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

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

I also rise to speak about the significant changes proposed by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015 and related bills to the Comcare scheme. Labor opposes many of these bills, as the previous speaker outlined. I want to take a moment to remind the House why it is that people like me and the workers in my electorate are opposed to the changes the government has put forward in regards to Comcare in both this bill and the other bills they have tabled previously in this House.

First of all, these bills will directly and indirectly increase the risk of workplace injuries. They will put at risk the workplace health and safety of a number of Australian workers. These bills the government has put forward in relation to Comcare, including this one, will also remove the rights of Australian workers to fair and reasonable cover when they suffer the misfortune of a workplace-related illness or injury. It struck me today that there are not many Liberal MPs standing up to speak against this bill, as we have seen with previous Comcare pills; perhaps it is because they are slightly embarrassed by what they said during their contributions to this debate previously. To demonstrate how many of the members of the government—the backbenchers—misunderstand the importance of having a strong, robust workplace health and safety scheme that supports those workers who suffer an injury at work, we cannot go past the comments that were made by the member for Hinkler during the previous debate on Comcare bills that came before the House. I will quote from the Hansard for Wednesday, 26 November 2014:

… if you leave your workplace in your lunch hour and you go down the road and perform hang-gliding—or go rock-climbing, go for a run, or play Rugby League—you would expect the employer to cover these things if you are injured.

That was his contribution to this debate. Members of the government and the backbench, including the member for Hinkler, believe that what workers do on their lunchbreak is go hang-gliding; that what workers do on their lunchbreak is go rockclimbing. Just to remind the House and any people who may not have engaged in hang-gliding: it is not something you can do on your lunchbreak. You actually have to go somewhere. You have to get up; you have to have the equipment. You have to harness yourself and then run down a hill and glide. It is a fairly extreme sport. So to suggest that workers can go hang-gliding on their lunchbreak shows how out of touch this government and members of this government are about what actually happens in Australian workplaces. I have never met a nurse, a teacher or a cleaner who has gone rockclimbing or hang-gliding on their lunchbreak. What they tend to do on their lunchbreak is sit down in the tearoom. That is why it is appropriate that we have WorkCover schemes that cover the tearoom and what happens on your lunchbreak.

The problem with the Comcare package the government has put before the House is it removes cover for workers on their lunchbreak. It is a reminder to people of how out of touch this government is when it comes to workers and workplace injuries. As the previous speaker stated, what this government tends to do—not just in this bill but in their entire package around Comcare, safety rehabilitation and compensation legislation—is to water down and weaken the rights of Australian workers. This is specifically about workers in the ACT, including the workers here at Parliament House, and the many workers within the government itself. Broadly, the government claims this bill will promote fairness and equity in the outcomes for injuries of employees by targeting the support at those who need it most. Then why on earth are they seeking to water it down in this bill? It is more rhetoric from the government. Why on earth would they take away the right to protection during your lunchbreak?

It is important, when we discuss Comcare bills, that we talk specifically about the kinds of injuries that people can receive and why it is so important we have a strong supportive workplace health and safety system and WorkCover system. Contract workers here in the ACT and throughout Australia are quite often subject to some of our most horrific workplace injuries. Recently, in my own electorate, a contract worker was taken to hospital after falling into the orchestra pit of the Ulumbarra Theatre. This happened in late March. The audiovisual contractor was undertaking work for the new Ulumbarra Theatre, which was partly funded by the federal government through the former federal government's RDAF. At the time, the person responsible for the site—the department—and the council said they would work with WorkSafe Victoria to investigate the incident, which happened in late March, to ensure that the subcontractor will be properly supported and cared for.

This is again a reminder of why we need a strong and robust workplace health and safety scheme in WorkSafe. Other injuries that commonly occur in the construction industry, including here in the ACT, are around working on cranes. Working on cranes is a dangerous profession, and a man in his 30s—again, in my part of the world—was taken to Royal Melbourne Hospital with facial injuries after an accident at a New Gisborne factory on late Thursday afternoon. The WorkSafe Victoria spokesperson said to the media at the time:

… the crane's chain became snagged, causing an object to strike the man's face. WorkSafe is making inquiries.

More importantly, WorkSafe will be working with the employer to ensure that this injured worker receives their full entitlements.

With what we have going on at a state level, we need to ensure, where we have got the strongest and most supportive rules, that they are not undermined. We want to see that the ACT has, like other states—like Victoria, like New South Wales—the strongest and most comprehensive support for workers who become injured. But what we have seen from the government's package of bills around Comcare is a weakening of these rights and supports.

An another example, an injured mineworker, a father of three in Heathcote—again in my electorate—was left devastated after he was sacked from his job a few weeks after being injured at work. So it is not just about what happens when they are injured; it is about making sure that they have the proper support and recovery plans and that they are not unfairly sacked if they are injured. These are issues that have occurred just this year and last year in my electorate. Our concern is that we could see such issues across the country if we do not have a strong, robust Comcare system here in the ACT as well as interstate.

We could talk at length about the kinds of injuries that workers could have in construction or in mining. Those are the common industries that we are concerned about where injuries can occur. Some injuries that do not get as much attention are those that occur in, say, cleaning or nursing. Here at Parliament House we have a very strong team of cleaners that will be busy here working tonight after we all leave, after the budget. They are here early in the morning to make sure that our offices are clean, that we are able to enjoy a clean working space in the morning. Cleaning is one of those jobs which is very tough on the body. It is the repetitive work that you do, whether it be pushing the trolleys or whether it be the mopping. It is not like it is for us, who might go home and clean for an hour a day or a couple of hours a week. When it is your full-time job, strain is put on the body. That is why we need to make sure that, if an injury does occur in an industry like cleaning, there is a well-funded, well-supported Comcare system to support those workers.

I guess we are not surprised that this government is going after workers in the ACT, particularly our cleaners here in Parliament House, given that last year, as part of its red-tape repeal day, it proposed to cut the pay of cleaners. Whether it be cutting cleaners' pay through red-tape repeal day, repealing the Clean Start guidelines, or weakening their rights in terms of workplace health and safety, this government does not put the interests of the workers at heart. This government is more interested in the employers, which is disappointing, because it is supposed to be a government that represents all workers, all people, in Australia and not just employers.

The ACTU has raised its own concerns about this bill, as well as a number of other bills, when it comes to Comcare. The ACTU recently said that this bill:

… is a lowest common denominator approach that absolves big business their responsibility for protecting and compensating their workers if they are injured.

So, rather than our federal government showing national leadership and having the highest common denominator when it comes to workplace health and safety, when it comes to having support for workers who are injured at work, we are seeing the government go to the lowest common denominator. The ACTU went on to say:

This means less health and safety rights for workers and in the long term less viable state-based workers' compensation systems.

Workers, especially those in high-risk jobs—

as I have outlined, whether or not they are in construction—

could be excluded from compensation if they were moved onto Comcare, this is simply unacceptable …

That is why people on this side of the House continue to oppose the government's push to allow workers to be moved onto Comcare, which will strip away many of their common-law rights.

I think it is important within this debate that we focus on what is actually going on as we speak in terms of health and safety in our workplaces. Here are some of the key facts. Last year in Australia, 184 Australians—including some workers in the ACT—lost their lives at work. Those stats are from WorkSafe Australia. ABS stats show that 50 out of 1,000 workers experience a workplace injury or illness every year. That is why we need a strong and robust system in place to support these workers. The cost of workplace injuries in Australia is an estimated $60 billion, or 4.8 per cent of our GDP every year—another stat from WorkSafe Australia. These figures and facts are the reason why we need to ensure that we have a strong, robust workplace health and safety scheme.

During the break, I had the opportunity to join members of the Victorian state Labor government at the Victorian Trades Hall at a memorial that recognised Victorian workers who have lost their lives as a result of a workplace injury, an accident. It was a very moving and quite heartbreaking event to be involved in. A pair of shoes was put out for every worker that had lost their life on a Victorian worksite. My concern is that we do not want to be going to memorials like this for ACT workers. We do not want to see more and more sets of shoes being put out to acknowledge, to respect and to recognise the number of lives that are being lost every year in our workplaces.

Our government, at a federal level, needs to show leadership. It needs to go to the highest common denominator, not the lowest common denominator, when it comes to workplace health and safety and when it comes to a Comcare scheme.

I urge the government to rethink these bills, including the other bills that they have put forward, to start listening to workers and their workplace delegates, to start working with workers to ensure that they have the best possible support when they are injured, because with the best possible support they have the best opportunity of recovery and returning to work.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up, this bill will amend the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 to provide for financial and other arrangements when a Commonwealth authority exits the Comcare workers compensation scheme. The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015 will not adversely affect any employee entitlements to compensation. An employee who is injured before the employer exits the Comcare scheme will continue to be compensated under the SRC Act, as is currently the case.

There are currently no provisions in the SRC Act requiring exiting premium payers to meet rehabilitation responsibilities to their injured employees. Importantly, the bill will ensure that the employees injured before the employers exit continue to be supported by an appropriate rehabilitation authority. This will protect the rehabilitation rights of employees.

The Comcare workers compensation scheme's outstanding claims liabilities exceed the future funds available to meet these liabilities. The bill will ensure exiting employers do not leave the Comcare scheme without contributing an appropriate amount to cover their current and prospective liabilities that are not funded by premiums.

It will support current measures that Comcare has in place to restore scheme funds to adequate levels and will protect the rehabilitation rights of employees. These amendments will ensure that employers remaining in the scheme are not penalised with higher costs to meet the liabilities of employers who have left the scheme.

The government amendments to the bill are technical and include a number of measures to make it easier for Comcare and an exiting employer to manage payment of unfunded liabilities through instalments over a longer period of time. This will assist exiting employers with their cash flow as well as providing a good amount of time for estimated liabilities to settle and for Comcare's liability to be accurately determined.

The bill has been the subject of a Senate committee inquiry, and the committee recommended the bill be passed. The committee noted that maintaining the financial sustainability of the Comcare scheme through appropriate exit contributions is essential to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the scheme, to pay claims and to support injured employees. The committee was satisfied that the bill will not change any existing benefits or entitlements for injured workers.

The committee noted that the bill will ensure that employees injured before a Commonwealth authority exits the Comcare scheme will continue to receive compensation and rehabilitation under the SRC Act. The committee was persuaded the bill will ensure stability for workers, employers and the Comcare scheme when a Commonwealth authority exits the scheme.

Labor senators on the committee broadly supported the legislation, which is welcome. That said, unfortunately, submissions to the committee and contributions from opposition speakers indicate that some people and organisations completely misunderstand the effect of the exit arrangements bill.

The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015 is about the framework for premium paying Commonwealth authorities leaving the Comcare scheme; it is not about premium payers leaving the state and territory workers compensation schemes to join the Comcare scheme. The bill will not lead to a reduction in the premium pool in state and territory schemes.

Further, the exit arrangements bill will not provide an incentive for employers to leave the Comcare scheme. In fact, if the bill is not passed, the losers will be the premium payers who stay in the Comcare scheme and the employees who are injured before their employer exits the Comcare scheme who will have no rehabilitation authority to cover the costs of rehabilitation.

Finally, some members may be aware that the ACT government is considering leaving the Comcare scheme and establishing its own workers compensation scheme. This bill will ensure that if the ACT government does decide to do that, existing workers and premium payers will be protected by that decision. It will also ensure in future, if other Commonwealth authorities decide to leave the Comcare scheme, existing workers and premium payers will be protected as well. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill and proposed amendments announced.