Thursday, 31 October 2024

Transport Accident Commission

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (17:20): (903) My adjournment is to the Minister for WorkSafe and the TAC, and the action I seek is a review of processes to deliver fairer long-term outcomes for those that are injured in motor vehicle accidents. There are some, we know, who take advantage of this system, but the crackdown on them should not unfairly punish those who genuinely need support, and I want to cite one example tonight.

In June 2020 Anthony York was stationary at a red light when his car was struck from behind by a drug-affected and unlicensed driver. He sustained very severe back and neck injuries. Mr York was a highly skilled worker in the construction industry, and his life was changed. He sustained severe spinal and neck injuries that required multiple surgeries, the first of which was unsuccessful. The significantly delayed approval for his second surgery came only through ministerial intervention. Surviving on modest but welcome support provided by the TAC, Mr York’s weekly assistance payments were abruptly cut off in June 2023. Far from retirement age, he was forced to draw on his superannuation just to simply live. To rub salt into the wound, the individual who struck Mr York and also failed to render assistance by abandoning the scene of the accident was imprisoned for just five months. Mr York is unable to work and lives in pain daily.

But here is the kicker. Unable to afford to financially survive with his payments cut off, he was then forced to take the TAC to court, again having to draw from his superannuation to fight for a decent financial settlement. Now can you believe this? The agency is there and meant to help Mr York, but he actually had to take them to court to try and get an outcome that was fair. The court costs were $190,000, and he was then advised to accept a settlement, as to take it further would have incurred even greater costs. The settlement falls far short of what Mr York requires to live the rest of his life, just to simply survive. At age 58, living in great pain, unable to work and not having the funds to support himself, why has he had to fight the agency that is meant to be there to support him?

Whatever the reasons that are given by the TAC or the minister in this situation, any system that produces that outcome is simply flawed. There is no other way to describe it. Both the system and Mr York’s case need review because he needs help.