Page 5930 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
bronzed, as if they have the instinctive grasp of a fishing rod in their hand. You know exactly the category of client I am talking about. I think there is a little bit of six of one and half a dozen of the other in this debate. The Barbaro decision has resulted in game playing by some claimants - I am not going to use the pejorative term "workers". On the other hand, I think a three-months cut-out is too soon.
I want to come back to the situation of insurers. I do not believe that the insurers are alleging that they are having a huge loss in this Territory. As the committee found, and I quote from page 30 of the main report:
Thus, when similarly composed work forces are compared, the average ACT premium rate exceeded those from other States by between 75 per cent and 150 per cent.
Shades of the NRMA actuarial history. So, I am not convinced that there is a financial crisis among the insurers on this issue. There is certainly a high degree of well-founded frustration with a number of cases they have; but, equally, I do not see how the insurers will be able to be properly selective in serving Mr Stefaniak's proposed form 5 notices. I reckon that every worker will be looked at as a prima facie person to get a notice of termination. Workers' compensation will then boil down to 12 weeks' payment and "See you in court thereafter, and we will delay you in court and we will play the game all the way".
So, on balance, the Rally will not support Mr Stefaniak's amendment. We support the other provisions in the Bill. (Extension of time granted) I am indebted to the house. I foreshadow an amendment to the definition of medical treatment and a definition of psychologist. It has been a long-term beef of psychologists in this town that they are unable to get their payments when there has been a referral to them. Many insurers have been pretty good about it; there are two who have not. I will not name them. The existing legislation does not provide, believe it or not, that psychological counselling or therapeutic advice is a compensatable item. I am putting that broadly.
Mr Berry: It says psychologists. Psychologists are in there.
MR COLLAERY: Yes. The present Act before us says that a psychologist can be paid, to put it shortly, if he or she gets the referral from a doctor or dentist. That is demeaning. That is demeaning, in any event, to a profession. Secondly, psychologists, on my advice and knowledge, often get referrals from occupational therapists, Mr Berry, as you know, and from consultant rehabilitation experts. The rehabilitation centres send workers along for psychological advising and therapeutic advice. I hope that Mr Berry will support that foreshadowed amendment. It is no great issue of angst.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .