Page 2632 - Week 12 - Thursday, 16 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Considering the importance of this very complicated issue, known expertise must be utilised. There is a general lack of knowledge within the ACT Administration concerning workers compensation, and the industrial relations advisory committee selected must be a group of prominent experts in the wider range of areas which workers compensation touches on.
There are areas of the legislation as it is at present that should be brought to the Assembly's attention so that all members fully recognise the draconian legislation for what it is. I will cover a number of the problems now. The maximum penalty in the ACT for failing to take out workers compensation cover is $200. Let us look at this scenario which has indeed been posed.
An employer might cover five of his 10 employees for workers compensation to cover himself and one of the workers not covered is injured at work. That injured worker takes his employer to court and the employer is found guilty and fined $200. The worker has no other recourse but to sue for negligence. In New South Wales the fine is many times greater than that and, indeed, that is something that the ACT will have to look at.
Another example is that there is no termination clause in the ACT legislation. This means that, once a payment begins, it cannot be stopped despite fears and perhaps proof that a bodgie compensation claim has been accepted as a real claim. It is important to include such clauses in any new legislation to ensure that insurers have an escape route for payments if they have reason to believe that a fraudulent claim is involved.
This could be done by insurers notifying claimants that they believe that payments should cease. The claimant would then have the opportunity to represent his or her injury claim to an appropriate forum, perhaps along the lines I have spoken of earlier. This would, in the long run, reduce fraudulent claims and lower workers compensation premiums.
A third ludicrous example that exists in the ACT legislation is that a worker who is injured in the ACT has no requirement to proceed through the ACT court system if the need arises. Take, for example, an injured worker who lives in Queanbeyan and works in the ACT. (Extension of time granted) That injured worker can choose his jurisdiction, be it New South Wales or the ACT. Obviously, after legal advice, he chooses the jurisdiction which will ultimately provide the most benefit. That situation must be addressed.
These are only three examples of the need for a total review of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance in the ACT. The importance of this issue has not been fully appreciated by the Government or the community. The Labor Government's advertisement in the Canberra Times of 28 October for a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .