Page 2890 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 5 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In particular, the bill aims to make it very clear that where a worker is injured in the course of their employment, and as a consequence they require certain things around their home to be altered or introduced in order for them to gain better access or to improve their mobility, I think it is understandable, and the community would agree, that those responsible for causing the injury should pay reasonable compensation to achieve that outcome.
In response to Mr Stefaniak, I think it is worth noting that the bill is not intended to provide unwarranted benefits to anyone, and the passing of this bill will do no more than facilitate the return of the injured worker to the living state that they enjoyed before their employment caused them harm. It will extend what is compensable from artificial aids and mechanical devices to include any structure that their treating doctor considers will contribute to the rehabilitative process. So again, to pick up on Mr Stefaniak’s question, that relates to any structure their treating doctor considers will contribute to that process.
The case that prompted these changes has shown that this may involve the widening of doorways, laying paths, introducing exercise machines or other structures that support the injured worker and his or her rehabilitation. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that is not unreasonable.
The ACT workers compensation scheme should have the scope to cover these things. It is worth noting, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the vast majority of other jurisdictions already do this—most notably in New South Wales and the commonwealth. That, I believe, is further reason why these amendments deserve support.
If there is still a remaining doubt over the worth of this Bill, I would remind members that they should keep in mind the intent of workers compensation. It is to give back to someone what a work related injury has taken away, and ideally that means living your life as if the injury had never occurred with your body healed and returned to suitable work, possibly in more appropriate working conditions.
Sometimes though, Mr Deputy Speaker, an injured worker may not be able to return to work or enjoy their previous lifestyle. In those circumstances financial compensation goes some way to addressing the situation. That money does little for an injured worker if they cannot put it towards making their life more liveable; so workers compensation should pay for things like ramps, access to hoists or even lowering your kitchen bench so that a wheelchair-bound claimant can make themselves a cup of tea. That is a quite practical way, Mr Deputy Speaker, of making a difference in someone’s life.
Where a worker suffers an ongoing, irreversible or chronic injury and may never work again, it does seem reasonable that the responsible employer or their insurer should provide them with the things that offer an appropriate quality of life that delivers a certain level of dignity. This is a fair exchange for what might have been taken from them.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is all that this bill seeks to do. I note the comments of Mr Stefaniak but it would be the government’s intention to proceed with this bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .