Mr STIRLING - 1998-02-25
Is it not a fact that the legislative changes that will be passed later today will reduce the rights of Territory workers to obtain workers' compensation? Is it not a fact that, because of the changes, workers will not be compensated unless they can prove their employment was the only cause of their injury or disease? Why is the minister so intent on punishing injured Territory workers, how much money will these changes save insurers, and how many injured workers are likely to miss out on being compensated because of these unfair changes to the act?
Madam SPEAKER: I believe standing order 68 applies in this instance. Does the minister wish to respond or will he wait until the bill comes before the House?
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I am speaking to the minister.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I shall answer briefly because they will run out to the media at lunchtime and distort the story about this act if I do not.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister will answer the question. Member for Wanguri, sit down!
Mr Bailey: They are a bunch of morons on that side.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Wanguri, this is your last warning. You are out next time.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, the change in the wording of the act is the change of one word - from 'a' to 'the'. No other words have been changed. The existing act states that, to claim compensation, the employment is 'a real, proximate or effective cause of the injury, disease, aggravation, acceleration or exacerbation'. That has been changed to 'the real, proximate or effective cause of the injury, disease, aggravation, acceleration or exacerbation'. 'Aggravation' is an important word also because it does not disallow existing injuries.
The issue is that the injury that has occurred in the workplace has to be shown to be 'the' real cause of an aggravation rather than 'a' real cause of an aggravation. A clear example can be made in terms of stress-related claims in workers' compensation. Clearly, many stress-related claims manifest themselves outside the workplace and claims have been made that an additional aggravation in the workplace was 'a' real aggravation in the terms of the existing act and, therefore, a claim for compensation was approved. This change, in the interests of fairness, simply ensures that the injury that occurs in the workplace has to be shown to be 'the' real aggravation or 'the' real cause. To suggest that one should not be fair to insurers as well as to employers and employees seems to me to be illogical.
Page 12
Madam SPEAKER: I believe standing order 68 applies in this instance. Does the minister wish to respond or will he wait until the bill comes before the House?
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I am speaking to the minister.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I shall answer briefly because they will run out to the media at lunchtime and distort the story about this act if I do not.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister will answer the question. Member for Wanguri, sit down!
Mr Bailey: They are a bunch of morons on that side.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Wanguri, this is your last warning. You are out next time.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, the change in the wording of the act is the change of one word - from 'a' to 'the'. No other words have been changed. The existing act states that, to claim compensation, the employment is 'a real, proximate or effective cause of the injury, disease, aggravation, acceleration or exacerbation'. That has been changed to 'the real, proximate or effective cause of the injury, disease, aggravation, acceleration or exacerbation'. 'Aggravation' is an important word also because it does not disallow existing injuries.
The issue is that the injury that has occurred in the workplace has to be shown to be 'the' real cause of an aggravation rather than 'a' real cause of an aggravation. A clear example can be made in terms of stress-related claims in workers' compensation. Clearly, many stress-related claims manifest themselves outside the workplace and claims have been made that an additional aggravation in the workplace was 'a' real aggravation in the terms of the existing act and, therefore, a claim for compensation was approved. This change, in the interests of fairness, simply ensures that the injury that occurs in the workplace has to be shown to be 'the' real aggravation or 'the' real cause. To suggest that one should not be fair to insurers as well as to employers and employees seems to me to be illogical.
Page 12
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016