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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3861 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

workers are treated properly, supported and remunerated while, on the other hand, the cost of the schemes must be kept reasonable and affordable for business. This is a difficult balance to strike but, with this exposure bill and regulations, we are confident that we are going a long way towards achieving the balance.

In the ACT, we have a compulsory scheme serviced by a panel of approved private sector insurers. Unlike some jurisdictions, such as New South Wales and Victoria, our scheme is fully funded. We do not have the problem of eradicating a deficit in the scheme. This strength must not be lost. Nevertheless, we do have a host of areas where we must do better, and I will highlight today just a few of the areas where the government's proposed arrangements will enhance the workers compensation framework of the territory.

The current framework fits perfectly with what the former Chief Justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court, and now Chief Justice of the High Court, Murray Gleeson, described as the "blaming and claiming syndrome". It encourages the finding of fault, the contesting of decisions and resorting to the courts. This is an expensive, divisive and inefficient approach.

The primary emphasis should be on having injured workers treated, rehabilitated and back to work as quickly as possible, but it is not. Too often it is more about injured workers gaining access to pots of gold that are totally illusory. Under these approaches no - one - not the worker, not the insurer nor the employer - benefits. We cannot allow this culture in workers compensation to continue any longer.

This draft bill seeks to change this approach. It would require that employers, insurers, treatment providers and injured workers participate within defined parameters to achieve an effective and durable return to work. All parties, including the injured workers, must take an active and effective role in the process. Failure to do so would meet with severe penalties.

Statutory benefits for workers in the territory injured for periods greater than 26 weeks are the lowest in the country. The low level of benefits injured workers receive is pushing some workers into poverty. This is clearly an unacceptable situation. The draft bill proposes a way to rectify this injustice. However, the proposed approach also ensures that there remains an appropriate and adequate fiscal incentive for injured workers to return to work.

There are also plenty of benefits in the draft bill for employers. Insurance companies will be able to offer employers innovative insurance policies, subject to minimum requirements, rather than the mandatory, inflexible arrangements that currently prevail.

Insurers will be able to offer new and integrated insurance products, which will allow employers and their insurers to maximise benefits. Employers will also benefit from proposals to support the faster return to work of injured staff through mandatory intervention processes. We know that continued contact with the workplace and an early, but durable, return to work, both reduce the cost of workers compensation and provide both the worker and the employer with better social and productivity outcomes.

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