Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very inspiring, the last presentation. But today I want to raise a very important issue relating to injury compensation payments and subsequent Centrelink payments. My Hinkler electorate office has received numerous questions and representations on this issue. What appears to be the crux of the issue is the lack of financial advice given to claimants by insurance companies relating to the period of time compensation funds must support the recipient and the fact that most people are unable to receive Centrelink assistance once they have received a payout.

Let me explain. When a person receives a compensation payment for whatever reason, they are made aware that they will have to cover their legal fees from the proceeds of the payment. That is fair enough. However, what they are not being told is that, once they receive the compensation payment, they will not be able to receive Centrelink payments for a certain period of time, which is known as the preclusion period. Any Centrelink payments which are being received or have been received during the preclusion period must be repaid. This is what I see in my office frequently. It is very important for all recipients of compensation settlements to understand that the money they received is to support them for the duration of the preclusion period and to cover all of their costs. It has come to my attention that many people are not made aware of the necessity to repay Centrelink or of the preclusion period until they receive a letter from Centrelink after the settlement date. Depending on the amount of the settlement, some people have been placed in a situation where they have to pay back several thousand dollars to Centrelink and wait for many months or even years before they are again eligible for benefits. From my experience, the shock of being made aware of this information can be quite a blow to people, who in many cases are recovering from physical and emotional situations.

I do believe that in some cases the criteria for repayments could be reassessed. For example, those who become permanently incapacitated are not excluded from these criteria. If those who are unable to ever work again after suffering serious injury use the compensation to pay out a housing loan or convert a home to suit their needs then I believe some sort of exemption should be made available to them, as opposed to those who have become rehabilitated and then can rejoin the workforce. This is a very important matter and I hope the government will take note of it.