Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The scheme creates barriers and disincentives for injured workers to recover at work—for example, by emphasising the medical, rather than the vocational nature of rehabilitation services. Furthermore, the scheme allows injured workers to make claims for conditions that are unrelated to work, and to undertake treatments that are not evidence based. The truth be known, some injured workers are not getting back to work as quickly as they should be. There is strong community expectation that those who can work, even if only part-time, should do so to their capacity. These factors are contributing to the Comcare scheme being looked upon in a negative manner by the broader community.

The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill 2015 is part of a package of reforms that will rehabilitate injured workers and return them to work sooner. The government is also ensuring the long-term viability of the Comcare scheme. Importantly, the proposed measures will ensure that the Comcare scheme continues to provide eligible injured workers with income payments until pension age, and lifetime medical and rehabilitation expenses. The proposed changes will mean that injured workers will be better off in term of access to early rehabilitation, access to provisional medical expense payments, and that they are able to return to work and receive quality medical treatment and attentive care. In addition, claims and disputes will be processed more efficiently and quickly, and some claimants will be eligible to receive higher payments than currently received. The bill is an important step in modernising the Comcare scheme, which has not seen comprehensive reform since it was established in 1988. The bill implements in part recommendations of the review by Mr Peter Hanks QC, and Dr Allan Hawke AC, commissioned by the former government, in 2012. It also makes other changes to the act that will improve the efficiency, cost effectiveness, and viability of the Comcare scheme, and harmonise elements of the scheme with state schemes.

Currently, medical and rehabilitation costs represent 23.4 per cent of the total cost of claims under the scheme. This figure has been increasing at a consistent rate over the past three years. Forty-nine per cent of costs are the payments made directly to a claimant, and 28 per cent of costs are expended on legal, administrative, and regulatory costs. This bill seeks to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Comcare scheme by emphasising the vocational rather than the medical nature of rehabilitation services, and introducing measures designed to improve return to work outcomes under the scheme. It also seeks to promote fairness and equality in outcomes for injured workers by targeting support for those who need it the most, and by strengthening the integrity and viability of the scheme by clearly distinguishing between work and non-work related injuries—improving the quality of compensable medical treatment and support services by limiting legal and medical costs under the scheme.

The bill introduces a number of changes to assist employers to meet their rehabilitation obligations and to engage more effectively with injured workers upon return to work. The government is eager to see employees and employers work closer together. We believe that employers must accept more responsibility for managing injuries, for ensuring support when injuries occur, and for enabling people to get back to work as soon as possible. We will encourage this by providing employers with more responsibility, and with greater incentives to provide alternative work or reduced hours to injured workers. Injured workers will be encouraged to participate actively in their injury management and rehabilitation. It will be a requirement for injured workers to seek, engage and remain in suitable employment when able to do so.

In his second reading speech, the Hon. Luke Hartsuyker MP, Assistant Minister for Employment, said:

A large body of evidence based research has established that many health problems can benefit from work based rehabilitation and an earlier return to work.

Based on this approach, the compensation payment system will be restructured to provide targeted financial incentives for injured workers to return to some form of work as soon as practically possible. In doing so, the incentives that remain for workers compensation for extended periods will be removed. If an injured worker refuses employment whilst having a capacity to earn in a suitable environment, they will see their income payments and compensation gradually reduced. This is a fair system that does the right thing by employees, employers and the Australian government. In addition to providing greater incentives to encourage people back to work, the government will also be providing targeted support for injured workers.

It has been the case that many employees, when they are injured, utilise their savings and/or leave entitlements while waiting consideration of their claim. Delays in processing these claims can leave injured workers without leave entitlements and savings. Furthermore, medical treatment may be delayed, increasing the time before an injured worker is deemed fit to return to work. To address this, the scheme will now provide for provisional medical payments of up to $5,000 before a claim is determined. The employer will have immediate rehabilitation responsibilities.

The amendments also ensure that any money spent on medical treatment, post-injury care and support services is better targeted and that services are provided by trained professionals. Under these amendments, professional care will be provided to injured workers for the first three years of their injury, with uncapped long-term or lifelong care available to those who have suffered serious injuries. Workers who have been seriously injured will still have access to lump-sum payments to assist them achieve a better quality of life. Under the proposed changes, the maximum lump-sum payment will be increased from $242,000 to $350,000. Workers who suffer less serious injuries will receive payments that more accurately reflect the nature of their condition, thereby affording greater support to those with serious injuries.

The government will also ensure more timely access to compensation payments. This will be achieved with the introduction of time frames for determining claims and resolving disputed claims, as well as improved information-gathering powers. Employers will be required to lodge claims more quickly and within specified time frames following notification of a claim.

The bill also clarifies the rehabilitation responsibilities and duties of an employer to ensure: the rehabilitation of an injured employee, that the employee is assisted to find suitable employment, and that the employee remains in suitable employment. This ensures fairness for workers and more responsibility on an employer following a workplace injury. Greater assistance will be provided to employers under these new time frames, with the amendments enabling more accurate calculation of income replacement. This change will better reflect today's labour market conditions and the changing industrial profile of employers in the scheme. We want to ensure that there are no inequities in the payment of entitlements to workers nearing pension age. Therefore, eligibility for income replacement will be linked to the national age pension age and the five per cent reduction in compensation payments for employees accessing superannuation benefits will be removed.

It goes without saying that the success of the scheme is reliant on its sustainability. The initial intention of the SRC legislation recognised the need to ensure that employers were not paying for non-work related conditions and introduced changes that required employees to demonstrate a close connection between their condition and the employment in which they were engaged. Over time, judicial interpretation of the legislative provision has seen unreasonable constraints placed upon employers' ability to manage their workplaces. This is driving up the cost of premiums and placing increased burden on the scheme's sustainability. This legislation will better distinguish between work and non-work related injuries and limit the payment of compensation to workers who have sustained injuries due to work or their workplace. Existing provisions will be strengthened to require a clear connection with a workplace based injury before compensation is payable. Furthermore, the government will clarify the matters to be taken into consideration for psychological claims and introduce new thresholds for specified pre-existing conditions such as heart, brain and spinal injuries to ensure that the scheme is accepting liability for conditions which are work related. The intent of the Comcare scheme was never to prevent employers taking reasonable action to manage their employees. As a result, the proposed amendments will clarify the range of management actions that, when reasonably undertaken, should not give rise to compensation claims.

There is a strong need to address the increasing costs of the Comcare scheme. Inaction will severely undermine the long-term viability of the scheme. The government will allow Comcare to establish schedules that specify the amounts payable for medical treatment and medical reports as well as legal services obtained by claimants. Currently, there are no limits on the amounts that Comcare remunerates for these items. Scheme costs will also be reduced by excluding overtime and allowances in the calculation of compensation. These measures strengthen the integrity of the Comcare scheme. The scheme will be underpinned by a three-stage sanction regime in which employees who do not meet their medical treatment and rehabilitation obligations will have their compensation rights suspended or cancelled. The majority of people are eager to get back to work. They willingly participate in their injury management and rehabilitation process. We want to support people's lives getting back to normal. Those who take advantage of the system will not be permitted to do so. This is what is expected by the people of Australia and this is what is right for employers.

The Comcare scheme also applies to members of the Australian Defence Force. The government recognises the unique nature of military services. Australian Defence Force members with coverage under the act will be exempted from all but two of the proposals being introduced by this bill. These proposals relate to the calculation of permanent impairment compensation and will ensure that a member or former member of the Australian Defence Force will not receive less compensation than an employee covered by the Comcare scheme with the same level of impairment. It is the government's intention to create a new act to separate ADF members from the existing SRC Act.

The best thing we can do for workers under the Comcare scheme is to ensure that it is fair, equitable and sustainable. The Comcare scheme is one of the few remaining workers compensation schemes in Australia that provide income payments until pension age and lifetime medical and rehabilitation payments. This bill ensures a fair and sustainable scheme into the future. While this scheme remains one of the most generous in Australia, the focus will clearly shift towards getting people back to work rather than just providing compensation. This is consistent with this government's actions to assist more people into work. We do this because we believe it is the best outcome for the people of Australia. I commend this bill to the House.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I oppose the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill 2015. My grandparents never owned their own home. Despite the fact that they both worked for many, many years in tough occupations, they could never raise the capital which was required at the time, and often bank loans for mortgages were much harder to get in those days. But the principal reason why my grandparents never owned their own home and rented—and, in the end, relied on public housing for a roof over their head—was that my grandfather had been injured in the 1970s in a workplace accident. He was seriously injured and was never able to return to the occupation for which he had trained, and subsequently spent the remainder of his life working as a cleaner. It is because of issues such as that and because, at the time when he was injured, we did not have the occupational health and safety and workplace compensation laws that we have today. Since the 1970s, we have gradually built upon the protections that we put in place for workers to ensure, principally, that we prevent injuries in the workplace, but also that, when injuries do occur, we appropriately and adequately compensate people so that they can continue to live their lives and can continue to raise a family.

Since that time governments have gradually made progress, have strengthened these sorts of schemes which provide protection for workers and protection for their incomes. This bill does exactly the opposite. It begins the process of the Australian government cutting back the protections that are provided to workers and the compensation that is available to them through the Comcare scheme in cases of injury, including serious injury. Before I entered parliament I worked as a lawyer and I had the opportunity to represent many workers who had been involved in workplace injuries—some of them minor injuries, some of them horrific injuries. The one thing I can say about a workplace injury is that it affects the worker and their family. Workplace injuries, if they are physical in nature, do not just have a physical incapacity; there is a mental effect of a workplace injury. It affects the worker's psychology. It can affect the worker's self-esteem and their ability to participate within society. Most importantly, it can have a dramatic effect on the worker's relationship with their family and their friends. It can be one of the most vulnerable times in a worker's lifetime.

This piece of legislation will make life harder for those who are covered by the Comcare scheme, and it will definitely exclude some who are already covered by the Comcare scheme. It is the third piece of legislation that attacks fair and reasonable compensation in the case of workplace related injury. This bill excludes certain people from the Comcare scheme and it reduces the compensation available to those who remain eligible and are injured at work. The reality is that this bill is further evidence of the government's ideological bent when it comes to industrial relations and workers' rights. And, while they claim it promotes fairness and equity, the reality could not be further from the truth. Here we have another example of Orwellian use of language in the title of a bill—the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill—when it actually makes the scheme less accessible for many workers and reduces the amount of compensation that is available to workers under the scheme in the case of injury. So the bill title does not do what it proclaims to do.

In summary, the proposed changes in the bill would immediately and significantly reduce the rights and protection of workers covered by the scheme. The bill contains a long list of cuts to benefits and exclusions that would remove injured workers from the scheme entirely, likely forcing them onto welfare. The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill made it easier for multi-state companies to leave state schemes—decimating them—and to join Comcare. This bill needs to be read with the previous bill in mind. With this bill, the proposed changes include: cuts to lump-sum compensation payable for permanent impairment for the vast majority of injured workers and removing the already modest pain and suffering payment; changes to the eligibility requirements that will mean injured workers are locked out of the scheme altogether; reducing incapacity payments; expansion of sanctions against workers, including removal of medical support if a worker fails to attend a medical appointment; harsh job search requirements for injured workers—if the employer says that they have no suitable employment, injured workers will need to find a job with a new employer or take up self-employment; a new, punishing approach to workers with psychiatric injuries; and employers will have the right to impose health related and work capacity decisions, and workers will have no independent right to review when an employer orders them back to work.

The bill contains alarming changes that will affect workers, leaving many of them without an avenue to just compensation. Changes to the eligibility rules mean that this new term of 'designated injuries and illnesses' will be included. They include aggravations—for example, to the heart and blood vessels, brain and blood vessels associated with the brain and spinal injuries. Those particular designated injuries will face higher tests of proof for workers to access the Comcare scheme. I can recall as a member of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee being involved in an inquiry which looked at issues associated with the development of cancers amongst firefighters in Australia. A wealth of evidence had been produced to that inquiry about the connection between the development of cancer amongst firefighters and the work that they undertake. Naturally, given the number of plastics, the number of synthetics, that are used in building materials these days, there is a greater risk to firefighters when they are fighting fires of exposure to carcinogens. That is bearing out in the statistics for that particular occupation with, in some respects, a higher incidence of cancers.

I must say, some of the evidence that was presented to that inquiry was damning. That inquiry was not looking at workers compensation. But the question that came to my mind when I was reading this bill—and this notion of designated injuries relating to blood related injuries—was that if a firefighter were to develop leukaemia and it was their belief and their doctor's belief and there was medical evidence that there was a relationship between the role they had been undertaking for many, many years and the injury, then where would that put them in respect of this particular scheme? Is that a designated injury through which they would be required to present a greater test of proof to access the Comcare scheme?

That is why many of these provisions are, I think, unfair. They introduced two levels of tests for workers, despite the fact that being exposed to or picking up a particular type of injury is not the worker's fault. It is not the worker's fault that they may have developed a heart related or blood related injury associated with the work they do. But they will be punished for that under the provisions and changes contained in this proposed scheme by a different level of proof applying to them. And if it is a greater test of proof, the associated anxiety and mental health effects that that can have on workers can in some respects be quite devastating. So, that is a big issue that I think the government needs to deal with in presenting this bill. The current exclusionary provisions for workers caused by reasonable administrative action will also be broadened by the term 'reasonable management action'. This will exclude any physical or psychiatric injury or illness resulting from a directive of management unless an injured worker can prove unreasonableness. Therefore, injuries at work in a wide variety of everyday work settings will be excluded.

The bill also affects the right of an injured worker to privacy. Under the changes Comcare could compel third parties and the worker to provide documents about the worker, irrespective of the relevance to a claim. Workers can be sanctioned by loss of compensation rights if they fail to comply with a document request. Comcare would be allowed by the bill to provide these documents to third parties for purposes of disciplining the worker. Also, injured workers would no longer have the choice of doctor under Comcare. Comcare will only pay the treatment costs for doctors and clinics that it approves. I must say, one of the things that used to blow me away when I was a lawyer representing workers in workers compensation cases was the different views you could get between doctors. I understand that they have studied the same conventional medicine, and I understand practice within and a licence to practice within a medical system. But, depending on whether you went to the workers doctor or went to the company doctor, the difference in diagnosis could be quite remarkable. The differences used to blow me away. It is unfortunately one of the reasons that experts providing evidence in such cases can quite often delay these cases. So, that is another concern that I have—the fact that a worker can be sent off to a company doctor without getting a second opinion and without the employer taking notice of that opinion. Incapacity payments will also be reduced for all workers. The harshest financial impacts would be felt by those with injuries that take longer to resolve, especially those who are permanently and significantly disabled.

This is the third bill that this government is proposing that attacks the rights of Australian workers to fair and reasonable compensation when they suffer work related illnesses or injuries. The bill also contains changes to the level of payments that are made to workers whilst they are on compensation. The bill in certain circumstances excludes overtime and allowances from the calculation of ordinary earnings for the purposes of workers compensation payments. I do not think the government has thought that through, because for certain groups of workers, who are working regularly on shifts that include overtime payments—and I am thinking here of nurses and the like—what will be the effects on them? Many of them rely on those important payments to ensure that they have a liveable wage if they are working a regular nightshift. Wondering whether or not those allowances will be included in the future is again an anxiety that workers should not have to face when they are injured.

The bill will exclude workers from the Comcare scheme and significantly reduce the compensation available for those who remain eligible. The bill attempts to reduce the liabilities of the Comcare scheme at the expense of injured workers, and that is why it is wrong. I highlight my earlier points: successive governments since the 1970s, when my grandfather was injured at work, have been improving the support we provide for workers when they are injured at work; this bill does exactly the opposite. This bill reduces the support and the financial support we provide for workers in those horrible situations in which they are injured at work. That is why this government must be condemned for this legislation, and that is why I and my Labor colleagues will fight this legislation in the parliament.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to speak against the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill 2015. Work is central to our economy. Work is central to our society. And there is something of an expectation that all of us have when we begin our day at work each day that we will come home at the end of it in the same shape as when we left. It can be devastating when that does not occur and when, because of one's work, because of one's contribution not only to their own life but to our society and our economy, they find themselves in a position where they have been injured. For that reason, workers compensation, providing fairness in those circumstances, has been a tenet of our legislative scheme for decades, going back to the earliest times of our Federation. It is a very important theme of our law and federally it comes into play through the Comcare scheme, which historically has provided workers compensation to people covered by the federal public service and its related agencies.

But I am opposing this bill today for the very same reasons that have just been eloquently put by the member for Kingsford Smith. If you look over the period of our Federation and the development of law around the question of workers compensation, it has been characterised by a progression of improving what can be done for those people who are unfortunate enough to suffer an injury while they are at work. This bill stands in contrast to that theme, that tradition, of legislation in this place and in other parliaments around the country. Rather than improving the circumstances of people who have been injured at work, this bill, almost in its entirety, cuts the conditions that are available to those who have suffered an injury at work.

This bill needs to be seen in the context of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 which made it easier for larger companies operating in more than one state in Australia to leave the state based schemes of which they have been a part and enter the Comcare scheme. This is an idea that has been around for some time. This is legislation which Labor have been concerned about for a couple of reasons. Firstly, by allowing those larger employers who have the capacity to self-insure and who have operations in one state to leave their state systems you remove important companies who are operating in those state systems and providing critical financial viability for those systems—if what we are about to see is all of them potentially leave those systems and come to a federal system under Comcare. Secondly, Comcare, as I stated earlier, has its origins as a workers compensation scheme for the federal public service and its related agencies. If you look at the various workers compensation schemes around Australia, what you find with them is that they very finely refine themselves to the injury profiles of the jurisdictions which they cover, the cohort of people who work under them. Comcare is no different in that regard. But if you were to look at a representative cohort in terms of the kinds of injuries that they have, Comcare would be the least representative if you look at the injuries of people who have traditionally been covered in the federal public service and its related agencies. That is not to say that there is not a broad range of employment categories within those; but, compared to the injury profile of everyone who works in New South Wales or everyone who works in Victoria, it is a narrower band. So to have companies move from a scheme in Victoria or New South Wales to Comcare is ultimately going to see a significant change in the injury profile of the Comcare scheme, but we will not see a commensurate change in the way those injuries are compensated within the Comcare scheme. We should hasten slowly with reforms of this kind because, over many years, these schemes have grown up around the injury profiles of those states and those jurisdictions. That is why we have been concerned about the process that has been underway.

The significance of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 in the context of bill that we are talking about now is that, if that bill is to have its way, what we will see is a growing workers compensation jurisdiction in the form of Comcare and, therefore, whatever changes we make to that jurisdiction and the payments and benefits that are payable as part of Comcare will be critically important because it is in the context of a scheme which this government wants to see grow and cover more and more Australian workers. That is why we are very concerned that the bill s before us to date is, almost in its entirety, about cutting those standards of compensation.

I want to go through a couple of those provisions now. Schedule 1 of the bill will make it harder to establish a work related injury in relation to spinal injuries, cardiac injuries and strokes. The work relatedness of each of those is made more difficult by virtue of this legislation. This legislation limits the eligibility associated with injuries which occur as a result of a reasonable management decision. This legislation also reduces the capacity of people who may already have been seen as being particularly susceptible to having an injury to have the injury recognised under the scheme and for compensation to occur as a result. Schedule 2 of the bill puts in place a tougher regime of sanctions for people who are noncompliant with a rehabilitation plan under the scheme. Ultimately, noncompliance with such a scheme can lead to somebody's compensation rights being removed in their entirety. What we see with schedule 2 is that the treating doctors of somebody who has been injured at work and who is maintaining a claim in the system may only be consulted and their opinions are given less weight.

Employers are, under schedule 2, provided with the capacity to put in place work capacity tests for people who are returning to work as to the kinds of duties that they can undertake. Where those duties are unable to be offered by an employer, schedule 2 will see this bill requiring, potentially, injured workers or people coming back to work to search for other work, or even, potentially, to try and become self-employed—again, if there is no suitable work that an employer can offer.

Schedule 3 provides that people who are being compensated under the scheme have less control over their personal information—medical reports and the like—and that is irrespective of the relevance of that personal information to their claim. It opens up a much greater ability for that personal information to be required to be handed over.

Schedule 5 limits the choice that people being covered by the scheme have over their doctors. Indeed, it reduces the amount of reimbursable treatment that they are able to ultimately claim.

Schedule 6 goes to the question of household services and attendant care services. Again, the bill provides an ability for the act to restrict the amount of services that people can obtain under the act, and it also imposes a greater time limitation on being able to access those services.

Schedules 7 and 8 limit the right of a person receiving payments under the Comcare legislation to travel overseas—to be away for more than six weeks. So this goes to the way in which people are, or are not, able to live their lives while they are recovering from an injury while they are the subject of a workers compensation claim. It also limits the capacity for people who are under a workers compensation claim to accrue leave while they are on Comcare.

Incapacity payments, at the heart of any workers compensation scheme, are being reduced for all workers in different ways, but most harshly in this bill for those workers who have experienced long-term injuries. Again, I would make the point I made before about the nature of the injury profile of workers coming into the scheme. The more blue-collar workers that you see being covered by Comcare, the more likely we are to see the kinds of long-term injuries which would be most harshly dealt with by these potential changes.

Schedule 11 deals with a limiting of the legal costs that can be reimbursed under the scheme.

Schedule 12 goes to the question of permanent injury payments. For almost 90 per cent of permanently injured workers making a claim under this scheme, this bill will have the effect of lessening the kinds of payments that they can receive.

Schedule 14 changes the rules in respect of gradual onset injuries with the effect of reducing the costs for employers within the scheme.

Schedule 15 deals with the sanctions regime and the obligations of mutuality and creates a sanctions regime under this scheme which would be more punitive than any other workers compensation scheme in Australia—and, indeed, really more punitive than the framework that you see for job seekers in Australia.

Schedule 17 reduces the capacity for people to claim for secondary injuries.

I could go on, but, if you go through this, in almost its entirety this is a bill which is about limiting the ability for people who have suffered an injury at work to receive, under the Comcare scheme, the kind of compensation that would help them through an incredibly difficult moment in their lives. Work should, for all of us, be something which is good in our lives and which is empowering—empowering in terms of our social engagement, empowering in terms of our financial choices and empowering in terms of the kind of destiny that we create for our own lives. Work should not be a place which harms people. Work should not be a place which sees people come home at the end of the day in a worse state than when they left.

Occasionally, it is going to happen—and, when it does, it is a moment which is profoundly unfair. It is a moment which—as I have seen, in my experience in this area, in a past life—utterly changes the way in which people are able to live their lives. It changes their capacity for enjoyment in their lives, and their capacity to feel a sense of self-worth in their lives and a sense of contributing to the society of which they are a part. It is, by definition, a tragic moment in that person's life, which is why workers compensation, as an idea, is so profoundly important, because, in a moment of enormous unfairness for the person involved, workers compensation is designed to restore fairness for that person. It is designed to help them through an incredibly difficult moment in their life, help them to a situation where they can be put back to work, help them recover from their injury and help them restore their life as they knew it before that injury occurred.

The reason we are opposing this legislation—the reason that Labor is opposed to this and I am opposed to this—is that, when one looks at the basic standard of fairness that workers compensation seeks to address, this is a bill which, at its heart, in cutting the benefits that are available to people, is profoundly unfair. It does not deserve the support of this House.

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

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

I would like to thank all members who have participated in the debate on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill 2015. This bill will ensure that employers have greater responsibility and incentive to provide alternative work arrangements to injured employees. Injured employees will be required to actively participate in their injury management and rehabilitation. When able to do so, employees will have to seek, engage and remain in suitable employment.

The bill also removes perverse incentives to remain on workers compensation for extended periods. To reduce the financial stress of illness and injury and enable early intervention, the scheme will now provide for provisional medical payments of up to $5000 before a claim is determined or, in some cases, even without a claim. The employer will also have immediate rehabilitation responsibilities. Employees will get professional, postinjury attendant care for the first three years of their injury. Uncapped, long-term or lifelong care will be available to catastrophically injured workers after three years. The maximum lump-sum payment amount will be increased from $242,000 to $350,000, and these payments will more accurately be scaled to allow for higher payments for those who need more support.

The bill will ensure that the workers compensation system deals with the employment related injury and disease. The eligibility criteria will better align with the purpose of the workers compensation scheme: namely, to provide compensation for workers who suffer from occupational injury and disease. Comcare will establish schedules that specify the amounts payable for medical treatment, medical reports and legal services obtained by claimants. These changes will deliver a modern workers compensation scheme that meets the needs of today's workforce and is sustainable into the future. People injured in the course of their employment will gain every opportunity to get better and return to work. The government is committed to ensuring that Australian workplaces are safe, flexible and productive and to reducing the risk and impact of and disease. The Comcare scheme is one of the few remaining Australian workers compensation schemes that provides, and will continue to, provide income payments until pension age and lifetime medical and rehabilitation payments.

This bill will ensure that we have a fair and sustainable scheme into the future. The government's reforms will be better for workers by promoting injury prevention, supporting those who are injured to recover and, most importantly, assisting them to get back to work. I commend the legislation to the House.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill 2015 be read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.