Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3433 ..
MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (9.14): The government will be opposing this amendment. Mr Berry's amendments to proposed new sections 8C (4) and 8F are identical. They seek to introduce a sliding entitlement to workers compensation as a person approaches retirement age, 65 years. The amendment will allow a person who is older than 63 years of age but less than 65 years of age to access an entitlement to compensation for a period of two years from the date of injury. The effect will be that a person, say, 64 years old will be entitled to compensation for a period of two years until the age of 66.
There is more than ample provision and certainty in what the government has already provided. This amendment will simply add to the costs without improving the outcomes of the scheme. We will oppose the amendment.
MR BERRY (9.15): You say that a worker stops being entitled to compensation under this section if the worker reaches pension age. My amendment says:
(c) for a worker who, at the time of the injury being compensated, was more than 2 years younger than pension age-when the worker reaches pension age;
(d) for a worker who, at the time of the injury being compensated, was 2 years younger than pension age, or older-2 years after the worker first became entitled to compensation under this section;
We are saying that there is a guarantee of two years of workers compensation if you are injured close to pension age.
Mr Smyth said that my amendment will not improve outcomes. It will for the injured person. They will get benefits for two years. Mr Smyth says that it will increase costs. Of course it will, because if you pay workers more it costs more. Funny, that. If it is a fair payment, then I think it is okay to pay it. If somebody is injured within two years of being entitled to the pension, they should be entitled at least to a couple of years worth of benefits. That is only fair. I think it is pretty miserable to say that if you get injured a month before your pension it all cuts out when you get to pension age. That is a bit rich. It is a bit mean spirited. I know it would increase the cost, and that would be hard.
Question put:
That Mr Berry's amendment No 1 to Mr Smyth's amendment No 17 be agreed to.
The Assembly voted-
Ayes 8 Noes 7 Mr Berry Mr Rugendyke Mrs Burke Mr Smyth Mr Corbell Mr Stanhope Mr Cornwell Mr Stefaniak Mr Hargreaves Ms Tucker Mr Hird Mr Osborne Mr Kaine Mr Quinlan Mr MooreQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .