18
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1988
EMPLOYER
"AT PRESENT IT IS NOT AN OFFENCE FOR AN
NOT ΤΟ PAY THE COMPENSATION OR THE SURCHARGE. CLAUSES 4(D) AND 7(C) MAKE IT AN OFFENCE WITH A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF A FINE OF $10,000, MR BRINGE ADDED.
CLAUSE 8 EXTENDED THE TIME LIMIT FOR APPEALS TO THE COURT AGAINST ANY DECISION OR ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR AN ASSESSMENT BOARD FROM 30 DAYS TO SIX MONTHS. MR BRIDGE WOULD PARTICULARLY HELP THOSE APPLICANTS WHO REQUIRED LEGAL AID.
LABOUR OR SAID THIS
CLAUSE 11 REPEALED SECTION 36D(2) (A) WHICH WAS NO LONGER
NECESSARY.
"THIS SECTION NOW REQUIRES THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES TO GIVE THE EMPLOYER PARTICULARS OF THE ACCIDENT AND THE INJURY WHEN CLAIMING THE COSTS OF FITTING THE EMPLOYEE WITH 4 PROSTHESIS OR SURGICAL APPLIANCE,' MR BRIDGE SAID.
"IN FACT THE EMPLOYER ALREADY HAS THIS INFORMATION.
4
AT PRESENT, THE COMMISSIONER FOR LABOUR HAD THE POWER то REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO PRODUCE A CURRENT INSURANCE POLICY, BUT NOT EARLIER POLICIES.
MR BRIDGE SAID IN MANY CASES IT HAD PROVED NECESSARY TO CHECK A PREVIOUS POLICY WHICH WAS IN FORCE WHEN AN ACCIDENT OCCURRED.
"CLAUSE 14 EMPOWERS THE COMMISSIONER FOR LABOUR TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER BY NOTICE IN WRITING TO PRODUCE FOR INSPECTION A POLICY OF INSURANCE OR OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO ANY DATE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE," HE SAID.
"AN EMPLOYER WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THAN THREE YEARS OLD.
T
DOCUMENTS MORE
MR BRIDGE POINTED OUT THAT ALL THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS HAD THE SUPPORT OF THE LABOUR ADVISORY BOARD AND HE BELIEVED THEY REPRESENTED A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORDINANCE.
DEBATE ON THE BILL WAS ADJOURNED.
/19
Page 20Page 21