Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I oppose the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. This bill is a direct hit against the workplace health and safety of Australian workers. It takes away the rights of Australian workers to fair and reasonable cover when they suffer the misfortune of an accident at work. Before I get to the legislation in detail I want to tell a story through the prism of my brothers. I have five brothers—six but one has passed away—two who are basically clerks and three who work in the building and mining industries. The history of Comcare legislation is that it was basically directed to looking after clerks—not clerks like those at the table here but clerks generally; people not in high-risk industries.

For two of my brothers, if this legislation were agreed to and they were then taken into such a scheme, it would be an appropriate scheme. But for my three other brothers who work in the mining and construction industries, it would not be appropriate. My oldest brother works in the construction and mining industry and provides advice on occupational health and safety. The next brother works in the labour hire industry, supplying workers to the construction industry especially but also the mining industry. My other brother Tim is a labourer in the construction industry. I mention Tim particularly because it is his birthday today and I just wanted to send a happy birthday to him. That is a good thing. I am sure he is out celebrating with his family now, and that is a good thing.

But I want to take the parliament back to an incident that happened to my brother Tim at the Gold Coast, almost literally on the border between New South Wales and Queensland, on 29 November 1996, a few days after his birthday, when there was a big construction project at Twin Towns Services Club at Tweed Heads. If you know that facility, it is very close to the border of Queensland, but it was over in New South Wales that the accident happened. A huge tower crane where my brother working crumpled under the weight of a large cement container, the kibble, which was overloaded. Then a tonne of concrete collapsed—right beside my brother; he was standing on the platform—and it killed two people. I will name those work colleagues of my brother: Rodney Taula Masak, 37, a Brisbane dogman; and Wayne Master, 34, a Pottsville concrete worker.

My brother was standing right beside them. He was hit by the kibble but was not killed, as his two colleagues were, right beside him. It took him years and years and years to get over that—not only the physical injuries associated with that accident but also the mental anguish that comes with seeing your workmates killed right beside you. Then, actually, my other older brother came along to that construction site because he worked for Lindores Crane and Rigging, the crane hire company that was actually working for Leighton Contractors on that building project.

I want to tell the story of this legislation through the prism of my five brothers, particularly that brother Tim who experienced that horrific accident way back in 1996. Thankfully he is still around to celebrate his birthday, unlike the two gentlemen that died alongside him, Rodney and Wayne. I say a special hello to their families, and I am sure that they are still missed. I know that at Twin Towns there is a marker acknowledging their deaths.

This legislation, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill, basically has been considered by this parliament and many state parliaments because it has implications for workers in states as well. On 15 May 2014 the Senate Selection of Bills Committee recommended that the provisions of the bill be referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and a report by 8 July 2014. The bill before the chamber tonight is comprised of five schedules. I am not going to go in detail to every schedule, but I will just give a quick run-through of the five schedules.

Schedule 1 extends the criteria applying to a corporation which is seeking a self-insurer licence. The amendments enable those corporations which are currently required to meet workers compensation obligations under two or more workers compensation laws of a state or territory to apply to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to join the Comcare scheme. That is particularly of note for companies that operate over the border, and I go back to that initial example I gave of the Twin Towns jobs site, right on the border. The accident occurred literally 10 metres over the border from Queensland, but the Coroner's Court that dealt with that crane company and the courts that dealt with it—even though it was a Queensland based crane company, actually coming from my home town of St George—were all in New South Wales, because it was just over the border. I think at one stage the crane was in Queensland and its load was actually in New South Wales, so that is an example of how easy it is for corporations to go across the borders. We see it from the deaths, too—one Queensland worker, one New South Wales worker. I can understand why corporations would want to come into a simplified scheme rather than deal with two different jurisdictions. The joys of Federation! I understand that we are trying to get rid of costs wherever we can, but we also need to look after the people who will be affected by those decisions.

Schedule 2 of the bill enables the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to grant group licences to related corporations and makes consequential changes to extend the coverage provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act to those corporations that obtain a licence to self-insure under the SRC Act. Schedule 3 excludes access to workers compensation where a person engages in serious and wilful misconduct, even if the injury results in death or serious and permanent impairment. Schedule 4 excludes access to workers compensation where injuries occur during recess breaks away from an employer's premises—and I should stress that that is not the case in most state based schemes. Schedule 5 contains minor technical corrections to the Work Health and Safety Act.

There is no requirement that an employer have a minimum number of employees in a particular Australian jurisdiction in order to qualify for a self-insurer licence. In the example I gave, if it was a bricklayer or something, it might have two employees—one based in Queensland, one based in New South Wales. They could actually apply to be a part of this scheme. Obviously, it could be a completely different entity that has thousands and thousands of employees scattered all around Australia, and they can see the benefits in having one scheme. But we have to remember, with scale, that it could be a very, very small entity that is trying to extract maximum advantage and put their employees at a disadvantage. In particular, group licences could be granted to small employers which are not equipped to administer a self-insurance scheme. That would be my big concern, and obviously one of the big concerns for the union movement and for every state government and territory government that is interested in making sure their citizens have the best possible scheme.

It is clear that Comcare is not adequately equipped to monitor performance or hold self-insurers to account on a national scale if a self-insurer does not meet injury management and return-to-work obligations. Who would have thought it, but every now and then employers are prepared to lie, especially in some trades where people regularly go out of business. That, unfortunately, is the reality of the construction industry. People are prepared to lie and if the government or the regulator is not prepared to look at the books and ensure that best practice is occurring at building sites, construction sites or even normal workplaces then, unfortunately, employers who are prepared to lie will exploit their employees and leave them hanging in the loop.

There are also privacy concerns relating to the administration of workers compensation by self-insurers. The Comcare scheme was established to cover workers who undertake low-risk work in the Australian Public Service, such as the example I gave at the start of my speech of my two brothers, who are basically clerks. This scheme was not designed to cover other types of work such as construction, manufacturing or mining where there is a very real risk that you might end up dead at the end of your day at work. They are high-risk industries. A lot has been done to make them safer. However, with respect to my colleagues in front of me, they are still nowhere near as safe as sitting at a desk and doing a clerk's job. You know what I mean: a paper cut is not quite the same as a wall falling on top of you or a kibble or a crane collapsing right alongside you.

Comcare performs at a lower level than many state and territory workers compensation schemes, because there are no statutory processing times. In particular, there are no time frames on employer obligations to make medical and other compensation payments when a worker is injured. That often makes all the difference. If someone can be afforded the right rehabilitation and right treatment, they can go back to work, particularly when they do not have a sick leave scheme or the like to cover them during a bad time.

The scheme before the chamber offers fewer benefits than many state and territory workers compensation schemes, has limited access to common law compensation and the amount payable in that case is capped at only $110,000. This concern has been raised with me, certainly in Queensland. I personally believe that Queensland has the best scheme. It has been administered under Labor and Liberal governments. It is a good scheme, run by professionals.

See this speech in context