Page 1618 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 14 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (5.48): I will be opposing the whole of chapter 3. I think it should be omitted because it creates many complexities and there are simpler exceptions set out in other amendments.
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) (5.49), by leave: I move amendments Nos 42 and 43 circulated in my name together [see schedule 2 at page 1656]. This is a further consequential amendment as a result of the two whole person impairment assessments that we have discussed repeatedly throughout the legislation. That is No 42. No 43 clarifies that the relevant insurer must pay for the significant occupational impact assessment.
Amendments agreed to.
Clauses 202 to 217, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 218 agreed to.
Clause 219.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (5.50): I move amendment No 54 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1640]. The amendment alters the application for future treatment payments to be based on the injured person’s treating doctor certifying that the injured person will require treatment and care beyond the four year and six month time period. This creates more equitable access to relevant remedies.
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) (5.50): The government opposes this amendment. We do so because the provision in the bill was drafted to provide those persons not eligible to take a motor accident claim with the ability to have their future medical treatment expenses paid if they have been receiving treatment and care for two years and six months at the four years and six months point after their accident.
It was intended to be objective so that both parties would be able to assess the need for this future medical treatment payment based on whether the injured person was receiving continuous medical treatment over this period. The opposition amendment will make this subjective and less equitable by having a doctor certify that the injured person is likely to need medical treatment in the future. It is also a flawed amendment. The defined term “continuous” that applied to paragraph (b) has been left in, and that will cause confusion in applying the provision. For these reasons, the government will not support the amendment.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (5.51): Once again, Labor and the Greens are empowering insurers and devaluing the role of GPs. We think this does a disservice to our community, and therefore we encourage those opposite to support amendment No 54.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video