Page 5926 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
occurred in Barbaro v. Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd, would not occur again. In fact, it overturns the ratio decidendi of Barbaro v. Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd, which indicates that an employer has to go to court to stop a payment.
There is a danger - hopefully not a very significant one, but nevertheless a danger - of false claims being made, of double-dipping. An employee could be working and still getting workers' compensation payments when in all fairness the payments should cease because there is no real need for them. Under the Act as it is, the employer would have to go to court after waiting about nine months, in many cases, I imagine, with little chance of getting back any of the back pay.
That causes further cost and delays to the system. Costs are very important because, whilst this Act gives a lot of benefits, the costs are still higher than in other States. While it is basically a good scheme, costs are very important. When business has to bear excessive costs, it affects the ability of business to operate efficiently and it affects jobs. The amendment I am proposing would be beneficial not only to business but also to employment prospects in the ACT and would have the effect of assisting in the creation of jobs.
Mr Berry: Come on; you are stretching it a bit.
MR STEFANIAK: I do not think so. Let us face it: The economy is not exactly in a marvellous condition at present, and everything we can do to assist in that regard is going to be of benefit. It is pointless paying people twice when there is no justification for doing so. This provision, which I will speak to further, would stop the possibility for abuse there. As I said, it deals only with non-arbitrated payments and the conditions are quite strict. The provision has been around for some time; it has been taken out of one of the draft Bills, only recently, on my understanding, and it should be put back in.
Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, my party supports this Bill in principle, but I have foreshadowed one substantive amendment. There is no need to deal with the Bill clause by clause because the amendment relates to the one point. The Bill can be dealt with as a whole; I do not wish to delay needlessly the passage of this legislation. I highlight our amendment because it will benefit greatly the efficient operation of the Act and, indeed, will ensure that it operates fairly. The provision should never have been taken out in the first place.
MR COLLAERY (4.05): I want to put this into historic context. I have practised in this jurisdiction and I am aware of the competing issues. I am not buying into the ideology, if there is any, of the TLC, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. I do not want any part of it. I agree that the workers' compensation situation in this Territory is crying out for widespread and concerted reform, and this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .