Territory Stories

Debates Day 2 - Wednesday 23 November 1994



Debates Day 2 - Wednesday 23 November 1994

Other title

Parliamentary Record 6


Debates for 7th Assembly 1994 - 1997; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 7th Assembly 1994 - 1997




Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory





Publisher name

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Place of publication


File type



Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory



Parent handle


Citation address


Page content

DEBATES - Wednesday 23 November 1994 prove a causal relationship. All that the Territory Insurance Office has to do is demonstrate that the claimant cannot prove the causal relationship. We know that is what happens at the moment. If the causal relationship cannot be proven, the TIO will not accept the claim. I am talking about a case where someone can demonstrate clearly that an ongoing medical condition has been caused by a motor vehicle accident - whether it is 2 years, 3 years or 5 years later. As the Leader o f the Opposition stated, there could be a provision whereby, after 3 years, the grounds must be strong to avoid wasting resources. I will give an example. I sustained an injury in a motor vehicle accident and I have a steel plate in my arm. That is recorded at Royal Darwin Hospital. At the time o f the accident, it was not clear whether or not it was a work health matter. That is one o f the reasons why I referred to a situation where a person may be released from hospital without making a claim. If a major problem were to arise in 5 years time, whereby the plate affects my wrist movement, it would be easy for me to demonstrate that the injury which resulted in that ongoing problem was sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The plate was screwed into place in my arm after I had been taken in an ambulance to the hospital. If I had not completed the forms at the time, such a problem could be attributed to arthritis or whatever. The government is saying that, if Territorians have an injury that they can clearly demonstrate was caused by a motor vehicle accident for which they had insurance cover, after 3 years, they are on their own. We do not believe that is just. We believe that, if the person is able to demonstrate clearly that the injury was caused by an accident, they should not be dumped by the government. We hope the government will support our amendment. Mr POOLE (Territory Insurance): Mr Speaker, I listened to the points that the Leader o f the Opposition and the member for Wanguri made. The government will not be accepting their amendment. M r EDE: A point o f order, Mr Speaker! A habit seems to be forming o f members speaking from places other than their own seats. Has there been a change to standing orders? I am not objecting to the practice, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: If the Leader o f the Opposition will resume his seat, I will explain. A letter is on its way to both Whips advising them o f the ability for a minister to move closer to the advisers box. The Clerk has advised that it is not necessary to amend standing orders to permit this to happen. Your shadow minister will have the same ability Mr POOLE: The government will not be accepting the amendment. Many years after an accident, it is almost impossible to evaluate the details involved. There are often no details o f the registration o f the motor vehicle involved, the residential address o f the driver or even whether the accident occurred on private or public land. Our legislation is based on the Tasmanian legislation. M r Ede: And that means that it is okay. Mr POOLE: No, but a Labor government introduced the Tasmanian legislation. Mr Ede: Things are different now. 1839