Page 3453 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 11 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY (Manager of Government Business) (9.40): I think Mr De Domenico's comments highlight the gulf between the Liberals and their philosophy on these matters and the Labor Party and how it has dealt with employers and unions on this issue. The consultation phase went for a long period. In the early stages one group was saying that Barbaro was here forever, for everybody. On the other side, people said that it should go and that the payments should be able to be terminated by the employer or the insurance company at a moment's notice. Over a long period of time - and Mr De Domenico, I think, would be the first to agree - there were differences between the parties which seemed, at first, to be beyond reconciliation; there just did not seem to be a chance of sorting the issue out.
As time passed, with the efforts of various players, an accommodation was reached on all those issues. Part of it, as has been mentioned, was that very important issue of occupational rehabilitation. That had to form part of it. That was fair enough. At the end of the day we have ended up with a package of amendments which keep all the players reasonably happy. You would receive acknowledgment from all of them that the consultation phase surrounding these changes was a successful one, because it led to a change which all the players will be able to live with. I think recognition has to be given to the completeness of consultation and how it was able to deliver a change which is reasonable in all the circumstances.
I think that to try to strike out, say, the Barbaro issue altogether is a little naive, given the track record on this issue. The Barbaro decision assists after 12 months in that, if an employer wants to terminate, he or she can go through the channels which he or she has been going through over the years. I do not think it will affect outcomes much. Mr De Domenico raised the issue: Where an employer or an insurance company discovered that an employee was not entitled to workers compensation, what would they do after 12 months? They would go off to the courts. If the employer or the insurance company made out a good case, then the courts would rule in their favour. What is wrong with that? Not a thing. I think this has been a very successful consultation phase on an issue that was very difficult, where people were polarised at the outset. Maybe they were worn down by time; but at the end of the day people came to the conclusion that there was another range of options which would suit them and bring about change, which would assist in putting together a better package for everybody. In the case of occupational rehabilitation, it was a much better package for workers in the workplace. I think it ought to be supported wholeheartedly.
MR STEVENSON (9.44): There is one point that has not been specifically talked about, although it may have been referred to in another way, and that is that, if someone is falsely claiming compensation, there is the question of recovery of the money that has been paid by the insurance company. After all, when we get down to it, we do agree that insurance companies are in business. If they do not make profits, they do not run the business. If they do not run the business, the people that are being insured do not get the benefits. Every time there is a false claim on the insurance company, premiums rise, and there are fewer people that can afford those premiums. If you look at the number of people that do not insure their motor vehicle - something as basic as that - you understand that clearly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .