Page 3450 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 11 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Another provision in relation to the administrative arrangements is that every time an employee receives a termination notice the nominal insurer will also receive a notice. In a year's time there will not be anecdotal evidence. Prejudice will not be used as the basis of argument about where we should be going. It will be factual. There will be a factual, realistic assessment of what has happened in the previous 12 months We will know the number of terminations that have occurred. We will know the circumstances in which they have occurred. We will then be able to assess the effectiveness of these provisions and where we should go to. It also means, at the same time - this is the quid pro quo, Mr De Domenico - that we can assess the effectiveness of the occupational rehabilitation program.
ADJOURNMENT
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Berry: Madam Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.
Question resolved in the negative.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
Detail Stage
Clause 6
Debate resumed.
MR LAMONT: For all these reasons, Mr De Domenico, I reject your amendment. I do so because of the history that I have outlined. I also do so because of the prejudice that exists in relation to the relative positions about workers compensation in the ACT. I publicly acknowledge that there have been positions that have been arrived at through particular history and, dare I say, as I have, prejudice. I hope that, at the end of this 12-month period of these new provisions, we can sit down and, without rancour and without some of the emotiveness that has been the hallmark of discussions over the last 13 years, finally get to a base workers compensation arrangement that suits all parties in the ACT.
MS SZUTY (9.32): I will be brief because I think both Mr De Domenico and Mr Lamont have covered very well the arguments in relation to this matter. In fact, I think it is appropriate that the substantive debate in relation to the Bill is actually occurring at this point of time, and that is around the eight-week termination clause, which is linked to the provision about court approval being needed to terminate payments after 12 months.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .