Page 844 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
between the premiums collected in 2003-04—and I am going on ACT WorkCover published data—of about $142.9 million and claims paid to date in that period, as well as future payments estimated, totalling $73 million. It is good business if you can get it, because we are talking here about a $60 million or $70 million profit in this activity.
Despite the former member for Molonglo, Mr Quinlan, often saying that we on this side of the chamber are friends of the big end of town, I certainly do not consider myself particularly friendly to the idea of these massive premiums being shipped out of Canberra to the insurance industry when I look at the claims history of the territory and the premiums they are gleaning from the business houses of Canberra. The sentiment was expressed by Ms Gallagher, the minister, about the need for a review. She has spoken on this in, I think, estimates and, certainly, at annual reports hearings. I have put questions on the notice paper. Even the minister recognised the need for a review of the scheme. I strongly hold the view that the potential cost of a review should not be allowed to interfere with this plan.
Sometimes you have to spend money to generate improvements and savings. If we can assist the ACT economy by bringing a better level of control on the level of workers compensation scheme premiums, then we are delivering a wonderful benefit for the ACT community. That will flow through into business, it will flow through into employment, and it will flow through into reinvestment.
I would like to still see a bipartisan view on this because it is an area on which I continually receive a steady stream of complaints. People quote New South Wales figures versus ACT figures. I know there are significant reasons for the differences that relate to the method by which we fund liabilities. But I am also concerned that, even within the model that we have adopted in Canberra, there may be scope for considerable improvement.
The government is quite active in promoting the view that occupational health and safety measures, improvements in safety in the workplace, are measures that help in this regard. Mrs Dunne was quite willing to acknowledge the radical improvements from when her father worked in the construction industry in the 1960s to the state of play we have now. I have had one of my children working in construction in Canberra. We have made massive progress. I take no heart in seeing any form of workplace injury, despite the inference in Mr Gentleman’s remarks in the debate yesterday.
I believe that, whilst cutting down the level of claims, making sure that employers do not engage in foolish and dangerous practices and encouraging employees to take seriously safety at the workplace is part of the equation, we also need to look at the legal aspects of workers compensation, and whether there is scope for containing costs there, and we need to look at what the insurance companies are claiming out of the community of Canberra, with great gusto, in the demands they have imposed on this territory.
I spoke to Mr Quinlan when he was in this place. I am aware of the difficulties in negotiation because of the size of this territory, with a very small percentage of the Australian population. But all of these things could be put on the table if we had an inquiry. For that reason, I felt sufficiently strong on this issue on this occasion to take the view that I would add this perspective to the report and ensure that it is on the record that this is a matter that should not be allowed to lapse. It is a view that has been advocated
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .