Page 5948 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Tom Uren, and Tom Uren was hardly known for his right-wing views. I do not think anyone could say that Tom Uren was not a friend of the workers. That working committee, including the TLC, agreed to it. Something has changed. This was one of the original 18 changes deemed necessary to the Workers' Compensation Act, and we are talking about 17 now.
Let us look at the facts of it. Let us apply a little bit of commonsense. If someone is entitled, for example, to only 26 weeks' pay, workers' compensation, if he or she is injured, that is all that should be given. No-one should be able to double-dip a system and be paid when there is no justification for that occurring, and that can occur under your legislation as it is. That can occur as a result of the Federal Court case of Barbaro v. Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd in 1980. This is a necessary amendment. This undoubtedly was in the minds of the people who drafted it and who put it in those 18 points back in 1984, four years after the Federal Court case of Barbaro v. Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd.
I reiterate what I said earlier, Mr Berry: In the other States this has not been linked, as you people want to seek to link it, to the issue of rehabilitation schemes. Rehabilitation schemes are going to be put into this Act. Rehabilitation schemes are in operation in other States, but they are not linked to termination. This termination clause should be put in because other States have termination clauses and similar provisions.
Mr Berry also asked why clause 12 was being taken out.
Mr Berry: I know why it has been taken out.
MR STEFANIAK: I will tell you why it has been taken out. It has been taken out because of professional legal advice. I do not get my amendments drafted by any old Tom, Dick or Harry; this was given to me by the relevant bodies. I think the insurance people gave me the amendment.
I took it over to the legislative counsel and made sure that they looked at it. They look at any piece of drafting I have anything to do with, because they are the professionals. I have a great deal of respect for the professional competence of the ACT Parliamentary Counsel's Office. There is a reason why clause 12 has been omitted. I will quote from a note I have from that office. It says:
You will note that I have included a consequential amendment to omit clause 12 of the First Schedule to the principal Act. This clause deals with existing termination arrangements and, assuming the amendment to insert clause 26A is passed, will be superseded by that clause.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .