Roy Heather: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Roy Heather: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20278] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to take a short call. Before I get on to asking the Minister for ACC some questions now that we do have her in the chair I would like to say that I will be supporting Pansy Wong’s amendment. Given that the acupuncture groups are not covered by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act I think Judith Collins is quite right to ask why only two groups should have approval when there may well be other groups out there that should be entitled to work as long as they meet the required standard. In the absence of the groups being part of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act at the moment— 
Judy Turner 
: The Minister? 
HEATHER ROY 
: —yes the Minister—then they should be. So I will be supporting that amendment on behalf of ACT. 
Judy Turner 
: It’s not her job. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Well that is why we have the amendment—so that it will be her job. 
I say to the Minister that I think there are a lot of questions being raised and given that it is her legislation I myself would like to ask her some questions in addition to the ones being asked by other members on this side of the Chamber. I think Peter Brown raised some very good points on new clauses 28A and 29A on Supplementary Order Paper 365. I will just reiterate my concerns about that Supplementary Order Paper. 
As has been the case with many other Government bills of late it has come before us late in the process so that it is not able to be scrutinised by a select committee or by public submission. I think Mr Brown may have inadvertently missed out new clause 26A which is another clause where funds—this time concerning the employers account—are allocated. I think it was on the other side of the page I say to Mr Brown and he probably did not see it. But I ask the Minister whether she could take a call and explain clauses 26A 28A and 29A and what implications they may have because I think that is unclear. 
Unlike Mr Brown I did not read those clauses as including illness. I think we are probably still talking about just injury. But my concern is that funds from the employers account the residual claims account and the self-employed work account must “be applied to meet the costs of entitlements for personal injury caused by work-related gradual process disease or infection …”. Does that mean to say that the provisions are being broadened out so that funds no longer will come from only the earners account and non-earners account or will the levies from those two accounts—where medical misadventure is currently paid out from—be broadened? What impact might that have? By putting these clauses forward does the Minister have any intention that levies on health practitioners be included? 
I ask the Minister to clarify the situation—particularly for me the distinction between illness and injury with regard to these clauses. I did not see them as including illness. In fact that is one of ACT’s main objections to the whole accident compensation programme and to this bill—that unfairness does exist in that two people might have the same end product but one person who suffered an illness receives no accident compensation whereas the other person who suffered an injury does receive accident compensation. An insurance-based programme of some sort preferably one open to competition would get round that problem. If the Minister could perhaps address those things that would be very good.