Page 3452 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 11 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and in terms of termination. That assumes, of course, that all insurance companies fail to review their claims at appropriate times. I am suggesting that that is not the case and that, in fact, one out of a hundred claims would be in that sort of situation, Mr Lamont. I think the real issue is: What if an employer, an insurer or somebody else finds out after the 12 months period that someone has been receiving payments that they should not have been receiving?
Mr Lamont: Go straight to court.
MR DE DOMENICO: It is after 12 months. The insurance company and the employer have continued to give the employee the benefit of the doubt. I am glad that Mr Lamont interjected, "Go straight to court", because now we come to the true centre of this debate. There are two points. One is logic, and the other is politics. Both come into it. If we are going to accept logic, what we are saying is that termination is all about the Barbaro provisions, as they currently stand, not being good enough. What the Government's legislation is saying is that Barbaro is no good up to 12 months; but after 12 months Barbaro is okay. To me, that just does not make sense.
If we are trying to remove the Barbaro provisions by allowing a termination clause - surely, as in every other jurisdiction - if we agree that we are going to have a termination clause, let us have a real termination clause, not a Clayton's one. Now the politics come into it, because, as Mr Lamont would be aware, at one stage everybody, including the unions, agreed to a termination provision without the 12-month proviso. However, on the return to the committee of a particular unionist, the unions changed their mind. That is the reality of the situation. Until that time there was agreement, as I understand it, between all parties that termination should be linked with rehabilitation and that termination should not have the 12-month proviso. On the return of a particular representative to that workers compensation committee, the view of the unions changed. That is fine. Mr Lamont, in his wisdom, decided to try to steer the middle course, and came up with the 12 months provision. My logic and commonsense say this: Why is it that the ACT, and only the ACT, has a termination provision with the 12-month restriction, if we are all talking about, and nodding our heads about, mutual recognition, uniform legislation and making sure that employers and employees in the ACT are no worse off and perhaps no better off - slightly better off, because they are better off under this legislation; but certainly no worse off - - -
Mr Lamont: Substantially better off.
MR DE DOMENICO: Okay, I agree; substantially better off. But let us look at the realities of New South Wales, particularly Queanbeyan, which is just over the border. Reality tells me and logic tells me - if you think Barbaro is no good and, therefore, you say, "Let us remove the Barbaro provisions by having a termination provision." - to ask, "Why is it that Barbaro is no good up to 12 months but seems to be okay after a 12-month period?". That, to me, makes no logic and makes no sense. I suggest that Ms Szuty should think very seriously about that argument, in particular, before we take a vote on the clause.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .