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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3336 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

monthly or three-monthly basis. It seemed to be manageable then, but all of a sudden it is not manageable.

Mr Speaker, I was the chair of a committee that, I think before the end of last year, looked at this issue and required the government to do certain things about the collection of data. There has been some activity on that front. As I understand it, this work is not complete but it is proceeding.

There are new and additional benefits in the legislation for workers, but we have to know and understand the full impact of the costs. I have had some interesting letters in my office. The natural reaction from employers and insurance companies is to cut everybody's costs and benefits but their own. I received a long letter from the Business Council of Australia complaining that these amendments were going to slow down the process. I urge Mr Budd from that organisation to perhaps consider that the government last night put a hundred-odd pages on the agenda. Would he care, in a bipartisan way, to complain to the government that they might be slowing the process down by putting forward 130 amendments? I bet he won't. I bet he got a phone call from the government saying, "You'd better ring up and complain."

Mr Speaker, we always see a bit of politics in this area because lots of dollars are involved and a lot of people are interested. I am interested in workers benefits and I am interested in making sure that we have a workers compensation scheme which works well into the future. That is why we need a proper actuarial assessment of what the cost is to the territory and what the benefits are to the various players in the game. So I urge members to support the amendment.

MS TUCKER (11.14): I understand from what I have just heard that an actuarial study of particular types of maims is being sought. The Greens are not going to support that because we think it has to be included now.

Mr Berry: What is that-no actuarial assessment?

MS TUCKER: An actuarial study should occur. If I have understood the argument correctly, we are not prepared to delay at this point a study of particular types of maims. We support the proposal that you conduct an actuarial study but we will not support a delay at this point in time. If I have misunderstood the debate, someone can rise and tell me.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.15): Mr Speaker, we are opposed to the amendment. This is a new scheme. An actuarial study of a scheme that does not have data will come to the conclusion that you need to have some data before you can conduct a study. The government is saying that we believe that, given the new database that WorkCover has and, with a years information-

Mr Berry: You've got it now.

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