Page 3702 - Week 12 - Thursday, 13 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is true that there has been a very large increase in the number of people who are currently obtaining compensation. The amount paid out in 1992-93 rose from just under $2m to just over $3m in 1993-94 - an increase of 50 per cent. However, I do not believe that there is evidence that most of those claims are false claims or claims by people who do not deserve compensation. The vast majority of those claims are, indeed, claims which are fully deserving of compensation under the principles which this legislation lays down. I might point out that the legislation was an initiative of Senator Lionel Murphy back in the mid-1970s.
Madam Speaker, I want to make brief reference to Mrs Grassby's so-called additional comments. Mrs Grassby was persuaded to join with the committee in certain recommendations; but she has produced some comments which I think - despite not being called so - really amount to dissenting comments rather than additional comments. She rejects much of what the committee has recommended. I think that that is most unfortunate, because the committee worked hard, as it always does, to try to achieve consensus. I also reject the assertion in her comments that other members of the committee were not as committed as the Government to amending the principal Act to place some legislative ceiling on the volume of payouts under the scheme. I think that I speak on behalf of Ms Szuty when I say that we are not in favour of placing a ceiling on the scheme for the sake of placing a ceiling on it. We would be happy to do so if we felt that there were illicit or unwarranted claims being made. But the volume of those claims at this stage does not appear to be very great. I think, with respect, that the concerns which Mrs Grassby expressed in the committee are not actually addressed by the legislation that has been put forward - certainly, not in terms of the sorts of things that she commented on which she felt were matters of concern, such as people making claims in respect of nightclubs and so on.
Madam Speaker, I commend the report to the Assembly. I hope that, notwithstanding the rejection of much of what is in this Bill, it is still possible for there to be legislation before the end of this year. I have discussed this with the Attorney, and I think it is still possible to tighten up the operation of the scheme without adulterating the important principles under which people in this Territory are still entitled to get compensation when they are injured by criminal acts.
MRS GRASSBY (6.21): Madam Speaker, my report was not a dissenting report, because the only recommendation that I could not agree with was recommendation No. 1. If that were changed, I believe that the Bill could be amended on the floor of the house. The chairman met with the Minister. All the things that the Minister had put in a letter to us were then agreed to. I believed that, if the first recommendation were changed slightly, the Bill should not have to be withdrawn.
Madam Speaker, it is said that there has not been an enormous increase in claims. Let us take taverns, hotels and clubs. In 1991-92 the amount paid was $190,105. In 1993-94 it was $513,882. That is a 170 per cent increase. In 1991-92 the amount paid for work related claims was $28,333, and in 1993-94 it was $357,144.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .