Page 1659 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The need to preserve common-law rights should be preserved in any of these schemes. This only applies to medical, so it will be interesting to see how that division takes effect. Again, the need for review after a two-year period and a mechanism to address operational issues will become important in this case. The question is whether or not we should have reviewed the scheme before extending the cover to work-related injuries, but I suspect the lack of information or data may make it hard to review something that is still relatively new.
One of the concerns that has been raised is that the lifetime care and support act seems to unduly limit the ability of a catastrophically injured person to seek external review of the commissioner’s decisions, including reasonable advice on entitlements. Again, with the small number of people in the scheme as it stands, it may take some time. It is certainly something that we will keep an eye on, and I would be very pleased if the minister in his closing address would tell us what they expect from a review, when that review will occur and what it will cover.
There are issues around the employer ceasing to be obliged to be involved in a personal injury plan, which does seem to be contrary to ensuring the best possible care. I suspect it is the case that the personal injury plan under the workers comp is with a view to a return to work, and these are cases where the return to work is most unlikely.
We are leading on this in terms of timing. I understand Queensland has not yet done motor vehicle accidents lifetime care and support, yet we are moving on. I do not believe any other jurisdiction has extended their lifetime care and support to cover work-related catastrophic injuries at this stage. So it will be interesting to see, as the smallest jurisdiction in regard to numbers, what effect that may have.
The Western Australian government, I notice, has recently established a scheme which allows an injured person to choose whether or not to enter the scheme. So there are questions as to whether ACT workers deserve that same right, and whether they should be able to choose to opt out and receive damages through an appropriate mechanism to ensure that the workers comp scheme is refunded.
So there are issues here. We will support it today, but we do put in place the caveat that we will watch what happens into the future. Part of the justification for doing this is that somehow those who are catastrophically injured seem to fritter away their money and end up on the public purse. My understanding is that there is no evidence to support that. Indeed I have been given this quote:
In the deep experience of the ALA membership, the vast majority of claimants, not only in a workers’ compensation context, use their lump sums wisely for the benefit of themselves and their families. The common law provides mechanisms by which vulnerable claimants are protected, such as court sanction of settlements.
In that regard there are claims that sometimes lump sums fall short. The ALA noted:
… that common law claims have been inappropriately capped and limited by legislation so that true assessment of loss cannot occur.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video