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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1005 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

There is a lot, however, in what Mr Kaine has said and in what my other colleagues have said, and I hope members were listening very carefully. I really wonder whether what Mr Osborne is proposing here is the best way of doing it. I think even Mr Stanhope indicated that there were some dilemmas with it and some things they would prefer not to do.

It is also clear, Mr Speaker, from a letter just tabled by the Chief Minister that the group training company concerned in this matter has reached a commercial arrangement for the next 12 months. It has entered into arrangements whereby premiums will be based on an understanding which permits that company to kick goals within the period of the contract. I am also given to understand from the letter tabled by the Chief Minister that the scales slide both ways, either up if performance is bad, or down if performance is good.

This motion seeks to cap the premium obligation in the middle of the range at 15 per cent. That is what I understand it seeks to do. If a training group could be motivated enough as a result of the bargain reached and the goal set, there is every opportunity for it to achieve a premium rate of less than 15 per cent. My understanding in relation to CITEA is that they have had premiums less than that. I was talking not that long ago to one of their directors who indicated that there had been a premium rate of 12.4 per cent. This motion might lead to uncertainty as to the agreement that they have now reached. Indeed, they might well be held to having to pay 15 per cent when they could have achieved a lower outcome.

I wonder whether this move to cap premium rates will really do anything to assist the group training companies to employ one more person. There may well be the converse. Perhaps it could cost jobs rather than make new ones.

Obviously, in this industry there are real risks of injury simply because of the nature of the industry. Anyone who has worked on a construction site would know that. It is a lot harder working on a construction site. The risks of injury are far greater than, say, if you work in an office where the most you can do probably is to stick yourself with a pen or something like that. It is in the nature of the industry.

I think it is all the more important for the industry to look to protecting its vulnerable workers from injuries and accidents. I have been told, I think, that both CITEA and the MBA have taken significant strides in that regard recently, and that should surely mean that the premiums set may well come down. So I think we need to consider the nature of the industry, and the companies themselves obviously need to look at ways in which they can minimise the risk of injury. We probably will never eliminate it; it's that sort of industry, but minimising the risk is very important.

Mr Smyth, apart from giving me a few notes, also gave me a letter from a Mr Dallas Booth, the General Manager, Statutory Classes, Insurance Council of Australia, which I will table. Whilst the letter sets out clearly the difficulties with the current proposal, and I understand it has been circulated by the Insurance Council to members, I will quote the following paragraphs from it:

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