Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3443 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

(a) if the notice under subsection (2) is given less than 1 year after the day the claim is given to the insurer-8 weeks after the notice is given to the worker; or

(b) if the notice under subsection (2) is given 1 year or later after the claim is given to the insurer-when the Magistrates Court orders the entitlement to stop under this section.

Of course, that is contestable as well in the Magistrates Court.

These termination provisions were the subject of long negotiations. I know that the insurance companies would like to have easier termination clauses. But put yourself in the worker's position. Less than eight weeks is not much time for you to prepare yourself for a change in benefits. It is not much time in which to organise your affairs, and so on and so forth, in the knowledge that you are going to lose, for example, your sickness benefit.

Mr Speaker, the government position, as set out in subsection (2) of Mr Smyth's amendment, is as follows:

The minister then becomes in charge of the appeal; he receives the appeal. Somebody said to me, "Well, that wouldn't be the minister. It would be his delegate. It would be perhaps Ms Plovits, or somebody else like that, who would make the determination." Why on earth are appeals on these matters coming back into government? It is not government's responsibility to look after these issues. Indeed, how does government provide a judicial or quasi-judicial function in relation to benefits which have ceased as a result of this process?

Mr Speaker, I think this is a completely illogical approach to the issue. I do not know why the minister would want the responsibility anyway of dealing with stopped payments. What if something in relation to this matter gets bogged down in the department or the minister's office?

I think the conditions that apply in my amendment to cessation or termination of benefits are adequate-that is, benefits are terminated after eight weeks if notice is given less than one year after the day a claim is given to the insurer; and if notice is given one year or later after a claim has been given to the insurer, the Magistrates Court has got to sort out the matter. This part of the legislation relates to the stopping of payments. We ought to be concerned about this serious matter.

There are certain provisions which relate to this issue. The minister's amendment uses language such as: if the worker unreasonably fails to comply with a requirement under this chapter, including the worker's personal injury plan; fails to take part in or make reasonable effort to take part in a vocational rehabilitation or return-to-work program; fails to attend an assessment of the worker's employment prospects; fails to undertake and so on.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .