Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

As I was saying earlier in this debate, the opposition has some concerns with the bill before the House. Labor's first priority is to ensure that we get this bill right. We have made clear that the design of any new scheme will take a significant period of time, and the ACT government has made a commitment to work with stakeholders, so we would say that there is sufficient time to resolve any outstanding matters and ensure certainty for those affected by the changes outlined in this bill.

Our first priority is to ensure that no workers will be worse off under the government's proposed bill. We must also be certain that this bill will not provide an incentive for others to make workers worse off. That is why we took the responsible position to refer this bill to a Senate committee for a thorough investigation. The Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee will consider the bill. The opposition are concerned that the government has not undertaken a proper consultation with all relevant stakeholders in constructing this bill. It really is important that there is a comprehensive investigation of the legislation because this government—the Abbott government—has already sought to make damaging and adverse changes to the Comcare scheme.

The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 was introduced into the parliament in March last year, and the changes proposed in that bill will directly and indirectly risk the workplace health and safety of Australian workers. It will also remove the rights of Australian workers to fair and reasonable cover when they suffer the misfortune of a work related illness or injury. Labor strongly opposes that bill. In that bill the government has included provisions in an effort to hollow out state workers' compensation schemes by opening up the Comcare scheme to private sector companies. The government has sought to do this by applying a very liberal definition of what constitutes a national employer.

We are concerned that significant large companies will flee state schemes, reducing the capacity for those schemes to properly look after workers under those schemes. We do believe that would not be in the interests of workers and certainly not be in the interests of those state based schemes. Yet in this bill, if it is constructed incorrectly, there is also a risk that the government may allow for the exiting of the Comcare scheme to an inferior scheme.

Why is this particularly important? It is important because there is yet another Comcare bill that has recently been introduced by the Abbott government. The bill makes cuts to lump sum compensation payable for permanent impairment for the vast majority of injured workers and removes the already modest pain and suffering payment; changes eligibility requirements, meaning injured workers are locked out of the scheme altogether; reduces incapacity payments; expands sanctions against workers, including removal of medical support if a worker fails to attend a medical appointment; and more, all of which is totally opposed by the opposition.

The Abbott government is asking the parliament to make a determination on a matter while it has very recently introduced a very substantial bill which potentially contains crucial information about future changes it proposes to the very same act. Given the introduction of the third substantive Comcare bill, Labor does not believe that the Senate committee inquiry into the current bill was afforded a reasonable opportunity to thoroughly investigate the interaction of this bill with the third Comcare bill.

As I referred to earlier, the ACT government has not made a determination on the makeup of any new scheme, and thus to support this legislation before that has occurred is to put the cart before the horse. We have made it very clear to this government and, indeed, to the ACT government that we would like to see some clarity and certainty about the future of coverage for workers who work for the ACT government. There is no point saying you are going to leave a scheme if you cannot advise those workers where you are going to end up. It is not reasonable or fair to suggest that you would be exiting a particular type of arrangement that covers workers if they are injured at work and not be able with any certainty to outline what entitlements they may have in any subsequent scheme. So we have got some reservations about this bill.

Of course we believe the ACT government should be making decisions for its own workforce in relation to workers compensation, including rehabilitation, but we think it is only reasonable that they make clear their intentions before this bill passes. We have said to the minister responsible in the ACT government to outline the concern, to outline the intentions, to explain whether there would be, for example, any material changes to the entitlements of those workers if injured. If that were to happen then the opposition would be supporting this bill forthwith. I do believe we have sufficient time for that to happen—for this to pass through both houses of parliament. The ACT government just needs to provide that information to the government and, indeed, to the federal opposition so that we can ensure there are no adverse consequences for this bill—allowing for that government to exit the scheme.

See this speech in context