Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3345 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

insurers have not responded as well as it was originally suggested they might, that is, that they would accept claims more readily than they might otherwise if there were no termination clause in the legislation. The termination clause was subsequently included, and a provision which talks about mental injury or stress wholly or predominantly related to reasonable action taken by employers in respect of a range of matters concerning transfer, demotion, et cetera, might be another area where insurers suddenly say, "We are not sure about this stress claim. We will just hang onto it for a while".

Stress claims have developed as dirty words by those antagonistic to workers compensation. Anybody who knows somebody who has been subject to work-related stress would be horrified at some of the attitudes we hear from some commentators on this issue and from some of those people who are opposed generally to the provisions of workers compensation. Some prominent commentators in talkback radio deride stress claims as being something that nobody should entitled to make. Again, it is a serious part of the range of workplace injuries that workers are exposed to. I had a look at all of the provisions in other States, and I see that these or similar provisions are peppered throughout the States. I still feel uncomfortable with those sorts of provisions in workers compensation legislation; but, as it has developed as a standard, I am prepared to support it in the current framework. However, I warn that I will be watching very closely the attitude of insurers to workers.

Other clauses that relate to deemed total incapacity, compensation for medical treatment - I will come back to that - substitution and transitional arrangements, CPI indexation and so on will be supported. One aspect of concern is compensation for medical treatment, where it talks about the cost of conveyance and the cost of accommodation and the fact that these will be accommodated in regulations. I know that there were some concerns about those issues, but the regulations are disallowable and amendable, so it is possible that, if the Minister prescribes regulations that are unsatisfactory at some point in the future - I am not suggesting that Mr Kaine would, because I know he is a very fair-minded man when it comes to these things - there will be a chance to disallow or amend those provisions. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the amendments are a positive move and, as I said, Labor will be supporting them.

MR MOORE (5.15): In rising to support the legislation, I would like to draw attention to three issues. The first is the definition of "stress", the second is the amount of money, which is now to be set by regulation, and the third is the use of the device of infringement notices. The first matter on the issue of stress is the interesting definition that is used at proposed subparagraph 4(c) of the legislation:

... a reference to mental injury or stress shall not be taken to include a mental injury or stress wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by or on behalf of an employer with respect to the transfer, demotion, promotion, performance appraisal, discipline, retrenchment or dismissal of a worker or the provision of an employment benefit to a worker.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .