Page 953 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That the Lifetime Care and Support Authority work with the Brain Injury Rehabilitation Directorate and other stakeholders to examine the feasibility of a more robust and independent dispute resolution process for disputes concerning eligibility and treatment.
We are basing ourselves on the New South Wales system. A review of that system says that we need robust and independent dispute resolution. If this clause is here, it closes off those avenues. In that regard, we will oppose the clause.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for Tourism and Events and Minister for Community Services) (12.14): The government will be supporting this particular clause. My comments here will cover off on Mr Smyth’s amendments 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 13, which could all be grouped in the “decisions reviewable” category. The amendments allow decisions in relation to eligibility of treatment and care to be reviewable by ACAT and remove statements that decisions are final and binding.
Removing the provision making treatment and care needs assessments final and binding brings into question the status of treatment and care needs assessments while disputes, including court proceedings, occur. There is a question about whether the commissioner’s act could action the treatment of care and needs assessments while they were being disputed. There is also a question of whether treatment and care needs assessments can be reassessed during this time to cater for new circumstances or health needs. Section 24(2), proposed for removal, states that treatment and care assessments supersede any earlier assessment of a participant’s needs. Normally treatment and care needs are regularly assessed, particularly in the early years of an injury while the injury is stabilising.
The proposed ability to review a decision is in addition to the mechanisms already contained in the bill. The bill already allows for a decision to be reviewed by a panel and for the panel decision to be reviewed by a review panel. In addition, a participant can seek judicial review of a decision on a matter of law. This amendment and the series of other amendments proposed by Mr Smyth allow a review by ACAT after the initial decision on eligibility, the treatment and care assessment or review by the second panel. I really have to question the practicality of these amendments from a timeliness perspective, given the time that would elapse to obtain a court decision. The whole point here is that timeliness of treatment is important when dealing with catastrophic injuries, in order to maximise outcomes.
For those reasons, the government will not be supporting Mr Smyth’s amendments 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 13, which all are around this reviewability question. We will not be supporting those, but I will not speak further on each of those throughout the course of the debate.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video