Page 1658 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
1951. The bill relates to injuries suffered after 30 June 2016 or the passing of the bill, whichever is the later. So 30 June is looking good at this stage.
This is the second part of the establishment of the lifetime care and support system in the ACT. That grows out of the heads of agreement between the commonwealth and the ACT government on the national disability insurance scheme signed on 19 April 2013. The first, as we know, to be dealt with was compulsory third-party victims of motor accidents who are injured in such a way that, whether it be paraplegia, quadriplegia, brain damage or blindness, it limits their lives, and this will now be extended to those injured at work. The third, which we expect some time soon or in process, will be medical injuries, and the fourth will be general.
It is important that those who are catastrophically injured receive the treatment that they need and deserve as quickly as they can. As such, if they are not returning to work or their life is impaired in such a way that they will not return to work or life in the way that they enjoyed it, they should not get caught up in a system that may take years in which to deliver a solution. That is not to say that people should not have to surrender their rights, but it is important, first and foremost—and something I have always said is that prevention is better than cure—that rehabilitation is better than compensation, and compensation should be given as appropriate and as required. When catastrophically injured, those people need to be in a system that cares for them for all time.
While we agree with the general principle, there are some issues that need to be addressed and watched over time. There is a review clause in the original act. Perhaps one should have asked: before we extend the act, should we not have used that review to look at it? The number of people already in the scheme is so very small that to review the operation of the act may prove problematic, simply because we have such a small number of this sort of motor vehicle accident in the ACT. Hopefully, we will have a very small number of accidents—ideally none—at work that would lead somebody to need to access this system.
There is a cost that will come to it. From the briefing—and I thank the minister for the briefing—it would appear to be $3.8 million or in that vicinity. That will be levied against the insurance providers. I suspect the insurance providers will then levy that on to the holders of the workers compensation premiums. So it does come at a cost. Again, one would have thought that, given that often the most catastrophic injuries lead to the highest payouts, by removing some of the volatility by having a scheme that allows people immediate access to care in this way it should lead over time to a lowering of the premium. With the compulsory third party, we saw a $34 levy placed on all CTP. It will be interesting to see what the flow-on effect through the scheme to the cost of premiums is in this case.
There are some concerns about the ability to opt out of the scheme. Apparently, there is no choice once accepted into the scheme. Insurers or employers always seek to nominate people for the lifetime care and support, thereby eliminating their own liability to pay for future treatment and care expenses, so I think we need to watch that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video