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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3448 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

(4) The worker's injury is taken to have stabilised if-

(5) However, the worker's injury may have stabilised even if the worker has not returned to work.

Mr Speaker, if I am not mistaken, this goes to the table of maims. This proposed section seeks to deny a worker right of access to the table of maims for two years unless the Magistrates Court allows the claim or the injury has stabilised-and I do not know who will make this determination.

Mr Speaker, I will go to the issues. If somebody loses a leg above or below the knee, it is not going to grow back, it is not going to get better. This outrageous provision will deny workers access to the table of maims when they most need it. You can tell when a finger is missing. You can tell when an eye is lost. You are not going to get these functions back.

Why does the government see this provision as some sort of incentive to get workers back to work? How can it be that a worker who has lost an arm, or some other part of their body, needs to have the approval of a Magistrates Court or a decision from somewhere that the injury has stabilised before they can get access to the table of maims? I just see that as plainly ridiculous. How does that improve the lot of a worker? How does it get them back to work more quickly?

Workers are entitled to compensation from when they lose their leg, not at some time later. They are entitled to it from day one. They are going to get the money anyway. Why delay it? Somebody who loses a part of their body or a function will want to get on with life. There will be back-to-work programs and all that sort of stuff. Access to this sort of money is not going to change their view; they will want to get better. It is ridiculous to suggest that they ought to wait for a couple of years.

Mr Speaker, this will not encourage people to return to work. Is it suggested that it will be easier to get people back to work if they do not get a cash settlement for the loss of a leg, some brain damage, or something like that? Minister, it is access to the table of maims that we are talking about?

Mr Smyth: Yes.

MR BERRY: I just cannot understand how you think this would improve back-to-work performance. I just cannot see why you would have to go to a Magistrates Court to determine it. It is pretty easy to see whether a person has lost a toe or other parts of their body. Like everybody else, I can count and I would know whether a person had lost two joints of a finger. I think this provision is ridiculous.

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