Page 1592 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 14 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Amendment negatived.
Clause 106 agreed to.
Clause 107 agreed to.
Clause 108.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (3.57): I will be opposing this clause. This amendment removes the clause that restricts individuals from receiving income payments in a lump sum. Removal of the capacity to commute income replacement benefits is a significant change from the current scheme. In some circumstances commuting the payment enables claims to be resolved in a timely and cost-effective manner and in a way which is satisfactory to both the insurer and the injured person. It can bring closure for a person who so desires it right away, as opposed to having to take an extended fortnightly payment, which can prolong the whole experience.
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) (3.58): The government will be supporting the clause. It is well recognised that the coordination of services is a key principle in injury management, and this means a structured approach, with active facilitation and liaison. Allowing for lump sum payments would undermine the purpose of the scheme to provide injured people with the treatment, care and income replacement benefits they need to recover after an accident. Instead, if Mr Coe was successful here, the focus would be on negotiating the lump sum, and that is not the basis of the reforms that we are attempting to introduce here, which are all about treatment and care. We will support the clause and will not be voting against it.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (3.59): The Greens will also support this clause. I think it is quite an interesting philosophical question: whether or not you should argue that, just because a person may want to get a lump sum, it is their choice and they should. But, as Mr Barr said, there actually are some good reasons for this scheme to not allow an injured person to receive all their benefits as a lump sum. The reasoning behind this is that the scheme is focused on helping injured people to recover, and it requires the development of a recovery plan which entails active support for rehabilitation.
The problem is that the lump sum can bypass the active recovery focus. Because a lump sum is estimated up-front, it may not provide the required amount of care and treatment, and that would not be good. Because the lump sum is a big pot of gold, potentially you could end up with a situation where people use lawyers in pursuit of a lump sum and then they have their lump sum reduced by those legal fees. We are concerned that bringing back lump sums here could reintroduce some of the problems of the current CTP system, where there is a very adversarial environment. Obviously, that is not what we would like to see happen.
Clause 108 agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video