Page 5949 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
End of story. That is why I did it. There you are; professional legal expert opinion from the Parliamentary Counsel's Office. That, hopefully at least, will answer your question in relation to that particular point, Mr Berry.
Members, in relation to this particular proposal proposed by the Liberal Party, I reiterate that it was in the original 18 points. It has been taken out. This potential for double-dipping and the fact that court cases take six to nine months before it can be rectified cause premiums to remain higher than they would normally be. That is important; that does affect business, because it is an impost on business.
Insurance in the ACT is purely a cost of product based on legislation, and the higher the benefit and the more claims, naturally the higher the premium. That is just a fact of life. If you look at the reality of the situation, if you understand how our legal system works, if you understand the other protections within this legislation, I think you are being quite ludicrous and hysterical to suggest a survival proposition; that after an initial 12 months every worker, regardless of whether he or she is properly entitled to workers' compensation or not, is suddenly, at the whim of an employer, to be chopped off.
To suggest that that is going to happen is painfully ludicrous. That is simply not going to happen. We are in the 1990s; we are not in the 1940s.
Mr Berry: Why are you changing it, then?
MR STEFANIAK: I think I have explained that, Mr Berry. I am changing that because it will have the effect of lowering premiums. Unfortunately, where we have double-dipping, we have the fact that it is going to take some nine months before that can be rectified. My proposal will simply regulate the situation better and it will have the effect of reducing premiums. It is fairer to all when all things are taken into account. If members have any regard for business in this Territory and, indeed, the proper operation of this legislation, they will pass this amendment.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (5.19): One thing Mr Stefaniak did raise was the professionalism of parliamentary counsel who work for the ACT Government, and he is right on that score; there is no question about that. They act in accordance with their instructions. Mr Stefaniak has obviously issued instructions which indicate "Hit the worker" and they have shown him how to hit them properly. That is what it is all about. They do as they are told. They act in accordance with their instructions. They are very professional.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .