Page 1555 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 14 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (11.57): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 1658]. It is consequential to the previous discussion about superannuation for low income earners, so I need say no more about it.
Amendment agreed to.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (11.57): I move amendment No 3 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 1658]. It relates to exactly the same thing, so please support it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 77 to 104, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 105.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (11.58): I move amendment No 16 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1635]. This amendment seeks to amend clause 105(1)(a) so that the relevant insurer cannot request that an injured person undergo more than one medical or other examination to assess the person’s fitness for work in any 13-week period. Under the current bill, insurers can suspend income replacement payments if the insurer determines that the injured person has failed to comply with a request to undergo a medical or other examination to assess the person’s fitness to work.
In the absence of any contrary direction, insurers could require injured people to frequently attend medical appointments. We need to give some protection to injured people, and we should not have a situation where you could have an insurance company play hardball and require an injured person to go to many medical appointments in an attempt to try to deter them from going through with their claims.
MR BARR (Kurrajong—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Social Inclusion and Equality, Minister for Tourism and Special Events and Minister for Trade, Industry and Investment) (12.00): The challenge with Mr Coe’s amendment is that it is unduly restrictive in a circumstance where a person may have injuries to multiple body systems or may require both a medical and an occupational assessment for an insurer to determine an injured person’s fitness for work. Whilst I appreciate that the intent behind the amendment may have been as Mr Coe outlined, it is unduly restrictive and would make it very difficult, in the circumstances I have outlined, for such a process to occur. On balance, the government will not support the amendment.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (12.00): On balance, the Greens will also not support it, basically for the reasons outlined by Mr Barr.
Amendment negatived.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video