recount your experiences with lodgement, treatment and recovery provided a really essential human lens for this committee and the work that we did. These contributions served as a vital reminder of why our support systems must be transparent and responsive.

I also want to express my sincere gratitude to all the stakeholders, medical professionals, legal experts and community organisations who took the time to prepare detailed submissions and give evidence at the inquiry. Your collective insights helped us thoroughly examine the broader health and disability landscape, the on-the-ground realities of the scheme and the practical ways that we can continue to improve client outcomes. I want to thank the committee secretariat as well and my colleagues for their work, patience and collaboration through this process. The work done in this report helps shape our path forward, ensuring that we can continue to adapt to support and protect those who most depend upon it, and I look forward to seeing action come to life from the stories told throughout this inquiry.

 Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (13:40): I too would like to rise and make a brief contribution on the tabling of this report. This inquiry was really important. It was important to centre the voices of TAC family members, individuals and clients and hear about their traumatising experiences. The stories that we heard as a committee were quite harrowing, talking about case complexity as well as the administrative burden placed on clients when it came to situations where they were obviously upended and impacted by road trauma, and then having to access the TAC compensation scheme and how difficult it was to navigate the frameworks and the challenges. In some instances we heard how some clients actually had to FOI their own personal information. That should not be the system that is trying to support road trauma clients and family members. TAC should, in every way possible, make the process for TAC clients as trauma free, trauma informed and person centred as possible, because what we heard were issues of suicidal ideation and very deep mental health challenges along the way when clients were trying to access compensation.

I really hope that the findings and recommendations from this report will be meaningfully taken on by the government, because too many family members fall by the wayside when through no fault of their own they have had to access TAC in the first place. I would like to thank the chair, and I would like to thank Mr Limbrick for bringing this important inquiry to the Parliament, as well as the secretariat and everyone involved in this inquiry.

 Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (13:42): I too rise to make a very brief contribution on this report tabled today. It was terrific to be able to hear from the Transport Accident Commission. I too thank Mr Limbrick for bringing this before us and all those who participated and made this possible – my parliamentary colleagues and of course the department as well.

It was incredibly important to hear from the TAC as well as to hear from victims. One of the things that came out of this and is in the report is that it is still difficult for people in regional Victoria to access the services that they need when they are in an accident. Another thing that was very evident was that there are discrepancies. If a child is orphaned and no longer has a parent to look after them and they go with grandparents, the same payments do not apply to grandparents that would have applied to a single parent in a situation where there has been a loss of life. These are things that have come out of this particular inquiry that are going to be reviewed, and recommendations have been made. It was also important to hear that when there are delays or discrepancies in understanding what the medical diagnosis and treatment is, that can also be problematic for an individual who is experiencing those delays because they then have to look at the treatment and the payments themselves in the interim.

There were a number of things that came out of this. The TAC was very ready and willing to continually make improvements, which I think is a very positive thing. I think that all in all the progress that has been made and will continue to be made in the TAC and for future people who may need to access the funding through the TAC is positive, and I think that this report is very helpful in that process.

Motion agreed to.