Page 1594 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 14 May 2019

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

be able to be claimed and, I think, draws an important distinction between professional service and where family is supporting another family member.

MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (4.05): The Greens will not be supporting Mr Coe’s amendment. The clause is designed to prevent double dipping for amounts which have been paid for by another scheme, such as Medicare, through bulk-billing. The scheme requires that care is provided through an appropriately qualified professional or bona fide service provider, meaning that basically benefits are not payable if services are provided on an unpaid basis. There will be some edge cases, clearly, but in general this is absolutely correct.

MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (4.06): I said earlier that the Greens are putting their relationship with Labor before supporting the Canberra population at large, and now what we have is the Greens cosying up to the insurance companies more than they are supporting the family carers in our community. There are many instances where care will need to be delivered by a family member, especially when there are mental health issues or there has been psychological damage caused as a result of the accident. It really is a heartless display by Labor and the Greens to not allow this to go through.

Question put:

That the amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 10

Noes 13

Miss C Burch

Mr Milligan

Mr Barr

Ms Orr

Mr Coe

Mr Parton

Ms Berry

Mr Pettersson

Mrs Dunne

Mr Wall

Ms J Burch

Mr Ramsay

Mr Hanson

Ms Cheyne

Mr Rattenbury

Mrs Jones

Ms Cody

Mr Steel

Mrs Kikkert

Mr Gentleman

Ms Stephen-Smith

Ms Lawder

Ms Le Couteur

Amendment negatived.

Clause 113 agreed to.

Clause 114.

MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (4.12): I move amendment No 20 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1636]. Similar to amendment No 19, this amendment allows for gratuitous care to be claimed. Domestic service expenses under this bill unfairly exclude gratuitous care provided to the injured person by partners or family members. As I have already mentioned, there are many instances where it is going to be essential for family members to provide such care. We should be thanking them for that, not saying that they should be disadvantaged for doing so.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video