Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

When I think about the fact that there have been 159 workplace deaths this year, it really makes my blood boil to hear occupational health and safety regulation described as red tape. When I think about having been one of the first people on the scene at a workplace accident where two people lost their lives, hearing the suggestion that occupational health and safety laws are 'overreach' makes me very angry. When I think about the working people who have lost limbs, suffered psychological injury or been rendered unable to work in the only occupation for which they are skilled, I become quite angry when I hear the phrase 'insidious industry' in relation to work health and safety laws. So I would be quite concerned by any suggestion in this place that somehow we need to weaken occupational health and safety protections in this country, that somehow occupational health and safety protections are a choke on business when in fact the real choke on business is poor workplace safety and the lack of capacity—the injuries, illnesses and the deaths—that can arise from lack of appropriate workplace safety.

This move to bring employers from state based workplace health and safety regulations and workers compensation systems into the Commonwealth system is very concerning for people who care about workplace health and safety because there are a lot of differences between the state based systems and the Commonwealth system. I speak particularly about Queensland as it is where my knowledge is. I am particularly aware of the Queensland systems.

It is clear, when you look at the workplace health and safety regimes, that necessarily the Commonwealth system is less equipped to enforce compliance of workplace health and safety laws. Think about the fact that there are only some 44 workplace health and safety inspectors in the Commonwealth system, whereas there are hundreds in the state based system, and they still can only do so much with the resources that they have. That in and of itself is sufficient to give you pause to make you wonder whether moving people into the Commonwealth system is really going to be in the best interests of working people.

When it comes to Comcare—and we are really talking here about legislation aimed at encouraging employers to move from their state based systems into the Comcare system—it is just a fact that the Comcare system offers less protection and less support for injured workers than systems like the Queensland workers compensation system. It is an important incentive for employers to ensure workplace safety, to incentivise care and diligence—a lack of negligence—to know that if you are negligent and your negligence causes harm, there is a prospect of legal recourse against you. Yes, that can be insured for and that is insured for quite properly, but that fact—the risk that needs to be managed—is a powerful incentive for safer workplaces. That is why systems like the Queensland system, which still has access to common law damages for injured workers, are superior to a system like Comcare where there is really no practical access to common law damages for injured workers.

I think it is a really curious move to move away from common law protection for injured workers. What you are really saying to the community is that the taxpayer will bear the loss that is occasioned through employer negligence. In other words, we will socialise the loss so that, if someone is injured because of an employers negligence, there will be a statutory lump sum or possibly a long pension. But, other than that, the person will have to rely on taxpayer funded Medicare and social security systems—versus a classical common law approach where the working person will be able to seek recourse against the employer whose negligence occasioned the loss and damage.

As you can see, there is a question of fairness here; it is one that really should not be ignored. In Queensland, as I say, we have a very good workers compensation system. Unfortunately, the Newman government recently took away some of the rights for working people in the Queensland workers compensation system, but nonetheless it remains one of the systems in this country where people can have access to common law damages, which entitles the working person to seek loss of earnings, future medical expenses and to receive compensation for the loss of a career—in other words, to put a person in a position where, though no money is ever sufficient to compensate for the loss of a limb or a serious medical condition that prevents you from working, they can at least be in a position where they can live with dignity and can recover from the injury or illness to the best extent possible, in a dignified manner with the assistance that they need. This is instead of relying on a long system like Comcare where conflict is built into the system, because it is ongoing support on a pension basis largely, without access to compensation for injury occasioned by fault, negligence, or carelessness—by a failure to give the care that you owe to your neighbour. That is really the heart of negligence when we talk about negligence rights.

A lot of people in our community have concerns about this bill. I am certainly one of them. As someone who has attended from time to time the international day of mourning for workers who have been killed, I have to say I have heard enough stories in my time to know that it is never enough to think that workplace health and safety legislation is just red tape or overreach. This year I attended the Workers' Memorial Day service convened by the Queensland Council of Unions. My good friend from the Transport Workers Union, Bob, gave an address on behalf of another official whose son had been killed that week in a truck driving accident. It was a really poignant and moving story. It was all the more poignant for me because, as someone who has worked with transport workers previously, I have been to meet with union delegates to talk to them about their rights at work. One issue that has come up consistently has been their concerns for those people who were employed by employers where Comcare, rather than the Queensland WorkCover scheme, is their workers compensation scheme.

One of the grave issues of concern for them is what is known as journey claims—in other words, whether or not they can get compensation if they are injured on their way to work or their way home from work during transport. Of course, Queensland being a highly decentralised state, one of the issues—an important issue—in any discussion about the relative benefits of WorkCover versus Comcare is that there is a lot of travel; there is a lot of transport required. The consequence of that is that journey claims are extremely important to working people in Queensland. So much so that, when the Newman government was moving to water down the workers compensation scheme, to take away some of the rights, it seemed that they intended to take away journey claims. There was such a sustained community backlash that they had to desist from that push and continue with journey claims.

The Queensland Council of Unions has written to me about that attempt to water down workers compensation protections in Queensland. What they said to me was: 'Concern about the Newman government's agenda triggered union campaigns and the establishment of community coalitions. In particular, the removal or reduction in employees' common law rights, as well as the removal of journey claims, were the subject of public debate and campaigns. Following this union community activity, there is heightened awareness about the loss of such coverage and protections in Queensland.' They went on to say, 'The Newman-LNP government eventually rejected the removal of journey claims, but did restrict common law damages.' And they said, 'Journey claims survived because of the likely impact in regional and rural areas.' They went on to make a comment about the restriction of common law rights. What they then told me was the following: 'Polling shows that a significant majority of Queenslanders are opposed to the reductions in the coverage outlined above. There is little doubt that the decision to restrict common law damages contributed to the dramatic reduction in support of the Newman LNP government that has been continually evident in opinion polls and manifested in the Redcliffe by-election won by the phenomenal Yvette D'Ath MP, now the state member for Redcliffe.' That is my editorialising. They wanted to say that any decision by the Abbott government to impose—

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context