Page 951 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
jurisdictions. The New South Wales scheme that we are seeking to align with has been in operation for more than seven years; it is recognised as a sector leader in lifetime care service provision and it is the scheme on which the minimum benchmarks were based. An overall comment I will make is that clearly this bill reflects a range of complex arrangements and policy settings. It is not easy to amend one provision without having significant implications elsewhere in the arrangements. Amendments cannot be made to this scheme without considering the interrelationship with both the CTP scheme and the operation of the NDIS.
More specifically on the opt-out amendments, they would allow an injured person to elect not to participate in the scheme if it was reasonable in all the circumstances to do so. Unfortunately, in Mr Smyth’s amendment the words “if it is reasonable in all circumstances to do so” are not defined, so that would be difficult to interpret. And whilst this would allow an injured person to opt out, the injured person would not receive treatment and care costs under CTP common law damages, as consequential amendments under the bill mean that these costs would no longer be covered by CTP arrangements in the ACT. As a result, an injured person opting out would receive no treatment and care support under either scheme.
The proposed scheme is specifically designed to provide for the needs of those who are catastrophically injured. The new scheme’s facilitation of early provision of treatment and care—which is, of course, critical to long-term recovery—is the key element here, the scheme recognising that someone with catastrophic injuries will probably have ongoing needs for the rest of their life and providing participants with the comfort of knowing that their treatment and care needs will be provided on an ongoing basis for their lifetime.
This is a pretty clear issue of principle. There are technical issues also in relation to the way this particular amendment has been framed, but the government does not support the broader principle. Even if we did support the broader principle, I do not think this would be the right way to do it. So we will not be supporting the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 22, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 23.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for Tourism and Events and Minister for Community Services) (12.10): Pursuant to standing order 182A(c), I seek leave to move amendments to this bill that are in response to comments made by the scrutiny committee.
Leave granted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video