Page 215 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In a climate of constraint, largely driven by the federal government and insurance businesses, and concerns expressed by employers that workers compensation costs in the ACT would drive away business, the ACT chose to combine the New South Wales table of maims approach to financial compensation for workplace injury, with a focus on open disclosure, injury management and back-to-work support. However, importantly and unusually, this was done without sacrificing the common law rights of workers to sue for damages. The ACT scheme pays regard to both the needs of the injured worker and their family in respect of income support. To that extent, this new scheme caters much more reasonably to those people who are substantially affected by workplace injury, and their families and their dependants, than did the previous regime.
When the bill was passed in September 2001 there were still a number of tensions. It was being argued—by George Wason from the CFMEU, for example—that the scheme was too generous and had been set up to fail. One of the elements of the scheme that required a bit of hard talking, I understand, was to set up regular reporting by the insurance companies of total costs and premiums received for the scheme in the ACT. The WorkCover site has figures up to 2003-04. Some $132.2 million in premiums was collected by ACT insurers in that year, which represents an increase of 46.4 per cent from the initial premiums collected in 1999-2000. In 2003-04 a total amount of $67.6 million was either paid, or expected to be paid in future years, by approved insurers and self-insurers to workers compensation claimants. This is an increase of only 11.2 per cent from 1999 to 2000. In other words, this scheme appears to be serving the insurance companies very well, in addition to providing workers and their families with reasonably good protection.
I think it will soon be time to revisit some of the provisions requiring disclosure of injuries, reporting requirements, and the impact of the rehabilitation regime on individual workers and their workplaces. In the meantime, I believe we can be confident that the basics of the ACT private workers compensation system are proving to be fair and effective. The collaborative approach that underpins this scheme can be seen in the acknowledgement in the minister’s tabling statement that the amendments proposed in this bill are a consequence of the involvement of the Occupational Health and Safety Council and that the exposure draft of this bill was modified in response to comments from the Insurance Council and the Chamber of Commerce.
While these amendments are extensive in their drafting, they are not really complex. One key provision, as explained by others in the Assembly, is the extension of the injury management requirements. This is the rationale for the ACT private system to be extended to include the two safety net provisions—those that apply to workers employed by a business which was not carrying insurance and those that were covered by an insurance company which has since collapsed. It does this by setting up a default insurance fund which will be overseen by a tripartite advisory committee.
Both categories of cover will be funded through a post-funding model. In other words, employers would be levied to pay any costs incurred by the default fund. Clearly, if other employers fail to take out insurance the impact will be on those that are part of the scheme. The intention, to quote the statement, is to have a “peer regulating” effect. The thinking behind that, of course, is that there is greater likelihood that all employers will carry their share if the default position is not one of the territory picking up the tab.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .