Page 1547 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 14 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
whole person impairment has been set so that these people with injuries that are more serious will exceed that threshold and then will be eligible for common-law damages.
Whole person impairment assessment is more difficult at low levels, at around the five per cent mark that the opposition are proposing, partly because of the difficulty of distinguishing the impact of the accident from any pre-existing conditions. This, I think, is important when we look at the balance of the scheme, as Ms Le Couteur has indicated, and then look at how this is applied in other similar schemes across the nation. For example, Victoria have a 30 per cent threshold. They have some provision for a descriptive or narrative test but they have a 30 per cent threshold. New South Wales use a threshold of greater than 10 per cent whole person impairment for common-law claims.
When you look at the workers compensation schemes around the country which are similar—not exactly the same but similar—but which also use whole person impairment, it is greater than 15 per cent in New South Wales, 30 per cent in Victoria, 15 per cent in WA, 30 per cent in South Australia, 20 per cent in Tasmania and 20 per cent in Queensland. A 10 per cent figure here in the ACT is more generous than any other jurisdiction in the country and, I believe, strikes the right balance.
I think it is important to note that voting for these amendments would increase premiums. This is exactly the point that I made in my introductory remarks. This would be the big cost of living impact upon all Canberra motorists if these amendments were to pass. We believe we have struck the right balance here. I acknowledge the support of Ms Le Couteur and the Greens on this important issue. The government will not be supporting these amendments and the future ones that relate to this specific issue.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (11.19): I want to reiterate that we would not be in this situation if the Canberra Liberals had got their way and the legislation was rejected and we could simply keep the current system. We would not be having this talk, this discussion about 10 per cent or five per cent. The Chief Minister can try to construct this argument about $100 or $150 more, but this would all be moot if, indeed, they simply left the current system as it is.
The other thing that is important to note here is that the government and Ms Le Couteur, a member of the government in everything but name, keep talking about WPI, in particular talking about it as a percentage. In reality it is not a zero to 100 continuum. In reality, in effect, the continuum is far more likely to be zero to 50 or 60 because, for anything over 50 or 60, there is a fair chance you are pretty much dead. We have to put this in some perspective. That five per cent might sound very minor but that is actually doubled if you consider that the continuum is half the length that might be suggested if it were zero to 100.
Ms Le Couteur also made mention of the in-principle support for extending the coverage, the in-principle support for avoiding litigation and the need for more defying settlements. You can still have that in-principle support and reduce it to five per cent. The principle does not change by tweaking it from 10 per cent to five per cent. It is exactly the same principle. You are just choosing a different entry level, a much fairer entry level of five per cent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video