Senate debates
Monday, 12 September 2011
Bills
Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2011; In Committee
6:15 pm
Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source
The addendum to the explanatory memorandum states:
The changes are intended to clarify the operation of the legislation following the Smith decision and ensure that the established compensation offsetting practices can continue.
They are the established offsetting practices, but earlier on the addendum to the explanatory memorandum says:
The proposed amendments will not change the current operation of the compensation offsetting provisions.
The department in its own submission has said that it should avoid the likelihood that 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, therefore, that what the addendum to the explanatory memorandum is saying is at odds with what the department is saying? These are two unequivocal statements—we have the first paragraph of the addendum to the explanatory memorandum and we have the statement of the department in its submission, submission 2, at page 6.
Clearly the department is anticipating that it will not allow people to circumvent the offsetting provisions by exclusion of specific injuries or diseases from the terms of the compensation settlements. Therefore, is it not the case that it is not accurate for the addendum to the explanatory memorandum to state that the proposed amendments will not change the current operation of the compensation offsetting provisions? The terms of compensation settlement agreements must be part of the current operation of the compensation offsetting provisions. If I am missing something or the parliamentary secretary thinks I am being a dodo on this he should tell me—I will not take offence. It seems to me there are two contradictory statements. I do not know whether the shadow minister has a particular view on this, but I would have thought that there seems to be a contradiction between what the department is saying and what the addendum to the explanatory memorandum is saying.
No comments