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

I just want to get a concession from the government that there is a distinction between what the department has said and what the addendum to the explanatory memorandum says. The parliamentary secretary, always eloquent, has stated that the government wants clarity as a result of the Smith case, even though it refers to that case as being 'a unique set of circumstances'. The practical effect of the so-called clarity that the government is seeking as a result of the Smith case is to deal with those who would circumvent, according to the depart­ment, the offsetting provisions by exclusion of specific injuries or diseases from the terms of compensation settlements. The addendum to the explanatory memorandum, though, says:

The proposed amendments will not change the current operation of the compensation offsetting provisions.

Surely, if you have a situation where the department is saying, 'We need to get some clarity on this,' as the parliamentary secretary has rightly pointed out, as a result of the Smith decision, that will have practical consequences. There will be circumstances where, as a result of that so-called clarity, settlement negotiations or settlements that have been reached will be affected, because they now will be excluded as a result of schedule 2.

That seems to me to be inconsistent with the statement by the government that the amendments 'will not change the current operation of the compensation offsetting provisions'. They will do so. To say that they will not is inconsistent with what the department has said about this. The government could call it 'complementary', but does it concede that there are circum­stances where settlement arrangements that may be allowed now under the current legislative scheme will not be allowed pursuant to what is proposed in schedule 2, because there will not be an opportunity to circumvent the offsetting provisions by exclusion of specific injuries or diseases from the terms of compensation settlement? I just want to get a concession that that is the case. It is consistent with what the department says but it seems to be inconsistent with the addendum to the explanatory memorandum.