Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Hansard source

As I said in my earlier remarks, there seems to be a clear misunderstanding of what this is all about. The Social Security Amendment (2007 Measures No. 2) Bill 2007that is, the original bill and not the amendment that is now being discussed—removes outdated references to ‘medical officers’ in schedule 1B of the Social Security Act 1991 and replaces them with ‘assessors’. These changes reflect the broad range of health professionals who now determine impairment ratings against the impairment tables. The changes do not prohibit the involvement of medical officers and do not reduce the importance of medical information when assigning impairment ratings—quite the contrary. The job capacity assessors have to take on board all information including treating doctors’ reports and any other available medical evidence or any other information that is relevant to the person’s situation. They must do that when determining impairment ratings. In addition, job capacity assessment providers can refer people for specialist medical assessments if they do not think there is enough information there. The government will pay for these specialist assessments.

We are absolutely determined that we will have the full information in order to make the right decision. When someone has a very serious incapacity, why would we set them up to fail? When someone presents with a very serious condition—whether it is a mental health condition or a physical or intellectual incapacity—why on earth would we refuse medical evidence or eliminate the possibility of medical information coming forward? That is just absolutely absurd and it is not the case.

These guidelines are the legislative basis for the JCA process for reviews under the social security law. They deal with the situation—and this is what it is all about—where additional medical evidence that was not originally presented to the JCA is then presented to tribunals or authorised review officers. This is not unheard of and, although it is not frequent, it happens enough for us to be concerned. Sometimes an individual who has been to the JCA does not agree with the outcome so they go to the tribunal or to an authorised review officer, as is their right—and we are pleased that they do. If at that next stage they produce new information—perhaps from a medical officer—we will now require that the new information be sent back to the JCA so that they also can consider it. The tribunal or authorised review officer will then reconsider the revised report from the JCA—we presume that with the new information there has been a revision of the original assessment. This is all about protecting the individual’s rights and making sure that they are accurately and properly assessed so that they get the very best support from the Australian government.

In addition, if the tribunals or authorised review officers disagree with a report of a JCA, the guidelines then require them to seek a second review of the claim by a different JCA. The second review will go back to the tribunal or authorised review officer for consideration before they make their decision. We are bending over backwards to give some of our most disadvantaged Australians every right and opportunity possible to have their cases properly heard. The decision of the tribunal remains independent. The original bill therefore strengthens the process and gives maximum support to persons with disabilities who are seeking support. I commend the original bill to the House.

See this speech in context