Queensland’s compulsory third party insurance scheme, the cover that stands behind a claim for damages when someone is hurt in a motor vehicle accident, has been under formal review since 2023. The CTP scheme review is now finished: the Motor Accident Insurance Commission records that the Queensland Government finalised it in early 2026 and decided that reform of the scheme will not be progressed at this time.
For anyone injured on a Queensland road, that single sentence carries the whole practical answer. The rules that governed a claim before the review are the rules that govern a claim today. No deadline moved, and nothing about the review changed how a court works out damages.
That is worth setting out plainly, because a review that ran from 2023 to 2026 across a change of government produces a good deal of commentary and very little of it reaches the end of the story.
What the review decided
The Commission publishes the outcome on its scheme reviews page. The operative words are these: after considering the review material together with further consultation and analysis, the Queensland Government finalised the review in early 2026 and decided that reform of the scheme will not be progressed at this time.
Two things follow from that. The first is that no amendment to the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) came out of the process, and the scheme continues to operate under the Act in its current reprint. The second is that the decision is framed as a present position rather than a closed door. The words are “at this time”, and they were plainly chosen.
The Commission also recorded, as at finalisation, that the scheme is performing well, that the majority of Queensland motorists pay the lowest CTP premiums in mainland Australia, and that since October 2025 competitive premiums have returned across multiple vehicle classes for the first time in over a decade.
Why there was a review at all
The Commission began the review in 2023 and released a discussion paper for public consultation. Its stated focus was identifying opportunities to improve the sustainability of the scheme and to encourage price competition, while keeping the scheme affordable for motorists. That focus sits on the economics of the scheme: what it costs to sustain, what a motorist pays, and how much competition there is on price.
Nineteen submissions and one addendum came back, from stakeholder groups and from the wider community. On the Commission’s own account, those stakeholders held contrasting views about how improvements should be delivered, none of the options drew unanimous support, and many of them were complimentary about the existing scheme, which was seen to be serving the community well.
Then RACQ decided to leave the scheme in late 2023. The review was placed on hold and was not finalised before the 2024 State election. Whatever the discussion paper had canvassed, none of it became law, and the decision recorded in early 2026 closes the question for now.
What has not changed for an injured person
Because the review produced no amendment, every provision set out below stands as it stood when the review opened, and each was last amended in 2019 or earlier. Start with the foundation. The Act applies to an injury only where it was caused, wholly or partly, by a wrongful act or omission in respect of the motor vehicle by a person other than the injured person: Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) s 5(1)(b). Queensland CTP is a fault-based scheme, and the review did not disturb that.
The timetable is unchanged too, and it is the part most people actually need.
| Step | The period | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Notice of accident claim, ordinary case | The earlier of nine months after the accident, or, where symptoms of the injury are not immediately apparent, nine months after symptoms first appear, and one month after the claimant first consults a lawyer about the possibility of making a claim | s 37(2)(b) |
| Notice where the vehicle cannot be identified | Three months after the accident, to the Nominal Defendant, with a hard bar at nine months | s 37(2)(a), s 37(3) |
| Insurer says whether the notice complies | Fourteen days after receiving it, and silence is treated as satisfaction | s 39(1)(a), s 39(3) |
| Insurer decides liability | Within six months of the notice, stating admission or denial and the percentage of any contributory negligence alleged | s 41(1) |
| Answering a written offer of settlement | In writing, within three months of receiving it, unless it is the response the insurer must give under s 41(1)(c) to an offer made in the notice of claim | s 41(5) |
| General limitation period for court action | Three years from the date the cause of action arose | Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 11(1) |
| Starting court action after that period, where notice was given in time | Within six months of the notice, or longer if the court allows | s 57(2) |
Two of those deserve a line of their own. A notice given late does not extinguish the obligation to give it, but a reasonable excuse for the delay has to be given as well, under s 37(3). And where the vehicle cannot be identified, the nine-month point is genuinely hard: once a claim against the Nominal Defendant is barred that way, the Nominal Defendant cannot waive the failure and a court cannot give leave to proceed despite it, under s 39(8). The review left that where it was.
How a claim still runs
The steps after notice are unchanged as well. Before court proceedings there must be a conference of the parties, the compulsory conference, under s 51A(1), though the parties may dispense with it by agreement where there is good reason, under s 51A(4). If the claim does not settle there, each side exchanges a written mandatory final offer under s 51C(1), unless the court has dispensed with that obligation. That offer stays open for fourteen days and proceedings cannot be started while it is open, under s 51C(6), and the court must, where relevant, have regard to those offers when it decides costs, under s 51C(10). We have set out what the day itself looks like in our note on the compulsory conference in Queensland injury claims.
How damages are measured also stands. Where a court awards general damages for an injury arising after 1 December 2002, it must assign an injury scale value on a scale running from zero to one hundred, assessed under rules provided by regulation and having regard to the values given to similar injuries in earlier proceedings: Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 61(1). And the separate scheme that provides treatment, care and support for people seriously injured in motor accidents, established by the National Injury Insurance Scheme (Queensland) Act 2016, continues to sit beside the fault-based scheme rather than in place of it.
The parts of the scheme that still move
“No reform” is not the same as “nothing changes”. Several parts of this scheme were always designed to move without an Act of Parliament, and they will keep moving.
Premiums are the clearest example. The Commission fixes, for each class of CTP insurance, the range within which an insurer’s premium must fall, under s 10(1)(g). Licensed insurers then price within that band. The competitive premiums the Commission reported from October 2025 are movement inside that band rather than any change to the Act, and the band operates whether or not anyone is reviewing the scheme.
The levies and the administration fee run on an annual cycle of their own. The Commission must make recommendations to the Minister at least four months before the end of each financial year, under s 14(1). The rules for assessing an injury scale value are provided by regulation, under s 61(1)(c)(i), and a regulation can be amended without amending the Act. And the Commission holds a standing function to keep the scheme generally under review and to recommend amendments, under s 10(1)(s), which is a function it does not lose by finishing one review.
What “at this time” means
The decision recorded is a decision not to progress reform now. Alongside it, the Commission has said it will continue to engage with stakeholders and to monitor the affordability, competitiveness and performance of the scheme. Read with the standing review function in s 10(1)(s), the fair reading is that the question is settled for the present and able to be reopened, not answered once and for all.
There is a practical lesson in that for anyone reading about this scheme online. Date what you read. An article written in 2024 was written while the review sat on hold, so it could only describe possibilities. An article written now can say what was decided. Neither can say what a future government will decide, and anything that says otherwise is speculating.
If a claim is already running
There is nothing to redo. The review produced no amendment, so it brought no transitional provisions with it and no step that has to be taken again. A person who lodged a notice of accident claim in 2024 is on the same statutory path as a person lodging one this week.
What still repays attention is the ordinary timetable, and in particular the interaction between the notice and the limitation period. Where notice of the claim is given before the three-year period in Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 11(1) expires, proceedings may be started after it expires, but only within six months of the notice unless the court allows a longer period: s 57(1) and s 57(2). That six-month window sits inside a scheme most people think of as a three-year one. It is easy to miss, and the review never went near it. Our guide to CTP claim time limits in Queensland works through how those dates interlock.
Published 28 September 2026.
Reading the primary material
The primary sources here are short and public: a handful of paragraphs on the regulator’s own site for the outcome, and one Act in current reprint, whose notice deadlines sit in a single section. Anyone following their own claim can read both.
Where things get harder is the application: whether symptoms first appeared on a particular date, whether an excuse for a late notice is reasonable, what a liability position with a contributory negligence percentage actually means for a claim, and how the six-month window after a notice interacts with a limitation period already running. Those turn on facts, not on the review.
Related reading
- CTP claim time limits in Queensland
- CTP claims in Queensland: the complete guide
- The compulsory conference in Queensland injury claims
- How Fraser Lawyers helps with CTP claims
- Contact Fraser Lawyers
Need advice? Time limits and key decisions in injury claims can be strict and easy to miss. If this is your situation, contact Fraser Lawyers to understand your rights and where you stand, with no obligation. |
This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Queensland law and the figures referred to can change, and every situation turns on its own facts. Contact Fraser Lawyers for advice specific to your circumstances.
If you would like to discuss your matter, you can book a consultation or call (07) 5554 6116.
