Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to sum up the debate on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 on behalf of the Minister for Education and the relevant minister in the Senate. Let me make this point from the outset: having heard much of the debate from the opposition and the representative from the Greens, I would note that throughout the period of the home insulation program we warned, industry warned, the community warned and the media warned of safety risks. Recently, the royal commissioner Ian Hanger QC made profound findings that warnings had been ignored, that the government had ample opportunity to heed the advice given in the public domain and elsewhere and, most profoundly and significantly, that the deaths that occurred could have been avoided. I will restate that: the deaths that occurred could have been avoided.

Against that background, where we had such significant findings by a royal commissioner, which have led to the government engaging in a process of rightly and appropriately working with the families to provide compensation and working with the effected small businesses to provide compensation, I do not think that those on the opposition benches are in any position to provide any commentary whatsoever in relation to safety matters. Their performance in government was a matter of deep and profound regret for the families of those affected, for the businesses affected and for the nation as a whole.

I thank all members who have participated in debate but note that, to my regret, the opposition are either being wilfully ignorant or making statements about the provisions of the bill that are simply not sustainable. As we know, employers operating in multiple states have to deal with different workers compensation schemes and work health and safety regulations in each jurisdiction around Australia. This myriad regulation increases red tape for employers and is confusing for workers, who are subject to different regulations and benefits depending on which state or territory they are employed in. For example, an employee of a national bank working in a branch in Perth will have different work health and safety rules and a different workers compensation scheme than an employee of the same bank working in the Sydney office. This simply makes no sense.

Consistent with the government's deregulation agenda and simplification and streamlining approach, this bill will reduce the cost of the regulatory burden on the economy by implementing the recommendations of the review of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, a review commissioned by the former Gillard government and undertaken by Mr Peter Hanks QC and Dr Allan Hawke AC, both of whom are distinguished in their field. Allan Hawke of course has a long tradition of service to Australian governments of all persuasions and has assisted recently in matters in relation to the Northern Territory. Additionally, costs will be reduced by removing injuries from the coverage of the Comcare scheme where those injuries occur in circumstances outside the control of the employer.

Specifically, the bill proposes amendments to (1) remove the requirement for the Minister for Employment to declare a corporation to be granted a licence for self-insurance while maintaining the ability for the minister to issue directions to the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, which will streamline the current two-stage self-insurance licensing process for certain corporations under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988; (2) remove the outdated requirement that a corporation must be in competition with a Commonwealth authority or former Commonwealth authority to enter the Comcare scheme; (3) enable corporations currently required to meet workers compensation obligations under two or more workers compensation laws of a state or territory to apply to the commission to join the Comcare scheme as self-insuring licensees—this is the national employer test; (4) enable the commission to grant licences to related corporations; (5) make consequential changes to extend the coverage provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 to those corporations that obtain a licence to self-insure under the SRC Act; and (6) exclude access to workers compensation where either injuries occur during recess breaks away from an employer's premises or a person engages in serious or wilful misconduct, even if the injury results in death or serious and permanent impairment. The amendments contained in the bill will reduce the regulatory impact on the economy by approximately $32.8 million each year for the next 10 years, which are savings that businesses will then have available to invest, including, potentially, in more jobs and better safety in those enterprises.

In relation to issues raised during the debate, the opposition has claimed that the amendments will do a number of things. These claims are not accurate. It was claimed during the debate that the bill was not widely consulted upon by the government and therefore the government has no mandate to bring this bill to the parliament. Not surprisingly, this statement is flatly, plainly false, untrue and incorrect. The amendments in the bill arose largely from the recommendations of the review which was announced by the Gillard government in 2012.

During the development of the report of the review and after the report's release in March 2013, public consultations with key stakeholders occurred. Key bodies consulted included, amongst others, unions, workers, employer organisations, insurers, health practitioner bodies, legal practitioners plus licensees and premium payers under the Comcare scheme. Relevant issues raised in the consultation period were considered by government. This bill flows from the recommendations of one of Australia's most distinguished former public servants, respected by both sides of parliament, Allan Hawke.

Further, relevant state and territory officials were consulted on matters, including allowing national employers to join the Comcare scheme, with responses that were obtained from states and territories being taken into consideration by the government prior to the introduction of the bill on 19 March 2014. If I may speculate, given the provenance of the review, the history of the review and the nature of the recommendations, it is my contention that had there not been a change in government a similar bill with identical or almost identical provisions would have been put forward. That is my opinion.

Additionally, during the debate, it was suggested that the commission and Comcare do not have the experience and capacity to manage the changes proposed in the bill and because of this workplace health and safety would be put at risk. The government clearly rejects this claim. The commission and Comcare have the capacity and experience to manage the proposed changes, and this will not risk workplace health and safety. I repeat that—it will not risk workplace health and safety.

Self-insurance under the Comcare scheme is funded by regulatory contributions by the licensees that reflect the cost incurred by the commission and Comcare in the performance of their respective regulatory functions. As such, the increased costs of meeting the regulatory responsibilities for both workers compensation and work health and safety will be resourced through the increase in regulatory funding due to the predicted increase in the number of licences. For example, if more companies decide to self-insure, Comcare would need to expand the number of inspectors. Further, Comcare has over the past decade shown it can increase its capacity to regulate non-Commonwealth licensees, including self-insurers , from a wide range of industries, including banking, defence, transport and telecommunications.

Additionally, the SRC Act requires the commission must not grant a licence to an applicant if the applicant's past and likely future performance in complying with work health and safety legislation reveals that it has not met the standards of state legislators in the past and is not likely to meet those required by Comcare as the regulator of the WHS Act and the commission in the future. This compares favourably and dramatically with the loose and unsafe arrangements which were in place during the Home Insulation Program, which defied the warnings of unions, industry and state bodies.

In relation to the question of the work health and safety needs of higher risk industries, such as mining, for example, it is the government's expectation that the commission would not approve a self-insurance licence until Comcare has built the necessary capacity over time as it has already done for other industries.

It was further asserted on the topic of the impact of the bill and state and territory workers compensation schemes that changes in the bill will undermine all the existing workers compensation schemes in Australia. There is simply no evidence to support this assertion. During the review and the development of the bill, concerns were raised about the possible impact on the viability of state and territory work health and safety schemes and workers compensation schemes due to a potential exodus of large employers from those schemes. In short, the concerns are that, if large employers move to the Comcare scheme, premium rates will increase for the remaining employers in the state and territory schemes. However, the 2004 Productivity Commission inquiry into national workers compensation and occupational health and safety frameworks noted that concerns such as these were not supported by the evidence. In particular, actuarial assessments concluded that, the larger the employer was, the closer the premium the employer paid would be to the true cost of claims and expenses for it such that the impact of the exit of such employers would be relatively neutral for state and territory schemes. Advice provided to the government is that circumstances in the work health and safety and workers compensation areas have not changed materially since the 2004 assessment such that the impact will remain minimal.

Finally, it was claimed in debate that the bill contains a third new exclusionary provision related to voluntary assumptions of a normal risk. That statement is simply incorrect. No such provision exists within the bill. As clearly explained in the explanatory memorandum, the change to the section that deals with voluntary and unreasonable assumption of risk that has been in place since 1988 has merely been consequentially amended. The section that has been in place since 1988 has merely been consequentially amended—I repeat that for emphasis and for the House to understand clearly.

I note the bill excludes access to workers compensation where injuries occur during recess breaks away from an employer's premises where a person engages in serious and wilful misconduct, even if the injury results in death or serious and permanent impairment. This replicates and represents the position that exists in both South Australia and Tasmania and which has done so for some time. I would note that one is currently a Labor jurisdiction and, until recently, the other was a Labor jurisdiction. Where a worker is away from the workplace and undertaking activities, be they dangerous not, associated with the employee's employment or at the request or direction of the employer, they will still be covered if they are subject to injury. In conclusion, I would again like to thank members who participated in the debate on this important legislation. I commend the legislation to the House.

See this speech in context