The NT Government has not amended the law to allow people to sue event organisers for negligence if they are injured by a car, despite Deputy Chief Minister Nicole Manison stating in 2018 that spectators being seriously burnt at the Red Centre Nats was “exactly the type of situation we need to look at”.

Ms Manison made the comments as then-treasurer while discussing a review into government insurance of events that resulted in other amendments to the legislation, but nothing related to accountability for negligence.

Under NT laws, spectators injured by a vehicle cannot sue for negligence or seek compensation, even though the Red Centre Nats had $50 public liability insurance worth $50 million, instead they can only seek redress through the NT Motor Accidents Compensation Commission (MACC) scheme. The scheme covers medical costs and 85 per cent of average wages while people remain injured but does not factor in other compensation, and is paid through car registrations.

The CLP has called for changes to the scheme, while the legislation’s effect on the Red Centre Nats burns victims was raised as a matter of public importance by the then-independent MLA for Blain Terry Mills in the Legislative Assembly on August 23, 2018, with Ms Manison responding that there was a whole-of-government review into the insurance of events.

Mr Mills is still calling for the legislation to be changed, saying it was obvious by the victims’ inability to sue what the problem was.

“This review is to ensure consistency of insurance for events and making sure they have the appropriate level of coverage,” Ms Manison told Parliament.

“This is exactly the type of situation we need to look at. This work is being led by Treasury in conjunction with Major Events and the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics.

“…We are not talking about completely changing the MACC scheme. We need to look at this specific situation because it is unique. We need to see how it has fallen between the cracks and what needs to be done about it.”

Two weeks before Ms Manison made the statement in a parliamentary debate, then-attorney-general and now Chief Minister Natasha Fyles was reported by the ABC as saying that existing compensation in the NT was fair because it was available to all injured people without the need to prove someone was at fault.

But in the debate she said the government regularly reviewed legislation to ensure it meets the needs it was originally designed for.

“As a government, we want a fair and accessible system that supports our community, and we are open to considering changes if they are deemed necessary,” Ms Fyles said.

“There are hybrid systems in other jurisdictions, such as Tasmania and New South Wales, which operate a hybrid model with a no-fault scheme as well as the ability to also make a common law claim for damages if the victim can prove the person responsible for their injuries was negligent.

“Minister [Lauren] Moss has spoken with the Member for Blain and has provided written responses. She is happy to meet with people and continue working through this issue.”

There was an amendment to the legislation in 2019 to permit claimants who are pension age to receive loss of earning capacity benefits for up to two years, but no changes to the hybrid systems Ms Fyles mentioned.

The NT Independent sent questions Ms Manison and Ms Flyes, along with then-tourism minister Lauren Moss and current Treasuer Eva Lawyer, Attorney-General Chanston Paech, and Major Events Minister Paul Kirby, but none responded.

CLP Attorney-General and Justice spokesman Steve Edgington said the CLP Opposition had long recognised that the MACC scheme was in need of reform.

“Time and time again we have heard from constituents that have had endless frustrations with the way that the scheme is administered,” he said.

“Hopefully the settlement of the recent court action will provide comfort to the victims of the Red Centre NATS disaster in 2017, but going forward we need to have a good look at changes that need to be made to the scheme overall.”

In the 2018 debate, Opposition Leader Lia Finocchiaro said here were many questions to be answered regarding the scheme.

“Whether or not the Territory should retain the MACC Scheme, return to a common law scheme or move to some manner of hybrid system – as the Attorney-General mentioned in her contribution – perhaps one that allows for injured persons to seek additional compensation in the instance of reckless or intentional harm needs to be considered,” she said.

“The Opposition calls on the government to review the MACC Scheme in its entirety and consider making improvements to the scheme in light of the scenario that brings us here today.

“There are many ways to go about this, but it might be best achieved by referring it to the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee or another similar specialised body that can consider not only the technical legal requirements, but the impact on victims.”

There were 14 victims who were sprayed with burning fuel and rubber from a car doing burnouts at the 2017 event. Twelve of them recently settled with the organisers of the event, and the NT Government’s NT Major Events, after they were forced to find a way to take Federal Court action in 2019.

Of the $3.2 million settlement, about $1 million will go to legal fees, which will leave each of them with about $183,000 after legal costs are paid, but exact details of the distribution remain confidential.

There was also an intervener, the NT Attorney General, in relation to lead applicant Lynelle Bouchere and five of the other group members, who were paid $58,483.01 under the MACC scheme, which the government indicated it was not going to attempt to recover.

Justice Bromwich said gratuitous payments totalling $163,848.97 were made by various respondents to all of the group members which were also not sought to be recovered.

The case was settled by the applicants instead of going to trial because of the uncertainty of the success, with Justice Robert Bromwich saying in his judgment that the matter was complicated and that because the injuries were caused by a car, whether the court action taken was actually precluded by the terms of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act, and that a question to the extent of loss and damage that could ultimately be proven remained. The risk of appeal if the case was successful was also flagged as an issue.

A 2018 ABC article about the victims getting compensation for pain and suffering quoted Maurice Blackburn lawyer Melissa Meyers pointing to the problems of the legislation.

“The bystanders that were injured don’t have the right to sue the organisers, or in fact anyone else, for the injuries they sustained in that event,” she is quoted as saying.

“We consider that completely unacceptable because it’s just not fair.”

In the 2018 debate, Mr Mills raised the issue in Parliament on behalf of the victims, some of who lived in his electorate.

“It is a matter that needs to be clarified in the interests of those victims and to ensure that this matter can be rectified and — heaven forbid this occurs again — that we are able to ensure adequate support is provided to victims currently, and in the future if it does occur again,” he said.

“How is it that the victims at a public event could not access public liability insurance of some millions of dollars?

“When you look at the injury, the fact there is public liability and that there may be elements of negligence involved in what they thought was a safe event, there are more questions that need to be answered. I thought the minister would respond to this.

“…Why should the scheme reach outside of itself to stop people claiming benefits from elsewhere as well?

“It does not make sense.”