Page 1541 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 14 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Leave granted.
MR COE: I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name and table a supplementary explanatory statement to the opposition amendments [see schedule 1 at page 1633]. Firstly, I note that it is most unfortunate that these amendments did not go through the scrutiny committee. That shows a problem with how the scrutiny committee is presently operating. It is not a problem with the members of the committee nor with the secretariat; but I think there is a problem with the processes set up for that committee. I also think there is an acute lack of resources offered to the scrutiny committee. I hope that either the scrutiny committee itself or admin and procedures are able to look at how that can be rectified going to the future.
With regard to amendment No 1, this amendment is consequential. It is based on subsequent amendments, particularly amendment No 4, so little needs to be said.
MR BARR (Kurrajong—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Social Inclusion and Equality, Minister for Tourism and Special Events and Minister for Trade, Industry and Investment) (10.56): I foreshadow the government’s opposition to Mr Coe’s amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3, and I will speak to all of them now. These amendments remove the concept of significant occupational impact from the bill. Significant occupational impact is an important principle of the bill as it provides an exemption to the whole person impairment threshold.
If an injured adult with a whole person impairment of less than 10 per cent is still receiving income replacement defined benefits at four years and six months after their motor accident, an independent significant occupational impact assessment will be arranged by a medical service provider.
It is intended that an independent medical examiner be able to undertake a significant occupational impact assessment. The guidelines power is required to provide for the administrative processes for an independent medical examiner provider in organising the provision of the significant occupational impact assessments. We do not support the removal of a significant occupational impact from the bill and, therefore, we will be opposing Mr Coe’s amendments.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (10.57): The Greens will also be opposing this amendment. As Mr Barr said, the four amendments make a significant change proposed by the Liberal Party—that is, to remove the concept of significant occupational impact. A later Liberal amendment removes the chapter on significant occupational amendments in entirety. I will discuss our position now: we do not agree with the Liberal Party’s amendment.
Significant occupational impact is one of the exemptions for an injured party with less than 10 per cent whole person impairment to enable them in some circumstances to make a common-law claim. It was not in the exposure draft but was added in the final version of the bill as a way to ensure that the whole person impairment test does not result in harsh outcomes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video