Page 1732 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 17 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
employer. This may mean a close look both at the range of benefits available and at the possibility of a complete change in how those benefits are delivered and who delivers them.
Such questions as the coverage of part-time and casual workers are also important. This will require a major review into all aspects of benefits available, both in the ACT and in the other States. It will be necessary to look at the role of such factors as common law, redemptions, and statutory limits on benefits, as well as the level of weekly benefits. It is necessary to consider the role of these payments, both as reimbursements to injured workers and also in encouraging participation in a worthwhile rehabilitation program aimed at achieving an early return to meaningful work.
The role of rehabilitation in any new scheme is pivotal. All other States and the Commonwealth have placed primary emphasis on requiring early referral to rehabilitation once a need is recognised. It is essential that any worker likely to be off work for more than a month quickly undertakes a rehabilitation assessment, both to assist in his recovery and to achieve an early return to work. This is in the interests of both the injured worker and the employer.
Participation in a rehabilitation program must be an essential part of the injury management process, and it may be appropriate that participation in such a program may in some cases be a precondition to ongoing receipt of benefits, again in the interests of the injured party.
There are a number of different schemes which need to be considered before the scheme most appropriate to the needs of the ACT can be determined. I am sure there are many parties who will express in some cases quite conflicting views on the most efficient and effective scheme.
I have already indicated that a number of States and the Commonwealth run their own schemes. Other States rely on the presence of a government insurance office in the marketplace. Another option is to call for tenders from either one or a number of private insurers to run an ACT scheme, perhaps within preset maximum premium levels or on contract to the Government.
It may be decided that the current scheme provides the best delivery, perhaps with some modifications. I think there can be little doubt, however, that there is a role for much more government involvement in the industry, even if only in requiring provision of much more detailed statistical analysis of costs, claims control and rehabilitation, to enable more detailed scrutiny by government.
Whatever scheme is considered most relevant to the needs of the ACT, there can be little argument that, for whatever reason, the current scheme is simply not delivering low-cost, effective results.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .