Page 5947 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
4. Schedule 4
Proposed amendment of clause 12
Page 39, omit the amendment, substitute the following amendment:
Clause 12, omit the clause.
I have already spoken in relation to this point. A few fallacies, I think, crept into the in-principle debate on this point. Mr Collaery has some idea, because he has been a practising lawyer; but I do not think some people are really aware of how workers' compensation works in practice, certainly in terms of the law, and how it works in terms of our court system.
Firstly, Mr Berry and, to an extent, I gather, from Mr Collaery's rather garbled speech, Mr Collaery as well, seem to think that in virtually all cases, after the minimum 12 weeks is up, an employer will give a notice and, bang, some poor worker who is a cripple and virtually on his deathbed would have his payments stopped; that he would be on sickness benefit and would then have to go to court to get his benefits reinstated.
That is just ludicrous. That is Dickensian. That might have occurred during the Industrial Revolution, in and about 1840; but it certainly does not occur here now. I would think there are very few instances where any employer would be so stupid as to abuse this law, because if they did - - -
Mr Berry: They cannot right now. You want to change it so that they can.
MR STEFANIAK: If my amendment goes in, if they attempted to abuse it - and this could be abused, your Act can be abused, Mr Berry, at present - - -
Mr Berry: It cannot be.
MR STEFANIAK: It can be. If any employer tried to abuse it along the lines you are suggesting, they would be in for a very nasty shock when they did go to court, because they would be paying colossal costs, colossal damages, and the aggrieved worker, who certainly would be aggrieved in that situation, would be coming out of it very well, and rightly so. The courts are very mindful of such things.
There is a principle behind this particular amendment. I am not necessarily fussed even by the 12 weeks. If someone has some better suggestion and that is going to help, fine; we will listen to it. Firstly, this particular amendment was there, despite what has been said, in 1984, before the working committee. The working committee was under
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .