Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk about the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2009. The coalition does not oppose this bill. As detailed in the documentation associated with this bill, the bill has the effect of seeking to enshrine in legislation the moratorium that was announced as part of a review into the operation of the Comcare scheme. Given that moratorium, this bill has the effect of amending the legislation to prevent non-government employers from seeking access to the Comcare scheme. While the amendment does not detract from the power held by the minister to consider or to determine a request for entry to the scheme, it does have the effect of not obliging the minister to make a decision, which is the current situation under the existing law.

Despite not opposing this bill, I do wish to express some concerns held by the coalition, about the effect of amending this legislation, within a broader context. I want to talk about what I think is a fundamental ideological divide in this parliament; that is, we the opposition—the Liberal and National parties—are always committed to choice and to allowing people to make their own decisions, whereas Labor always seem to be opposed to people making their own decisions and opposed to people being able to make their own choices. We see this across a range of issues, such as private health insurance and education, and we certainly see it in my shadow portfolio of workplace relations. For some reason the Labor Party have an ideological objection to employers and employees sitting down and organising their workplace in a way that they see fit and making arrangements that they believe are suitable to their own enterprise. As for the context of this bill, this is a bill that prevents workers and employers from determining an appropriate safety and rehabilitation system to cover their own workplace. Effectively, a non-government employer who might have ordinarily been eligible to join the Comcare scheme will now be forced to remain within their relevant state jurisdiction and will no longer have the option to join an alternative system of safety and compensation coverage. Therefore, Labor have removed the choice that such employers have as to how they would like to structure the safety and rehabilitation regime or the safety and compensation regime within their own workplace.

The coalition has questioned on numerous occasions and on many different issues why the Labor Party seek to restrict and reduce the choices of Australians. They do not have the same respect for freedom of choice that we have. They do not fundamentally respect the right of employers and workers to agree on circumstances within their enterprises that suit their own needs. Surely the employers and employees within a particular business are ultimately the people who are best placed to judge how they structure the arrangements to run that business. Labor’s hatred of this choice and their denial of employers’ and employees’ ability to get together and make those arrangements is evident all throughout the Fair Work Act and is evident throughout the way in which the Fair Work system is operating. These laws have taken away the right of an individual, an enterprise or a workplace to determine working conditions that are suitable for them. Employers and workers are not even able to speak to each other under these existing laws without risking being dragged before the industrial umpire. It is not clear to us in the coalition why the Labor Party have a fundamental objection to this occurring. Why is it that employers and employees cannot sit down and talk to each other without third parties being present? By taking away this right of workers and business to work together and to determine and agree on workplace arrangements that are suitable for them, they are taking away what I believe are the fundamental rights of people to be able to get together and come to arrangements that are suitable for them. But according to Labor, and this is enshrined within the Fair Work Act, it is really only third parties that can come in and solve workplace problems and make the decisions. They seek to take power away from the employers and they seek to take power away from the workers. They always seek to enhance the power of third parties.

We now see circumstances in which employers and workers have almost unanimously agreed to terms and conditions of employment in the context of negotiating a collective agreement only to have that agreement overturned by a third party. Conditions that have been agreed between workers and their employers can effectively only be operative if they have been ticked off by a third party. In other words, it is the unions that are mandated in every workplace and they are mandated to be involved in every decision. This is why Labor are fundamentally opposed to workers and employers being able to make up their own minds. They have always opposed this freedom and they have done so because they are afraid that, if you give workers and business the ability to speak amongst themselves, that dilutes the power of the union movement. We all know about the massive debt that the Labor Party owe the union movement, particularly in relation to the 2007 election.

I am not going to go through a detailed analysis of the failings of the Fair Work Bill and how it is beginning to fail Australian workplaces, but we in the opposition are constantly being reminded as we go out into the community by employers and employees that these laws are the latest weapons that Labor is using to attack their fundamental freedom and right to choose. From these continued attacks, we in the coalition recognise that this one-size-fits-all approach that has been mandated by Labor is just not suitable. The idea that every workplace from Perth to Hobart to Cairns requires the same model to operate is just something that we wholeheartedly reject.

This bill today will set us up in a further direction: it further restricts choice and it further mandates the one-size-fits-all approach. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in her second reading speech made comments about the advancement towards the harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws. The coalition’s position on that is that we are broadly supportive of a national system of occupational health and safety laws. We believe that it would provide business with more certainty and fewer compliance costs and ensure workplaces in general are provided with an appropriate and beneficial system or means of providing a safe workplace. We believe that a national system will deliver much better outcomes than the existing patchwork make-up of various state pieces of legislation. The coalition is concerned, though, that Safe Work Australia will be excessively controlled by state bureaucrats and that state bureaucrats rather than employers or employees will have a greater say about occupational health and safety affecting Australian workplaces. That said, the aim of achieving consistency in a broader occupational health and safety context is a laudable aim that retains our support.

This bill is reasonably innocuous, but it still advances Labor’s agenda to restrict choices in Australian workplaces. It strips away choice from workers, from business and from workplaces generally. It is part of Labor’s plan to make a one-size-fits-all approach to the regulation of industrial relations. So, while there are benefits associated with national consistency in general terms, there are downsides associated with imposing on workplaces rigid and inflexible terms and conditions which fail to meet and recognise the differing needs that occur in enterprises in different parts of the country. The bill enshrines what is already in operation—a moratorium on new employers having access to the Comcare scheme—so it has little practical consequence. We do not oppose it, but I do register the deep concerns that the opposition has about the direction that the Labor Party is taking industrial relations in this country.

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2009. This bill amends the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 to provide absolute discretion for the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to consider a request for declarations of eligibility for a licence to self-insure under this act. The Comcare scheme that is established by the act provides workers compensation and occupational health and safety arrangements for Australian government employees and the assorted private companies that self-insure their liabilities for workers compensation under the scheme. Some of these private companies are former government business enterprises which were allowed to obtain Comcare coverage when they were sold. Other private companies that were allowed to take up Comcare coverage were those enterprises that operated in competition with these government business enterprises or in competition with former government business enterprises. This has seen the Comcare coverage extend into areas of private enterprise that the scheme was never designed for, such as mining, transport and construction.

There are now 29 corporations licensed to self-insure under the act. They include companies such as Asciano—formerly known as Pacific National—Chubb Security, John Holland, National Australia Bank and even TNT Australia. The Comcare scheme, as I have already said, was primarily designed for a different purpose and that was for white-collar jobs in the public sector—not blue-collar jobs in heavy industry or transport in some of the companies I have just mentioned. As we know, there is an existing moratorium, placed on 11 December 2007, to prevent new private sector entrants into Comcare. This bill will place the effect of that moratorium into the act.

Recently, as part of the harmonisation of occupational health and safety, the Workplace Relations Ministers Council proposed that, following the implementation of uniform occupational health and safety laws, coverage of Comcare self-insured licensees would be transferred to state and territory jurisdictions. There are very good reasons for that. Uniform OH&S laws and nationally consistent approaches to compliance and enforcement will remove Comcare’s need to provide OH&S coverage to self-insured licensees. Especially important to me is that transfer of this OH&S coverage will also reduce the number of dual-jurisdiction work sites. To me, it is quite ridiculous that you can have different workers working on the same site under different safety rules and procedures, but that can certainly happen under the current arrangements. You could have a large building site where, for instance, John Holland was the head contractor—and, as I have already described, that company comes under the Comcare scheme—but where all its subcontractors on the site, from all the various different trades and services, could well be covered by the state occupational health and safety acts. Therein lies the problem: which one takes precedent and which is right?

Both acts are worded differently and both have different provisions and operate in different forms. Currently, it is almost impossible to have a scheme that melds together the different state and federal acts that actually works on the ground and does what it should—that is, look after the people that are at that workplace, of whichever state they may be in. Under the Commonwealth and in each state and territory, workers compensation systems vary and they provide different coverage, different payments and different medical and rehabilitation expenses to injured workers and to dependants of workers who tragically die or who are injured whilst at work or because of the work they have been doing.

According to the 2008-09 report of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, the number of Comcare investigators employed that year was 62. That is a significant increase from the 16 who were employed in 2004-05 but, as I have mentioned previously in the House, it is not sufficient to cover the expanded coverage of the scheme. Every year, over 300 Australian workers are killed at work. It is not known how many die from various occupational diseases, but it has been estimated at 10 times that number. Every year, over 140,000 people are injured whilst they are at work. These figures are huge and they are appalling not only in human terms but also in dollar terms. The drain on the Australian economy is estimated at $34 billion per year. As I have said before in this House, there is no excuse for ignoring the safety of workers in the workplace. It should be the prime responsibility of every employer. There is nothing more important than a worker returning home at the end of a working day or shift in as good a shape as they were at the start of that day’s labour.

There is certainly no good reason why some workers should be afforded less protection at work than others in a different state or territory. As I have said, every state and territory has different acts and regulations covering occupational health and safety and workers compensation arrangements, and good practice and sometimes not-so-good practice can be found in every jurisdiction. What might have been good practice 15 or 20 years ago in one state may not be current good practice in other states. It may now not be best practice. But, as we all know, legislation ages and time moves quickly. For instance, it is very easy to forget that only 15 years ago the vast majority of the population had no access to or, in many cases, no knowledge of many things we take for granted today. Access to the internet and the ease with which you can get information is still relatively new. But many of the things that have been done in this place over the years have simply not kept up with that.

Fifteen years ago, just being able to find a copy of another state’s act, regulation or code of practice took a great deal of time and money, as you had to make phone calls, send letters and parcels across the country or have access to a very good technical library, which most people certainly did not have. Because of that the best practice outcomes in one state could remain buried within that state. That state may have enjoyed the benefits of that for some time, but most people in other states were not aware that there was better practice—not only in safety at work but also in many other legislative areas—elsewhere. As I said, with internet access now available virtually everywhere, there is a much greater need for consistency in the regulation of occupational health and safety. So, from my point of view, when a solution to a problem is found in one jurisdiction there is no reason why that should not be applied as best as it possibly can to any other jurisdiction.

One of my jobs prior to coming to this place was as a safety officer and at times I was a health and safety representative. I worked in the construction industry and I saw firsthand the effect of people not understanding safety systems or, even worse, understanding but not following them and I saw what could be the terrible results when shortcuts were taken with safety on site. When it comes to safety, there can be great communication and consultation but also agreement between the employer, the employees and the union. Many very good safety systems have, in the end, come into place because of consultation, not through argument but actually through agreement, which provides the best result for everyone in the workplace. When the system operates properly, it is about being proactive; it is not about reacting to something that has happened. It is about analysing the risks and working out what may happen before it does so that systems can be put in place to prevent it. The OH&S compliance issues that arise from having competing schemes operating are still not fully understood because, in many workplaces, they are still quite a new phenomenon. But the number of work site inspections, notices and prosecutions are much lower under Comcare than under competing state schemes.

Last year in this place, when we were debating the Safe Work Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2008, the member for Corio said:

… if you were an employer in Victoria—

in the year 2005-06—

…  you were 24 times more likely to be the subject of an inspection—

under WorkSafe Victoria—

than if you were an employer in the Commonwealth jurisdiction.

This figure does not indicate that work practices and safety outcomes improve just because an employer has managed to move from a state OH&S system and into the federal Comcare system. It comes about because of the very small number of inspectors who were employed then and are employed now and the work site inspections undertaken in comparison with WorkSafe Victoria.

There is an interesting report that was presented to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council way back in 2005. The Comparative performance monitoring seventh report of November 2005 found that Comcare undertook 245 ‘workplace interventions’, also known as site visits. In the same time, WorkSafe Victoria undertook 43,719. In that period Comcare issued only 17 safety prohibition and improvement notices in Victoria, whilst WorkSafe Victoria issued 12,492 notices. In 2008-09, Comcare had increased this to 46 prohibition and improvement notices—but this was still obviously way behind. And in this report’s time frame Comcare did not prosecute anyone in Victoria, whilst WorkSafe Victoria launched 110 prosecutions that year. In 2008-09, Comcare covered 163,707 employees in the 29 licensed self-insurers, some of which I previously mentioned.

The role of a workplace inspector for a safety authority is a vital one, but there must be a sufficient number of inspectors to cover the workforce and there must be the will in the organisation to be proactive where it counts—that is, at the workface, on the job site. Just as important as the workplace inspector’s role is the development of proposals for national workers compensation arrangements for employers with workers in more than one jurisdiction. Rather than forcing states and territories to toe the Howard line—as we saw with the spectacular failure of Work Choices, where millions of workers were ripped off in their wages and conditions with no recompense—the Rudd government is vitally aware of the impact that changes in the workplace can have on the lives of working people. And although we know—we really know—that Work Choices is still held very dear to the hearts of all those opposite, without exception we see and hear, day after day, in this place and in the press, the sheer arrogance and the out-of-touch views that exist in the Liberal Party. Their views also extend in many cases to the safety of people on the job.

We do not need competing workers compensation and OH&S systems that provide different levels of safety and coverage. We need the best result for every worker, whether they be in one state or another. There should be no excuses for that. As the minister said in her second reading speech, when occupational health and safety powers go back to the states for all of these licensed self-insured companies under Comcare, there will be better safety outcomes because there will be more inspectors—more people on the job. They hopefully can not only stamp out bad practices but also guide into good practices. We need occupational health and safety systems and workers compensation schemes that work proactively to reduce accidents and to improve safety outcomes. I commend this bill to the House.

Chris Trevor (Flynn, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak today on the government’s Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2009, which will provide a number of key changes to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. This amendment bill will provide critical changes to current legislation and the Comcare scheme. The Comcare scheme provides workers compensation and occupational health and safety arrangements for employees of the Australian government and some of the private sector companies that self-insure their workers compensation liabilities under the scheme.

The Rudd Labor government promised at the last election that it would impose a moratorium on companies seeking to join the Comcare scheme and announced a review to ensure that Comcare was a suitable occupational health and safety and workers compensation scheme. Given the progress towards harmonised national occupational health and safety laws, and the proposed transfer of occupational health and safety coverage for Comcare self-insurers to the states and territories, the government has elected to formalise and maintain the moratorium in future legislation until 2010, when uniform occupational health and safety laws will have been implemented in all jurisdictions.

Currently, applications for inclusion in the Comcare scheme are automatic, bar for the moratorium put in place at the time of the Comcare review. The amendments in this bill will provide the minister with an absolute discretion to consider requests for declarations of eligibility for a Comcare self-insured licence under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. This will apply to new requests or applications and any existing applications that have been made but not determined. The changes will empower, but not oblige, the minister to consider requests for declarations of eligibility. It will also allow the minister to take into consideration important developments, such as the progress of occupational health and safety harmonisation. This effectively provides the minister with more flexibility to consider applications to join the scheme. The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2009 will effectively allow the minister to use their own discretion derived from experience and important relevant developments to consider requests, providing a fairer and more balanced and efficient system.

I do not like the Comcare scheme; I never have. In Queensland, employers, including self-insurers, should always, in my opinion, be obliged to have claims by injured employees assessed and determined under Queensland’s workers compensation laws. In Queensland, they are fair, just and reasonable. Comcare, in my experience, is not. Queensland, I believe, has the best set of workers compensation laws in this country. We should keep it that way in Queensland, but we should share our successful system with other states and territories and on a national basis.

I acknowledge that improvements to the Comcare scheme arising from the Comcare review have been made. These include the introduction of a statutory time limit for the consideration of workers compensation claims, reinstatement of workers compensation coverage for off-site recess breaks and the continuation of payment of medical and related costs where a worker’s weekly compensation benefits are suspended for their refusing to participate in the rehabilitation process. I further note that the government has recently increased substantially the lump sum and weekly death benefits under the Comcare scheme to align them more closely with death benefits payable under state workers compensation schemes. I also note that Comcare is undertaking a review of the permanent impairment arrangements in the scheme, in particular of the current permanent impairment guide. The purpose of this review is to determine whether the scheme provides reasonable access to, and reasonable levels of, compensation in the case of workplace injuries which result in a permanent impairment. But let us keep Comcare out of Queensland where possible.

Injuries at work can be devastating. They can result in physical and psychological impairment, financial hardship, marriage break-ups and other significant loss and damage. They can destroy a person’s earning capacity for life and throw injured workers and their families on the scrap heap. The Comcare review was long overdue. It is good to see some fairness and balance back in the system and protection of workers’ rights under the scheme, and I commend this bill to the House.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2009. This bill provides the minister with an absolute discretion to consider requests for declaration of eligibility for a Comcare self-funded licence under the act and it makes explicit that section 100 of the act empowers, but does not oblige, the minister to determine requests for declaration of eligibility. Prior to becoming a member of parliament, I worked with people who had been injured at work and came under the Comcare legislation. When the Comcare scheme was first introduced it was without a doubt the best scheme that had operated for injured workers, but over a period of time that has changed. It is now a very different sort of scheme and it needs to be reviewed. A number of changes have been made over the time that it has been in operation, and these changes have actually impacted in a way which, instead of providing the absolute best scheme and support for injured workers, goes a long way towards making it difficult for them. I know a number of rehabilitation providers and people I have worked with in a previous life put submissions in to the review because they could see that there was a great need for change.

I will touch a little on the background to the act and where it has gone over a period of time. The act was established to regulate the scheme for compensating and rehabilitating Commonwealth workers. That is how it was in the beginning, but in 1992 the act was amended to enable privatised Commonwealth government business enterprises to remain under the scheme. The Howard government further extended the eligibility to apply to be a self-insurer under the scheme—making it possible for Optus to become eligible to apply for a self-insurance licence—and that opened the gate for a number of corporations with no historic connection to the Commonwealth to apply be granted self-insurer licences. There has been significant change to the way Comcare operates, and that is why, I believe, the minister felt quite strongly that there needed to be a review. In the 40th Australian parliament I was involved in a review of workers compensation schemes that operated throughout Australia. That report highlighted a number of deficiencies that existed. It also highlighted the fact that when a worker is injured at work that worker needs a proper program and support to get back to work.

The underlying assumption that was made prior to that inquiry was that most workers were noncompliant, that those workers applying for workers compensation were people who were trying to exploit the workers compensation system and preferred receiving compensation payments to working. I think it was proven beyond doubt that that was not where injured workers were coming from. Rather, those people who suffered an injury at work had their lives affected in practically every way. The member for Flynn, who spoke previously, stated how workers who have been injured suffer the consequences of that injury, which can impinge on their life in so many ways but also that that injury often leads to social exclusion, the loss of family, marriage break-up and many other consequences—including the loss of a job, of course, which is one of the most predominant effects of suffering a workplace injury.

When a person injures themselves at work and is forced to look for a new job or loses their job, along with that they lose their identity. One of the first things that a person is asked when they walk into a room or they meet someone for the first time is, ‘What do you do?’ When that person is forced to say, ‘Oh, well, actually I’m not working at the moment; I’ve injured myself at work,’ that person is immediately seen in two ways: they are unemployed, which in itself has a stigma attached to it; and they have injured themselves at work, and if it is a back injury or something that is not visible there is a degree of scepticism associated with the fact that a person is receiving workers compensation. Immediately, the person is judged as being something and is not looked upon as a person in their own right.

The other consequence of work related injury is an enormous financial impost on the person who is injured. They suffer a reduction in income. They are not eligible for assistance through Newstart, a disability support pension or other Commonwealth payments because of the fact that a workers compensation payment is deemed to be equivalent to a payment through our social security system. That in itself creates a number of problems for those workers who are injured at work.

So you have the impact of the injury that, in a large number of circumstances, leads to a loss of job. You have the financial impact that occurs when a person is injured at work. And then you have the psychosocial impacts that accompany that workplace injury—the pressure it places on family and the fact that so many people who have workplace injuries end up with marriage break-ups, and along with marriage break-ups go changed situations within the family. There are issues that relate to the care of children and to every other aspect of a person’s life. What you have is a totally changed circumstance. One day you had a person who was going to work, earning an income that they had planned their life and their affairs around and maybe participating in sport or some other activity, and all of a sudden that was taken from them and they are now a person who is in receipt of workers compensation payments.

Comcare is one of the schemes that supports workers who are injured. In fact, I believe there are 410,000 employees who are covered by the Comcare scheme; the current number of licences under the scheme has reached 29. It is really important that schemes that look after injured workers provide a variety and a number of levels of support. We need to make sure that people who are injured at work, lose their job and lose their access to leisure activities undertake programs—programs where they can develop new skills—to help them to retrain and re-enter the workforce. Quite often, workers who injure themselves at work are in jobs that are totally unsuited for them post injury and post undertaking a physical rehabilitation program to redevelop their strengths and redevelop their capacities in a number of areas. Their capacities may not match up with the capacities needed to work in the job that they had prior to their injury.

Part of a good rehabilitation program is to assess a person’s physical tolerances and work capacities and then to compare those work tolerances and capacities with those required in their previous job. You also look at the type of job that a person with those capacities and tolerances can actually be employed in. Not only do we need to look at their capacities and tolerances; we need to look at their skills and their education levels. Then a plan has to be developed that will match that person, where they are now, to a job that they will be suitable for in the future. That can be quite a difficult process, because some people require quite a bit of assistance to get to the stage where they are able to look at a new and different kind of employment or job. The reason for that is that we need to address not only the skills level but also the psychosocial problems that can result from a workplace accident.

Quite often a worker will end up with some psychological problems because they have to come to terms with the loss of their job and the loss of physical function. As I mentioned earlier, they will need to go through a physical rehabilitation program and also a psychosocial program—one that helps them deal with loss and the issues of grieving associated with loss of function and loss of job and one that helps them cope with their injury. Part of that could even be a pain management program, because along with injury comes pain. One of the most difficult things for an injured person to do is manage pain and continue to be an active member in society. When we talk about Comcare and caring for workers who have been injured, it is quite a significant issue and it takes on a number of different parameters.

The legislation that we are debating today, the bill to amend the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, is necessary because a party who has made an application and whose application has not been considered due to the moratorium that was put in place at the time of the announcement of the Comcare review has the potential to launch legal action against the Commonwealth over the validity of the moratorium. This legislation puts that to bed. It makes sure that there is no potential for that to happen. It is very important that the review is completed because it is well and truly long overdue.

I have already mentioned to the House that the Comcare scheme provides workers compensation and occupational health and safety arrangements for employees of the Australian government and of some private companies that self-insure their workers’ compensation liabilities under the scheme. I have spent considerable time talking about rehabilitation and I do so because I feel that it is of vital importance to people who are injured at work. I also believe that I need to bring to the attention of the House that the Rudd government did promise prior to the last election to impose a moratorium on companies seeking to join the Commonwealth scheme. The government announced a review to ensure that the Commonwealth Comcare scheme was a suitable OH&S and workers compensation system.

The reason that companies applied for entry is, I think, an indictment of the Howard government. Companies applied for entry to the Comcare scheme because they felt that their liability would be lower under it. The Howard government had eroded a scheme that was, in 1988, when it was first introduced, I believe, a state-of-the-art scheme. It was an absolutely fantastic scheme for injured workers trying to get back to work. But it became a scheme that employers sought to join in order to obtain a licence, because that then meant they did not have as high a level of liability for their employees.

Given the progress towards harmonisation of the national OH&S laws and the proposed transfer of OH&S coverage of Comcare self-insurers to the states and territories, the government will maintain that moratorium until 2011 when uniform OH&S laws will be implemented in all jurisdictions. It is important that we have uniform laws so that people and companies or employers cannot pick and choose which jurisdiction they will employ their workers under. It is all about ensuring that our schemes deliver to workers and provide the right sort of safety net. That is what a workers compensation scheme is about. This change will ensure that there is no dislocation in the lead-up to the legislation taking effect after the moratorium period ends. It is very important that this legislation goes through the House. It gives me great pleasure to stand here today and support legislation that will ensure that the Comcare scheme will be a good, strong, workable scheme in the long term. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)

Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to make some brief comments in support of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2009. The bill proposes to amend section 100 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, the SRC Act, to provide the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations with an absolute discretion to consider requests for declarations of eligibility for a Comcare self-insured licence under the SRC Act. The aim of the amendment is to make explicit that section 100 of the SRC Act empowers but does not oblige the minister to consider or determine requests for declarations of eligibility. This amendment will apply to new requests or applications and to any existing applications that have been made but not determined.

There was a reasonable amount of consultation on this bill. Comcare and the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission were consulted on the impact that the measures would have on the Comcare self-insurance licence scheme. I would like to commend the contributions made by the members for Shortland, Deakin and Flynn. The member for Deakin has a long history of fighting for the rights of workers, and I enjoyed his contribution in particular. Having said that, the bill is not opposed by the opposition, although the member for Stirling did touch on some of the concerns the opposition has about the bill. Certainly the comments he made were about the broader ideology of what the Labor government is about. I think that, in this case, his comments were not warranted. This is one of those times when, with a piece of non-controversial legislation, the opposition once again has chosen to drive the idea that there is some sort of hidden agenda, some sort of left-wing conspiracy out there. That is not the case at all.

The bill is for the Comcare scheme that provides workers compensation and occupational health and safety arrangements for employees of the Australian government and of some private sector companies that self-insure their workers compensation liabilities under the scheme. It was a promise at the last election that a Rudd Labor government would impose a moratorium on companies seeking to join the Comcare scheme, and we announced a review to ensure that Comcare was a suitable OH&S workers compensation system. Given the progress towards the harmonised national OH&S laws and the proposed transfer of the OH&S coverage for Comcare self-insurers to the states and territories the government will maintain the moratorium until 2011, when uniform OH&S laws will have been implemented across all jurisdictions. To do otherwise would cause unnecessary dislocation, in that companies would need to adapt to Comcare and then quickly change again to adapt to the new model laws.

The government will introduce legislation to give effect to the moratorium for this further period. Currently, applications for inclusion in the Comcare scheme are automatic, bar the moratorium that was put in place at the time of the Comcare review. The government had regard to the Report of the review of self-insurance arrangements under the Comcare scheme, prepared by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The department’s report drew on information from stakeholder consultations, and there were over 80 written submissions to the review. The department engaged Taylor Fry Consulting Actuaries to collect the information and provide expert advice to inform the review.

This bill aims to continue to improve the systems that we have in place with regard to workers compensation and safety and rehabilitation. As the member for Deakin said, over 300 people lose their lives and 120,000 people are injured at work in Australia each year. Those figures are horrendous, and there is no excuse for them. If one person loses their life at work, it is one person too many. If one person is injured at work, it is one person too many. In a modern, industrialised country such as Australia it is paramount that, as we develop and become a stronger economic base and a stronger First World country, we make sure that we have laws that suit our development in how we care for and look after our workers. It is not good enough that any shortcuts are taken with the safety of workers in this country. Certainly all speakers in this debate have touched on the importance of our laws and our work safety authorities to make sure that our workers are safe at all times. It is very important that as we advance in technology, as we advance in making machinery and in using industrialised machinery in workshops and factories, we continue to update our workplace safety procedures as well as upskill our workers with regard to their personal safety and the safety of workers who are around them. As I said, 300 people losing their lives at work in Australia each year is an unacceptable statistic. It is something that we really need to address and continue to address quickly.

I would like to briefly mention a person who, unfortunately, lost their life earlier this week—a Northern Territorian by the name of David Magree. David was married to Julee. They had three children—Michael, Allison and Rachael. David was a drill operator at the Granites mine, near Alice Springs. He was 50 years old.

There is an ongoing investigation into what has happened, so I will not make comment regarding the events that surrounded David’s untimely passing. But I will say that the people within my office work closely with his son, Michael, who is the Transport Workers Union delegate and organiser in Darwin and who does a fantastic job. Obviously, the Transport Workers Union works closely with the trucking industry, and so many truck drivers in this country lose their lives each year. Our heartfelt condolences go out to Michael, to his mother, Julee, and to his two sisters, Allison and Rachael, on the untimely passing of their father, David. It came as a great shock to the whole community. David was just 50 years old and unfortunately succumbed to injuries that he received at the Granites mine on Monday morning. To the Magree family I put on the record my condolences and those of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory, of my office and of the offices of Warren Snowdon and Senator Trish Crossin.

It is very important that we continue, as I said, to analyse our work safety procedures and to make sure that Australian workplaces are the safest in the world. As our productivity rises, we should make sure that enough of our earnings, enough of the money that we make and enough of the money that goes to shareholders consequently is put back into ensuring that the capital continues to improve and that the maintenance is done on the machinery and infrastructure with which workers work. As I said, this bill is non-controversial and I support it. It will amend section 100 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 to provide the minister with the absolute discretion to consider requests for declarations of eligibility for a Comcare self-insured licence under the SRC Act. I commend the bill to the House.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all members who spoke—the members for Stirling, Deakin, Flynn, Shortland and Solomon—for their contributions to this debate. The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2009 needs to be viewed in the context of the government’s response to the review of the Comcare scheme and the significant progress that has been made by the Rudd government towards nationally harmonised occupational health and safety arrangements. In December 2007 the government initiated a review of the Comcare scheme. The purpose of the review was to ensure that Comcare was a suitable OH&S and workers compensation scheme for self-insurers and their employees. The government at that time also announced a moratorium on new companies joining the scheme pending the outcome of the review. Since that review commenced, significant milestones have been achieved towards the long sought after goal of nationally harmonised OH&S arrangements.

In July 2008, the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments formally agreed, through an intergovernmental agreement, to develop and adopt a nationally uniform OH&S legislative framework. All the states and territories and the Commonwealth have committed to adopt uniform OH&S laws by 2011, complemented by nationally consistent approaches to compliance and enforcement. The government has established a new agency, Safe Work Australia, to develop the new laws. Following the passage in September 2009 of the Safe Work Australia Act 2008, Safe Work Australia has been established as an independent statutory agency with its primary responsibility being to improve OH&S and workers compensation arrangements across Australia. An exposure draft model OH&S act has recently undergone a six-week period of public consultation, led by Safe Work Australia. The Workplace Relations Ministers Council will consider the amended draft for endorsement when it next meets in December.

In June 2009, the Workplace Relations Ministers Council noted that it was proposed to transfer OH&S coverage of self-insured licensees from the Comcare scheme to state and territory jurisdictions following the implementation of uniform OH&S laws in all jurisdictions. Uniform OH&S laws and nationally consistent approaches to compliance and enforcement will remove the need for Comcare’s OH&S coverage of licensees. The transfer of OH&S coverage will also reduce the number of dual jurisdiction work sites. These developments mean that the landscape in which self-insurers under the Comcare scheme and their employees are operating has changed significantly since the government initiated the Comcare review. In September 2009, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations announced a number of improvements to the Comcare scheme arising out of the review. These included the introduction of a statutory time limit for the consideration of workers compensation claims and reinstatement of workers compensation coverage for off-site recess breaks. In addition, medical and rehabilitation costs will continue to be paid where a worker’s weekly compensation benefits are suspended for refusing to participate in the rehabilitation process.

The government has also recently increased substantially the lump sum and weekly death benefits under the scheme and Comcare is undertaking a review of the permanent impairment arrangements under the scheme. The minister will direct Comcare to strengthen its enforcement of OH&S and will write to Comcare and ask it to issue guidance material to assist employers in improving consultation with all workers at or near the workplace, not just their direct employees. These measures are designed to improve the Comcare scheme by reducing injuries, strengthening the focus on rehabilitation and return to work and increasing benefits for injured workers. The minister also announced that the government will maintain the moratorium on new companies joining the scheme until 2011, when uniform OH&S laws will have been implemented in all jurisdictions. Given the proposed transfer of OH&S coverage of Comcare self-insurers to states and territories, to do otherwise would be disruptive to new entrants to the scheme and their employees, who would need to adapt to Comcare’s current OH&S arrangements and then quickly change again to adapt to the new harmonised OH&S laws.

Now that the moratorium is to continue for a further period, the government considers that it is appropriate to formalise the arrangements for the moratorium through legislation. The bill amends section 100 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act in order to maintain the moratorium until 2011. Section 100 provides for the minister to declare corporations that meet certain criteria to be eligible to apply for a self-insurance licence. The proposed amendment will give the minister greater flexibility in dealing with applications under section 100 of the SRC Act.

The amendment will enable the minister to consider important developments, such as progress with OH&S harmonisation, in deciding whether to consider any applications to join the Comcare scheme. The proposed amendment provides that the minister is not compelled to consider a request for a declaration of eligibility under section 100 by corporations seeking to join the Comcare scheme as self-insurers. This would apply to new applications, and any existing applications that have been made but not determined.

The bill will provide the minister with a clear discretion on whether or not to consider a request for a declaration. It makes it explicit that section 100 of the SRC Act empowers, but does not oblige, the minister to consider requests for declarations of eligibility. This measure is part of the government’s broader strategy of improving workplace safety arrangements for all workers and for all businesses, irrespective of the scheme under which they operate. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.