Page 1619 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 14 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Amendment negatived.
Clause 219 agreed to.
Clauses 220 to 235, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 236.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (5.52): I move amendment No 55 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1640].
Amendment negatived.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (5.53): I move amendment No 56 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1640].
Amendment negatived.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (5.53): I move amendment No 57 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1641].
Amendment negatived.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (5.53): I move amendment No 58 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1641]. This is a very important amendment that the Canberra Liberals feel very strongly about. This amendment introduces a vocation exemption to capture workers who are permanently impacted by an accident. This allows for claims for significant injuries. It enables a broad alternative discretionary power and the use of a narrative-style test to provide access to compensation.
As I have already mentioned, no two cases are the same. What this legislation is seeking to do is to group hundreds or even thousands of cases as being the same. We firmly believe that there does need to be an alternative path, especially for workers who are permanently impacted by an accident. We believe that this discretionary power that will allow for the use of a narrative test will go some way to giving assurances to people who are injured in the workforce some comfort that they will get adequate compensation.
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) (5.55): I guess this is the opposition’s attempt at our significant occupational impact test. They voted against our significant occupational impact test on several occasions in the course of the debate. We obviously prefer that model, as we have supported it consistently, so we will continue to support that as the preferred way. We will not be supporting the opposition’s amendment tonight.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.55): The Greens do not support the Liberal amendment. We agree with the government’s rationale for the provision which is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video