Page 1598 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 14 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
amendment is phrased in a way that may have the effect of the injured person’s nominated treating doctor overriding the decision of an insurer regarding treatment and care that is not reasonable and necessary.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (4.26): It is good to get Ms Le Couteur on the record saying that she is categorically in favour of the insurance company over the treating doctor. That is exactly what she just said. I will not move amendment No 22, because it is clear that Mr Barr’s amendment is going to get up. In the absence of mine being supported, then Mr Barr’s will have to do.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 128 to 132, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 133.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (4.27), by leave: I move amendments Nos 23 and No 24 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 1636]. Amendment No 23 is consequential to changing the WPI threshold to five per cent, which has not been supported.
Amendment No 24 alters the exception to be based on the injured person’s treating doctor’s certification that the injured person will require treatment and care beyond the four year and six month period or the injured person is a participant in the care scheme in relation to their injury. We believe this is going to create a far more equitable system that will give assurances of being able to access common-law remedies.
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) (4.28): Amendment No 23 is indeed the WPI matter that we have dealt with previously. Our position remains unchanged on that question. On amendment No 24, the government opposes this amendment because a doctor would be able to certify that the injured person requires treatment and care more than four years and six months after the accident and any time after the accident leading up to four years and six months. For example, they could certify after only one year past the accident.
This would mean that a doctor could certify this before the outcomes of the provider-defined benefit and care treatments are known, and the amount of medical involvement a child may experience over this time period. The government’s amendments address the concern raised by the legal profession that an insurer could deny treatment and care before four years and six months to avoid a motor accident claim being advanced by a child under this clause. The government’s amendments specify that an internal or external review decision will take effect on the day of the original decision. I believe that this adequately covers the concerns that have been raised on this point.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video