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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3444 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

According to the minister's amendment, a worker is not entitled to weekly compensation if that worker fails to do any of these things. So if the process gets bogged down somewhere we could end up with a injured worker without any benefits at all to live on because the insurance company decided that that person failed to do something. Under my amendment, workers would have to be given eight weeks notice and at least they then would have time to challenge the decision in the courts if there was something wrong with it.

The government wants to stop workers receiving benefits and create the impression that this will give workers an incentive to comply with the back-to-work programs. That is an unfair incentive because it would have the effect of throwing them off benefits at very short notice without appropriate avenues for appeal and without sufficient time to settle their affairs if they decide not to take the matter to the Magistrates Court. So, Mr Speaker, I ask members to support my amendment.

MS TUCKER (10.07): Proposed section 10ZI, which deals with compliance by workers to rehabilitation and personal injury plans, is contentious. Mr Berry has taken a very different approach to that taken by the government. The government allows insurers to cease weekly compensation payments much more promptly. Such action involves the minister and is signed by WorkCover, with government reserving the power to direct insurers to continue payments. Labor, on the other hand, requires the insurer to give workers eight weeks notice or just leaves it up to the court to have payments stopped.

The Greens have problems with Labor's approach . It has been generally agreed that the increased focus on return to work, injury management and rehabilitation, and the collection of information and statistics are key features of this scheme and will in some way counterbalance the cost of reasonable income support for people who are injured or permanently incapacitated. But the extended procedures that Labor's regime would deliver and the fact that it does not discourage game playing or involve WorkCover is a concern.

The government's amendment gives workers only a weeks notice. I have an amendment which seeks to extend that time to two weeks and involve WorkCover. I will not be supporting Mr Berry's amendment.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.09): Mr Speaker, the government will also be voting against Mr Berry's amendment. However, Ms Tucker's amendment will have our support.

Mr Berry's amendment would remove the ability of insurers and employers to ensure compliance by injured workers with their agreed injury rehabilitation plan. It does this by removing the immediacy of the action that is integrated into the compliance scheme by taking the appeal right from one week to an eight-week period. This means that you would get on a merry-go-round where you have non-compliance for up to eight weeks and you come back to a week of being a good person, and then you go back off again. The injured worker can then recommence their compliance and there would be absolutely no penalty applied. These provisions both encourage and condone exploitation of the scheme.

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