Page 3443 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 11 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
"(3) In subsection (1) -
"prescribed period" means -
(a) in relation to a claim lodged by a worker with an exempt employer - the period ending at the expiration of 28 days after the day on which the worker lodges the claim with the employer; or
(b) in relation to a claim lodged with any other employer - the period ending 21 days after the day on which the employer lodges the claim with the employer's insurer.".
If the employer, in the circumstances, does not forward to the insurer the claim form as required by section 26A, so that the insurer is not aware of the claim - he has a minimum of 21 days to investigate and, in some cases, he may not be aware of the claim until more than 28 days have elapsed since the claim was lodged with the employer - the insurer will not be in a position to make the decision necessary under section 26B. The clause, as drafted, requires written notice to reject the claim and gives rise to an interpretation that, if written notice is not given, the claim is therefore accepted. Further, paragraph (a) refers to "payments claimed". This may not be the same as the worker's entitlement. This should be amended to refer to the basis upon which compensation is paid. My amendment will solve that sort of situation. I believe that in relation to this amendment the Government intends to oppose subsection (2) but support subsection (3).
MR LAMONT (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Housing and Community Services, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (9.04): Mr De Domenico has identified the Government's position correctly. When I looked at the proposed provisions in this amendment I found difficulty in accepting subsection (2). I have already accepted the thrust of subsection (3) in an earlier amendment. It proposes that, if an insurer accepts liability and makes payment, it is not an admission of liability under the Act. That, in essence, is what subsection (2) in this amendment would provide. I find that unacceptable, as far as the construction of subsection (2) is concerned, because it basically says, "Yes, the employer and the insurer, inter alia, accept an obligation to pay but do not accept that there is a liability". On that basis, I am proposing that the Assembly oppose subsection (2) in Mr De Domenico's amendment and support, as I have said, subsection (3) in his amendment, which is the "prescribed period" definition. It has already been accepted by the Government in a previous amendment.
MADAM SPEAKER: In effect, are you moving an amendment to Mr De Domenico's amendment, Mr Lamont?
MR LAMONT: Technically, yes. However, in dealing with the matter now before the Assembly, it is felt that it would be better to split Mr De Domenico's amendment. There is a provision which would allow us to vote separately on each of the subsections - in other words, subsection (2) and subsection (3) - in his amendment. The standing orders do allow for that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .