Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Feeney. If it will not change the way the compensation settlements are drawn up, why is it that, in its submission, the department stated that if these amendments are passed it 'should avoid the likelihood that, on the basis of the Smith case, those seeking future compensation payments could circumvent the offsetting provisions by exclusion of specific injuries or diseases from the terms of the compensation settlements'? Does that not mean that, by virtue of these amendments, it will have an impact on the way the compensation settlements are being drawn up, because it is making it clear that certain forms of compensation settlements will no longer be acceptable by virtue of the passage of schedule 2? That is a direct question. The purpose of my questioning is not to criticise the government in terms of the policy intent or what the department has said, but it does seem to be somewhat at odds to the government's addendum to the explanatory memorandum and what the department itself has said in relation to this particular issue.