Page 3451 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 11 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The other issue that is proposed in Mr De Domenico's amendment refers to the variation of weekly compensation payments. Certainly, I think it is the first instance in Mr De Domenico's amendments where that matter has come up. For all the reasons that Mr Lamont has gone into, I do not support a proposal which would indicate that variations to weekly compensation payments could be made based on the opinion of the employer's insurer; or, in the case of an exempt employer, based on reasonable grounds that the worker is no longer entitled to receive the payments.
In terms of the eight weeks period, I do take Mr De Domenico's point that all of the other States and Territories have a shorter period for those terminations to take place. However, it has certainly been put to me that the eight weeks provision is based on the length of time that it can take to receive benefits from other sources, including the unemployment benefit. For me, the issue goes back to the heart of what we are really talking about - the facilitation of the occupational rehabilitation of workers. It seems to me that, if workers understand that they have consistent levels of payment coming in to support themselves and their families when they are injured, that is a very sensible provision. It seems to me that, if workers compensation payments are terminated at an earlier stage, the employee then has to wait until payments from other sources come on line. That would be an extremely stressful period for the worker in that particular family and would be a position that I certainly would not want to see supported.
While I take Mr De Domenico's point that the termination period is longer in the ACT than is allowed for in other jurisdictions, I would certainly hope that, when the States and the Commonwealth come to discuss the uniformity of workers compensation provisions, they will look very carefully at what we have established in the ACT and perhaps accept, both at the Commonwealth level and at the States level, that eight weeks is an appropriate period for those workers compensation payments to continue.
MR DE DOMENICO (9.35): Madam Speaker, I need to comment briefly in turn on what Mr Lamont and Ms Szuty had to say. Mr Lamont quite rightly said that most companies in the private sector do operate to make a quid; and it was heartening to hear that he did not find anything wrong with people making profits. Mr Lamont also talked about social justice; and once again it sounded very good. We in the Opposition - and, I am sure, Ms Szuty and others - would say that, yes, it is perhaps socially more just in the ACT, where the provision of the eight weeks notification is in existence; and there is nothing against that.
Mr Lamont also talked about keeping body and soul together. No-one would deny workers, or anybody else, the right to keep body and soul together; there is no argument about that as well. Mr Lamont also mentioned the plight of the employers; and it is interesting to note that the employers are also very much in favour of the removal of the 12 months provision that Mr Lamont has alluded to. But he will not support my amendment. Mr Lamont went on to say that after a one-year review it would be, in his opinion, easier to see what has been going on in terms of occupational rehabilitation
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .