Page 1542 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 14 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I was surprised that neither Mr Barr nor Mr Coe brought it up, but the normal example on this is a concert pianist or concert violinist who loses one finger in accident. Most of us would be upset to lose one finger—my typing is not all fingers all the time anyway—but we would not be significantly impaired. But for some musicians such an injury could be the end of their livelihood. I am pleased that we have negotiated with the government for this addition, which will make the bill fairer. The Greens will oppose this series of Liberal amendments.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (10.59), by leave: I move amendments Nos 2 and 3 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 1633].
Amendments negatived.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 34, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 35.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (11.00): I will be opposing this clause. Our proposed amendment omits clause 35. The definition of “full and satisfactory explanation” is excessively onerous in the context of an injured person who may not be well enough to attend to all the administrative requirements placed on them. Far more discretion and far more subjectivity needs to be applied to the situation a person may be in. To require a full and satisfactory explanation, especially in the eyes of an insurance company, is not appropriate.
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) (11.01): We will not be supporting the opposition’s proposed amendment here; the government opposes removing “full and satisfactory explanation” from the bill. This is a well-established concept that is supported by case law and is also used in the New South Wales compulsory third-party insurance scheme. Replacing “full and satisfactory explanation” with “reasonable excuse” would require far more case-by-case decision-making by an insurer and open an insurer to increased disputes.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (11.01): This is one of the bits that get seriously legal and technical. I accept that “full and satisfactory explanation” is already a well-established definition supported by case law and used in the New South Wales scheme. Thus we are prepared to accept what is in the bill at present.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video