Page 3448 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 11 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to be reargued, and what I as Minister have accepted, is the question of how, within an Act, we provide that the relationship between the employee and the employer ensures that we can continue to provide the insurance cover for those workers to attain those social justice outcomes, and to attempt to ensure that the employer, in terms of bearing the cost at the end of the day - it is not the insurance company that bears the cost; it is the employer that pays to cover these contingencies - is not adversely or, beyond reasonable cost, required to expend their resources.
When you look at what the Barbaro provisions provided in the ACT, there is an argument by the employers and the insurers that the Barbaro principle, under the existing Act, creates an impost upon the employer and, inter alia, the insurance industry, which they should not be required to bear. An extremely cumbersome process was required to be undertaken by an insurer, if, after admitting liability by payment of weekly compensation, they were reasonably of the opinion that there was no continuing liability. What happened? They went to the courts; it cost them an arm and a leg; and half the time they got thrown out, for one reason or another. That was basically the argument, Mr De Domenico. It was an economic argument about what the cost of that arrangement was for insurance premiums in the ACT.
In taking that on board, we asked, "What is a reasonable way in which to develop a more enlightened approach?". We said, "There are probably two things that are necessary. First of all, an injured worker should have a reasonable expectation of workers compensation; he should be able to receive that workers compensation in a timely fashion". We said to the employer in these amendments, "Mr Employer, Mrs Employer, Ms Employer, you must, within seven days of receipt of a claim for workers compensation, forward that to your insurer. Insurance company, you must, within 21 days of receipt of that, either admit or deny liability". That then allows other processes to take place.
We then have a proposition which says, "What happens if the insurer admits liability in the 21 days, but six months later, through evidence provided to them, decides that they should not have liability continuing? What should they do about it?". On one hand, I suppose that I could take the view that the insurer says, "Bugger off; no more payments; no notice; just cut; finished; over and done with; unilaterally; a business decision; bang, not entitled to continuing payment". That is regarded as being unreasonable. It is regarded as unreasonable by the employer; it is regarded as unreasonable by the insurance industry; and it is regarded as unreasonable by the employee organisations. Therefore, I said, "Okay, the eight-week proposition is reasonable". An insurer, in a reasonable position of confidence, says, "I have reasonable grounds to terminate your continuing compensation; here is your notice, and in eight weeks' time it is finished". Eight weeks allows the employee to go to their trade union or to their solicitor for advice to test, if you like, whether or not the decision of the insurer is an appropriate decision. If they wish, that then gives them time to go to court to seek a stay in the termination provision.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .