{"id":"nsw:act-2006-017","name":"Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Act 2006","slug":"motor-accidents-compensation-amendment-act-2006","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"nsw","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"17 of 2006","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":174940,"registerId":"nsw-nsw:act-2006-017-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-05","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Name of Act","content":"#### 1 Name of Act\n\n1 Name of Act\n\n> This Act is the [Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Act 2006](/view/html/inforce/current/act-2006-017).","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"section","heading":"Commencement","content":"#### 2 Commencement\n\n2 Commencement\n\n> This Act commences on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":"Amendment of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 No 41","content":"#### 3 Amendment of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 No 41\n\n3 Amendment of [Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 No 41](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1999-041)\n\n> The [Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1999-041) is amended as set out in Schedule 1.","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"4","sectionType":"section","heading":null,"content":"#### 4\n\n4 (Repealed)","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"5","sectionType":"section","heading":"Repeal of Act","content":"#### 5 Repeal of Act\n\n5 Repeal of Act\n\n> > (1) This Act is repealed on the day following the day on which all of the provisions of this Act have commenced.\n> \n> > (2) The repeal of this Act does not, because of the operation of section 30 of the [Interpretation Act 1987](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1987-015), affect any amendment made by this Act.","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"Schedule 1","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Amendment of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999","content":"# Schedule 1 Amendment of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999\n\nSchedule 1 Amendment of [Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1999-041)\n\n(Section 3)\n\n**sch 1:** Am 2007 No 27, Sch 5; 2011 No 62, Sch 5.","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"11","sectionType":"section","heading":null,"content":"#### 11\n\n\\[1\\]–\\[11\\] (Repealed)","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"12","sectionType":"section","heading":"Section 23A","content":"#### 12 Section 23A\n\n\\[12\\] Section 23A\n\n> Insert after section 23:","sortOrder":8},{"sectionNumber":"23A","sectionType":"section","heading":"Limit on insurer liability for single incident","content":"#### 23A Limit on insurer liability for single incident\n\n23A Limit on insurer liability for single incident\n\n> > (1) If the liability of a licensed insurer under a third-party policy in respect of all claims arising from a single incident exceeds the prescribed maximum amount, the insurer is entitled to be indemnified by the Nominal Defendant for the amount by which the insurer’s liability exceeds that prescribed maximum amount.\n> \n> > (2) The prescribed maximum amount is:\n> > \n> > > (a) $200 million, or\n> > \n> > > (b) such other amount as may be prescribed by the regulations as the prescribed maximum amount for the purposes of this section.\n> \n> > (3) A change to the prescribed maximum amount does not apply in respect of a liability arising in connection with a motor accident that occurs before the change takes effect.\n> \n> > (4) The Nominal Defendant is not personally liable to pay any amount payable in satisfaction of the liability of the Nominal Defendant to indemnify an insurer under this section, but every such amount is to be paid by the Nominal Defendant out of the Nominal Defendant’s Fund established under Part 2.4.","sortOrder":9},{"sectionNumber":"33","sectionType":"section","heading":null,"content":"#### 33\n\n\\[13\\]–\\[33\\] (Repealed)","sortOrder":10},{"sectionNumber":"Schedule 2","sectionType":"schedule","heading":null,"content":"# Schedule 2\n\nSchedule 2 (Repealed)\n\n**sch 2:** Rep 2007 No 27, Sch 5.","sortOrder":11}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"model":"kimi-k2.6","source":"moonshot-batch-reanalyse","citationCount":11,"completionTokens":1941},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The Act remains focused on its original purpose of amending the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 to introduce a liability cap for insurers. No significant scope creep is evident."},"complexity_factors":["Single substantive provision with only 4 short subsections","Minimal cross-referencing limited to the parent Act and Interpretation Act","Straightforward mathematical liability cap with no nested exceptions","Most of the amendment schedule has been repealed, leaving only one operative section"],"plain_english_summary":"This law amends the **Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999** by adding a limit on how much an insurance company must pay when a single car accident causes many claims.\n\n* **The cap:** A licensed insurer only has to pay up to **$200 million** (or a different amount set by government regulations) for all claims arising from one incident.\n* **Who pays the rest:** If the total claims go over that cap, the **Nominal Defendant** — a government-backed body — covers the extra amount. This protects insurers from unlimited bills in catastrophic accidents.\n* **Retrospective protection:** If the cap amount is changed later, the new limit does **not** apply to accidents that happened before the change.\n* **Funding:** The Nominal Defendant pays the excess from its dedicated fund, not from its own pocket.\n\nIn short, the law makes sure that if a single crash leads to massive compensation claims, the insurer is not on the hook for everything above $200 million."},"summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Based on available information, the Act appears to have operated within its stated purpose as a targeted amendment to the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. The staged commencement across multiple years (2006 to 2012) suggests some provisions may have been delayed or adjusted in implementation, but there is no evidence from the provided text that the scope materially changed from the original legislative intent. The self-repeal clause confirms it was always intended as a transitory amending instrument."},"complexity_factors":["The document provided contains only metadata and status information — no substantive amendment text is visible, making full analysis impossible","The self-repeal mechanism (section 5) adds a minor structural complexity to understand","As an amending act, it must be read alongside the principal Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, requiring cross-referencing","Staged commencement (provisions came into force at different times across 2006–2012) adds a layer of temporal complexity","The motor accident compensation scheme it amends is itself moderately complex, involving insurers, medical assessments, and fault thresholds"],"plain_english_summary":"## Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment Act 2006 (NSW)\n\nThis is a **NSW amending act** — meaning it doesn't stand alone as a complete law, but instead makes changes to the existing *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999*, which governs how people injured in car accidents in New South Wales can claim compensation (money for injuries, lost wages, etc.).\n\n**What does it actually do?**\nThe full text of the specific amendments isn't visible in the provided document — only the administrative/status metadata is shown. However, based on the structure, this Act made targeted changes to the motor accident compensation scheme in NSW.\n\n**Key quirk — self-destruction clause:** This Act contains an unusual provision (section 5) that says the Act will **automatically repeal itself** (cancel itself out of existence) the day after all of its provisions have fully commenced (taken effect). This is a common housekeeping technique for amendment acts — once the changes have been 'transplanted' into the main Act, the amending vehicle is no longer needed.\n\n**Who does this affect?**\n- People injured in motor vehicle accidents in NSW\n- Insurers operating under the CTP (Compulsory Third Party — the mandatory car insurance scheme) system\n- Legal practitioners handling motor accident claims\n\n**Why does it matter?**\nChanges to motor accident compensation laws directly affect what injured people can claim, how much they can receive, and the process they must follow. Even technical amendments can significantly shift outcomes for accident victims."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"This Amendment Act changes the liability allocation in the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 by capping a licensed insurer’s aggregate liability for claims arising from a single incident and making the Nominal Defendant responsible for indemnifying insurers for the excess above that cap (Schedule 1, inserted s 23A(1), (4)). The Act also establishes a statutory default cap amount of $200 million with regulatory power to vary that amount (s 23A(2)). The Act itself is an amendment instrument that commences by proclamation (s 2) and is repealed once its provisions have commenced (s 5)."},"complexity_factors":["Single substantive substantive change inserted (section 23A) rather than multiple policy reforms","Interaction required between insurers and the Nominal Defendant Fund for indemnity payments (administrative coordination)","Regulations can alter the prescribed maximum amount, introducing delegated discretion (s 23A(2)(b))","Non-retrospective rule for changes to the prescribed maximum (s 23A(3))","Cross-reference to existing structures in the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 and to the Nominal Defendant’s Fund (requires checking the 1999 Act for operational detail)"],"plain_english_summary":"What this instrument does, mechanically\n\n- This Amendment Act changes the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 by inserting a new section (section 23A) that limits a licensed motor third‑party insurer’s liability for all claims arising from a single incident. The amendment is introduced via Schedule 1 and the amendment to the 1999 Act is made under section 3 of this Amendment Act (s 3; Schedule 1, s 23A).\n\n- Under the new section 23A, if an insurer’s total liability for claims from a single incident exceeds a prescribed maximum amount, the insurer is entitled to be indemnified by the Nominal Defendant for the excess above that maximum (s 23A(1)).\n\n- The prescribed maximum is set at $200 million by the Act by default (s 23A(2)(a)), but the regulations may prescribe a different amount (s 23A(2)(b)). A change in the prescribed maximum does not apply to liabilities arising from motor accidents that occurred before the change takes effect (s 23A(3)).\n\n- The Nominal Defendant is not personally liable to pay the indemnity amount; instead the indemnity is to be paid out of the Nominal Defendant’s Fund established under Part 2.4 (s 23A(4)).\n\n- The Amendment Act’s commencement is by proclamation (s 2). The Act is repealed on the day after all of its provisions have commenced, and that repeal does not undo the amendments made to the 1999 Act (s 5).\n\nStated purpose claims and the mechanical tests of costs, incentives and trade-offs\n\n- The statutory mechanism creates a hard cap on an insurer’s exposure for the aggregate of claims from a single incident and shifts any excess over that cap to the Nominal Defendant’s Fund (s 23A(1), (4)). The text therefore operates to concentrate a clear, bounded financial benefit to licensed insurers (reduced maximum direct outlay per single incident) and to impose potential additional claim payments on the Nominal Defendant’s Fund.\n\n- Who pays: licensed insurers are liable up to the prescribed maximum; amounts above that are paid by the Nominal Defendant out of its Fund (s 23A(1), (4)).\n\n- Who decides key parameters: the regulations may set a different prescribed maximum (s 23A(2)(b)); commencement timing is set by proclamation (s 2).\n\n- Timing and retroactivity: a change to the prescribed maximum is not retrospective for accidents that occurred before the change takes effect (s 23A(3)).\n\n- Compliance, administrative and implementation implications: the Act does not specify the administrative procedure or the claims process by which an insurer claims indemnity from the Nominal Defendant; those operational details will determine the actual compliance burden and administrative costs. The text does, however, place the payment obligation on the Nominal Defendant’s Fund rather than on the Nominal Defendant personally, which creates a clear funding source for the indemnity (s 23A(4)).\n\n- Incentives and market effects to watch (mechanisms, not predictions):\n  - Because insurers’ per‑incident exposure is capped, insurers’ decisions on pricing, capital allocation, reinsurance purchase, and underwriting for extreme‑loss events may change (mechanical link: insurers retain only losses up to the prescribed maximum; excess is borne by the Fund) (s 23A(1)).\n  - The Nominal Defendant’s Fund will face the legal obligation to meet any excess payments; this reallocates extreme‑loss risk onto that Fund (mechanical link: payments made out of the Fund) (s 23A(4)).\n  - Regulations can alter the cap, which creates policy and regulatory discretion affecting the distribution of risk between insurers and the Fund (s 23A(2)(b)).\n\n- Trade‑offs and opportunity costs shown in the text: the principal trade‑off embedded in the provision is between limiting a single insurer’s large‑loss exposure (benefit concentrated on insurers) and increasing the potential claims burden on the Nominal Defendant’s Fund (cost concentrated on that Fund) (s 23A(1), (4)). The Act removes retrospective effect for future changes to the cap (s 23A(3)).\n\nImplementation risks and gaps apparent from the text\n\n- The Act sets the entitlement to indemnity and the funding source but leaves operational detail (claims procedures, timelines, eligibility disputes, proof requirements and administration) unspecified in the inserted section; those details will determine transaction costs and administrative burden in practice (no procedural detail in s 23A).\n\n- The Act depends on the Nominal Defendant’s Fund having the capacity to meet large excesses; the text assigns payment to that Fund but does not in this instrument set rules for funding adequacy or replenishment (s 23A(4)).\n\nOther structural notes\n\n- The Amendment Act is a procedural/amendment instrument: it comes into force by proclamation (s 2), it amends the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (s 3; Schedule 1), and it is repealed after its provisions have commenced (s 5)."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[{"type":"impossible_compliance","section":"sec 5(1) and Status Information (Proposed Repeal Note)","severity":"high","reasoning":"The repeal trigger is logically contingent on a condition (full commencement of all provisions) that has demonstrably not been met after nearly 20 years. If any provision is never proclaimed to commence, the Act can never repeal itself, defeating the entire purpose of the self-repeal mechanism. The Act is effectively trapped in legislative limbo — it cannot complete its own lifecycle. This is not merely a drafting inelegance; it creates a permanent state of partial operation with no administrative or legislative mechanism within the Act itself to resolve the deadlock.","confidence":0.95,"description":"The Act contains a self-repealing provision under section 5(1) that triggers repeal on the day following the day on which ALL provisions of the Act have commenced. However, the Status Information explicitly states that 'some, but not all, of the provisions displayed in this version of the legislation have commenced' — and this remains the position as of 6 January 2012, still current as of the access date of 5 April 2026. This means the repeal condition can never be satisfied if provisions remain uncommenced indefinitely, leaving the Act in a perpetual zombie state: alive but functionally incomplete."},{"type":"circular_definition","section":"sec 5(1) read with the self-repeal mechanism generally","severity":"low","reasoning":"Self-repeal provisions are used in Australian legislative practice but carry an inherent logical tension: the repealing provision must remain operative long enough to effect repeal, yet repeal extinguishes all provisions including itself. In practice, courts and the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) resolve this through savings provisions, but the text as presented contains no explicit savings clause visible in the extracted content, leaving the logical paradox unaddressed on the face of the instrument.","confidence":0.72,"description":"A self-repealing Act that repeals itself via one of its own provisions raises a classic logical paradox: once section 5(1) triggers repeal of the Act, section 5(1) itself is simultaneously repealed. The mechanism destroys the very instrument by which it operates. While this is a known drafting technique, the logical circularity is that the provision authorising repeal cannot survive to confirm or complete its own operation."}],"contradictions":[{"severity":"high","section_a":"Status Information — 'Provisions in force': 'Some, but not all, of the provisions displayed in this version of the legislation have commenced.'","section_b":"Status Information — 'Proposed repeal: The Act is to be repealed by sec 5(1) of this Act on the day following the day on which all of the provisions of this Act have commenced.'","confidence":0.95,"description":"The two statements in the Status Information are in direct and unresolved contradiction. Section A confirms that not all provisions have commenced. Section B states repeal occurs once all provisions have commenced. Since Section A's condition (partial commencement) has persisted from 2006 to at least 5 April 2026 — nearly two decades — the repeal condition in Section B has never been met and may never be met. The Act simultaneously signals its own imminent death and evidences the conditions that prevent that death from occurring."}]}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/motor-accidents-compensation-amendment-act-2006","history":"/api/acts/motor-accidents-compensation-amendment-act-2006/history","analysis":"/api/acts/motor-accidents-compensation-amendment-act-2006/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/motor-accidents-compensation-amendment-act-2006/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/motor-accidents-compensation-amendment-act-2006/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/motor-accidents-compensation-amendment-act-2006/documents"}}