Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would have to say that the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill 2015 is probably one of the meanest bills that we have had before the House. As the previous speaker has said, and as I wish to highlight in my contribution, let us just be clear about what this bill seeks to do: it seeks to reduce the compensation that injured workers receive. That goes to the core of what this bill does.

Just focus on what the government is saying about injured workers who are incapable of returning to work and their entitlements. The government, in their own contribution, have claimed that the step-down approach will provide incentives for employees to return to work as quickly as possible. In other words: 'We're going to cut your compensation, and that will be a motivator for you to return to work. You're not returning to work because you're fit. You are not returning to work because the doctor has given you the okay. We are going to encourage you to return to work because we have cut your compensation.' That is mean and cruel and goes to the contrary of why we have workers compensation in the first place. We have it to compensate workers who have been injured at work and to support them to return to work. Yet the government, in their own contribution, are saying, 'We are going to provide incentive by cutting people's entitlements.' That is just mean and cruel. That is to the heart of what this government is about when it comes to working people.

These changes have in no way guaranteed, or the government has not come out to ensure, that no Australian worker will be worse off as a result of these changes. The government has also, with this bill and previous other Comcare bills, not ruled out that workplaces will be safer. While there has been lots of rhetoric that people stand up, care for workers and want to see a safe workplace, these reforms do not ensure we have safer workplaces and that, in the Comcare system, people will not be worse off. Let's just be clear about the kinds of workers that will be affected: low- to middle-income workers. We are talking about frontline workers—people who are more likely to incur a serious injury in their workplace because of the nature of their work. We are talking about our cleaners, we are talking our process workers and we are talking about people in construction and manufacturing—people who currently are not largely covered by the Comcare scheme and that will be if these changes go through.

Not every job is a professional job. Some of our jobs are physically demanding and do result in long-term workplace injuries where it does take people some time to recover. But, rather than supporting those people with a fair compensation scheme, what we have seen put forward by this government in this bill is a proposal to cut their compensation and say, in their own words, 'This cut in compensation is an incentive.' That is just mean and cruel by this government.

So who are some of the workers incurring these injuries that could be affected as a result of these bills? Cleaners are some of our hardest-working, lowest-paid workers that will quite often get an injury in their workplace as a result of competitive manual work. I refer to a survey done by United Voice of some of their Spotless cleaning members. Many cleaners working for Spotless said that the amount of time they had to clean a particular area or set of work had reduced in recent years, thus placing a large amount of pressure on their ability to perform the work required. In fact, 55 per cent of Australian cleaners employed by Spotless surveyed in this particular survey said that they suffered from stress as a result of unreasonable workload. I am not just talking about mental stress. I am talking about physical stress on the body. This stress takes a toll on cleaners, with many of them reporting physical and personal injuries.

Sometimes these particular issues also affect family and relationships because the cleaners come home at the end of the day tired, exhausted and stressed—stressed about what was going on. One particular cleaner said, 'Sometimes I'm under so much pressure I can't handle it.' Another cleaner said, 'My boss doesn't care and I'm worried about it when I go home.' Another cleaner said, 'There's always more work to do and there's always fewer staff.' These are people working in an industry where WorkCover claims are increasing because of the result of workload pressures. Yet, if they receive an injury from which it takes quite a lot of time to recover, this government's solution is not to support them but to propose a scheme which would see them have less assess to compensation.

The construction industry is another industry where a worker is seriously injured or dies every six minutes. It is just a bit concerning that, whilst I make these contributions, two workers in our construction, forestry and mining industries will be seriously injured. Yet what this government is not saying to those seriously injured workers is, 'We will support you the whole way through your rehabilitation in the hope that you're physically capable to return to your job.' This government is putting forward a scheme which would see you get less compensation as a result of these reforms.

Here is some first-hand experience from the construction workers involved and just a few words from CFMEU member Kym. He said, 'It was scary day that day down at the outlet. It was just an every sort of day.' A fellow that he used to work with did not go home one day. 'He got pinned against a panel. He got squashed. It was scary; heartbreaking. He was only 24.' Sadly, Kym's experience and his words are not unique in the Australian construction industry. Like cleaning, serious injuries are common within their industry. Too many have seen their mates seriously injured or killed on the job. Just recently in Melbourne they had a memorial at the trades hall, where they put out a set of shoes for every worker that had lost their life in a Victorian workplace over the past 12 months. The fact that we even have to put the shoes out to demonstrate highlights the problem that we have in some of our workplaces. Rather than ensuring that we have the best possible workplace health and safety practices and we have the best possible workers rehabilitation and compensation schemes, what we have seen from the government in their set of bills put forward in relation to Comcare is substandard. It is not best practice.

I will never forget the day in the County Court in Victoria when a record fine was handed down as a result of a death in a workplace of the Foster's Abbotsford brewery. The Foster's Group was sentenced to a fine of $1.125 million. At the time it was the largest fine handed down. The reason it was the largest fine ever handed down to an individual because of a result of a massive breach in workplace health and safety was that it was not the first incident of its nature in this particular workplace. A fellow worker had been seriously injured using the same equipment less than a year earlier. I can personally remember the sadness in the voice of the delegate who spoke to the media afterwards about what it meant to him on that day. His comments were quite chilling: it could not bring back his co-worker, it could not help the injured worker, who had been injured in a similar incident a year before, but it might teach the company a lesson. It might get them to listen to their employees, to work closely with them.

Workplace injuries occur all the time and, as I said during this contribution, two workers in the construction industry alone will be seriously injured, one every six minutes. When those workplace injuries occur we need to ensure that we have the best workers compensation system available to them—and a robust one—and rehabilitation programs.

Finally, the story I wish to share is about Rosa, a security officer. Some people do not think that security is front line but, at a place like Crown Casino, it is. One day she received a king hit to the head, suffering a permanent brain injury. There was a period when they hoped that her memory and some of her cognitive ability would return. She did undertake quite strong intensive physiotherapy in the hope that part of her brain functions could be restored. But here we are today and Rosa has still not been able to return to work. Her short-term memory is just no longer there.

Today, her husband receives a carers payment and Rosa is on a disability pension. But what struck me in preparing my contribution to this debate was how Rosa would have been affected under these reforms? As a result of this changed compensation scheme, would her family have been forced to go onto welfare sooner? Would they have been forced into an untenable situation where they might have needed to access welfare sooner? Would construction workers, process workers have been forced back to work earlier because of this government's workers compensation plan to reduce their entitlements?

These reforms make it harder for Australian workers. The proposed changes in this bill would immediately and significantly reduce the rights and protections of workers covered by the scheme. This bill contains a long list of cuts in benefits that would be removed from injured workers. It will force many of them onto welfare or back into work before it is safe to do so.

I have mentioned the impact of and highlighted the problems associated with the government's step-down approach, providing an incentive for employees to return to work as quickly as possible—not when it is medically safe for them to do so, not when they are physically capable of doing so. This statement purely and simply states: 'provide an incentive for employees to return to work as quickly as possible'. It is really code for 'These reforms will cut your payments.'

This step-down approach proposed by the government means that an injured worker, who is unable to work, will be worse off. How? For the first 13 weeks they will receive only 90 per cent of their income instead of 100 per cent. For the next 19 weeks they will receive only 80 per cent, as opposed to 100 per cent. I wonder whether their bank will accept only 80 per cent of their mortgage repayments? I wonder whether this government will accept 80 per cent of tax being paid? I wonder whether their electricity company, the petrol station, will accept only 80 per cent payment instead of 100 per cent? It goes on: 80 per cent for the next seven weeks and then 70 per cent thereafter, instead of 75 per cent.

In other words, as a result of the changes in this proposed scheme, these workers will be worse off. As I have said, this will impact low- to middle-income workers the most. The ACTU has estimated that the workers affected could lose between $120,000 and $325,000 over the next 20 years. Again, remember that these are not our politicians; they are not people on the highest income. These are working people on the lowest income, people working in security such as Rosa, people working in construction, processing claims—physical jobs and manual handling. Those are the people who will be most at risk of losing if these Comcare reforms, including the ones in this bill, go through. These reforms, as I have said, could force workers back to work before it is safe to do so.

Many of these things within this bill will actually make it harder for workers to return to work. It is unacceptable for the government to be putting forward these reforms without being able to stand up and say, loudly and clearly, that no workers will be worse off. The government need to demonstrate how and why they believe workers will not be worse off. What we are seeing proposed in the Comcare scheme is quite simply the government not listening to working people but instead listening to business. Government are clear that they are the voice for big business, not the voice for the Australian working people.

We do not need a government that continues to attack Australian workers, particularly those on low to middle incomes. We need a government that stands up for these working people, whether they be on workers compensation or are working in the workplace—whether it be through a jobs plan, by supporting people who are unemployed looking for work, or by ensuring our workplaces are safe and that we have good workplace laws that do not seek to punish people.

See this speech in context