Page 3447 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 11 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In relation to those provisions for rehabilitation, I would like to comment that early rehabilitation and return to employment has a number of advantages. It gives economic benefits both to employers and to workers, as well as maintaining the self-esteem of those who have had the misfortune to have had a work-related injury. It is also pleasing that the provisions do not promote an excessive bureaucratic approach; and the Minister is to be congratulated for that. I am confident that full support will be given to these measures. I recommend this particular amendment to the house, Madam Speaker, because, as I said, it brings the ACT into some sort of line with other jurisdictions.
Mr Berry: You have fallen into the trap of just picking bits out of other jurisdictions.
MR DE DOMENICO: Mr Berry, I will not take that interjection from you. At least one thing I can say, Mr Berry, is that this Minister did take some action and did something about bringing these amendments to this house, whereas you had them for three years and did nothing, as usual.
Mr Berry: I think the record shows that that is not true.
MR DE DOMENICO: I am suggesting, Mr Berry, that you butt out of the debate at this stage, because it was going along very well until you decided to make that interjection. Whilst I know that the Government is not prepared to support my amendment at this stage, I want to put on the record that I am very anxious to make sure that we try to do the right thing by bringing the ACT into line not just with the other State and Territory jurisdictions but also with Comcare, to make sure that private sector employers in the ACT are placed at no disadvantage in comparison to their peers either interstate or in the Commonwealth. I commend my amendment to the house.
MR LAMONT (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Housing and Community Services, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (9.18): Madam Speaker, the Government opposes Mr De Domenico's amendment. Let me speak very frankly. The reason why insurers are involved in the provision of workers compensation cover is to make a quid. They are a business; they need to ensure that the odds that they include within the liabilities under the workers compensation policies - the margins that they include, the cost structures - allow them, quite properly, to make a dollar. I do not in any way denigrate them for operating commercially within a particular market providing this type of service, for without them where would we be?
Mr Stevenson: In real trouble.
MR LAMONT: We certainly would, and I acknowledge that. But I also acknowledge that, historically, workers compensation and what it means to employees goes beyond that concept. We have seen, within all jurisdictions in this country, an acknowledgment that workers compensation management arrangements need to be put into place on a social justice basis to provide straight-out social justice to injured workers. That is what a workers compensation Act does. It provides a reasonable basis upon which a worker, injured at the place of work of their employer, can legitimately expect to be covered for that injury; to be able to keep body and soul together; to be able to provide for their family. These are basic principles that I do not believe need rearguing. What does need
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .