Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to indicate that the government does not support the motion of disallowance that Senator Conroy, on behalf of Senator Wong, moved. Instead, I indicate that the regulations that have been tabled, the new Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment, are considered to be a modern updating of a guide which is very important in the assessment of entitlement to compensation. In fact, it greatly improves the position compared with the previous guide, which was something like 16 years old and clearly in need of updating.

The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations approved the new Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment on 8 September last year. Under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, the guide provides the basis for assessing the compensation payable for permanent impairment and non-economic loss resulting from a work related injury. The guide was tabled in September, as I have indicated, but has been in operation since 1 March and it applies to all permanent impairment applications made from that date.

It is obvious that a guide which was some 16 years old needed to be updated. Indeed, the previous guide was based on the outdated second edition of the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. The American Medical Association’s guide, as updated from time to time, appears to be the best practice or world standard that is used in these matters, and I understand a number of countries use this guide as the basis of their assessment of permanent incapacity as well. So, since the original second edition came out, there have been very significant advances in medical knowledge and clinical practice of impairment assessments.

The American Medical Association guide is now in fact in its fifth edition; there have been three further additions since the one upon which the previous Australian guidelines were based. The old guide simply no longer provided a clear and objective system for measuring impairment. Indeed, the former guide was heavily criticised by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court as being confused, poorly drafted and ambiguous. It was also, incidentally, inconsistent with the majority of state and territory schemes operational in this country—those of Queensland, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Tasmania and Victoria—as well as, by the way, New Zealand. Those states and territories, and that country, base their assessment guides on either the fourth or the fifth edition of the American Medical Association guide.

The new Australian guide, which the minister brought down last year, requires medical assessors to use more specific measurements of impairment. It has more comprehensive instructions about which measurements are required and how ratings may at times be combined. Comcare has already provided training in the new guide to more than 100 specialists and is in the process of training more. Many more will be trained in the next few months. Senator Wong’s motion is simply designed to delay the commencement of the revised guide, thereby denying a significant number of employees covered by the SRC Act the right to have an assessment of their impairment conducted under a regime which is both relevant and consistent with contemporary practice.

This is not a measure to reduce costs. I do not think that allegation was made by Senator Conroy, but, in case it is inferred that this is some way of reducing the cost to employers or the Commonwealth that is entailed in the process of compensating injured employees, let me assure the Senate that the guide actually provides for higher payments for a number of impairments, particularly impairments which are considered to be more severe. The guide is not a cost-cutting exercise; rather, it is about using the best medical assessment processes available today.

In order to produce the most contemporary and up-to-date guide to practice, Comcare as the agency charged with overseeing these guidelines consulted very widely in developing and finalising the new guide, involving a large number of important stakeholders. The Australian Government Solicitor and a number of other legal practices were brought in for that task, as were representatives of plaintiff lawyers, employee representatives, ex-service organisations and expert medical specialists. As part of the process of putting in place the new guide, Comcare conducted trial parallel assessments using the draft new guide side-by-side with the old guide. Where necessary, Comcare adapted elements of the new guide to suit Australian clinical practice. So it has not been taken holus bolus; it has been carefully adapted and carefully canvassed with stakeholders in this field.

As I said, one important difference in the new guide is that it requires medical assessors to use more specific measurements of impairment and has more comprehensive instructions about which measurements are required and how ratings might at times be combined. Comcare expects that medical specialists rather than general practitioners will do assessments under the guide and, as I said, has already provided training to more than 100 of those specialists in anticipation of the guide coming into operation.

I do not wish to respond specifically to the technical issues that were raised by Senator Conroy. The fact is, however, that those issues were no doubt considered very carefully, as stakeholders and others contributed to the process. It would be unfortunate if the advantages the new guide provides to the industries affected by it were delayed. It is now in operation. It is now understood by a large number of participants in the sector. There are more than 100 specialists now conversant with the terms of the new guide. It is an important step towards guaranteeing contemporary and up-to-date practices in the field of assessing permanent impairment. I therefore urge the Senate to reject the disallowance motion in Senator Wong’s name.

Question negatived.