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

The parliamentary secretary has acknowledged what the department has said—that there is an issue about circumvention of the offsetting provisions by excluding specific injuries. The parliamentary secretary has drawn a distinction between incapacity and injuries, but I think that we know that, generally, the more incapacitated you are, for whatever reason or from whatever injuries, the more compensation you get. The department made this statement in their submission to the Senate inquiry:

… the amendments 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.

In an operational sense—in a practical sense—does the parliamentary secretary agree with that statement? If he does agree with that statement—and this may give him some comfort—I think most people would say that, on a plain English interpretation, that is inconsistent with the addendum to the explanatory memorandum, even if the parliamentary secretary does not say it. So I would be happy now for the parliamentary secretary to acknowledge that what the department has said is an accurate reflection of the government's position.