Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015. It is always a pleasure and a privilege to stand in this place and make a contribution to anything that is about the safety, rehabilitation and compensation of workers who may have tragically been injured in the workplace. I am no stranger to the topic because, in an eclectic career before coming into the Senate, I spent 20 years as the managing director of an insurance loss adjusting firm that worked all over the world on issues of compensation. So I am as familiar as anyone might be in the architectural environment that one works in when there are claims for compensation, particularly where people have been injured and/or killed in circumstances obviously beyond their control. It is a very significant area and I can tell you firsthand that I have met with hundreds and possibly thousands of victims of injury in the workplace, or of death or injury in events beyond their control, and I can give this chamber the assurance that I would not give my support to any piece of legislation that I thought diminished or weakened what arrangements were in place for genuinely injured people who find themselves in that situation.

Before I start on the specific facts of the bill, I would like to attach myself to the remarks of Senator Ruston, who talked about the circumstances of these people. I am sure that most of us know someone who was injured in the workplace. Indeed many of our colleagues from across the chamber, having been involved in the trade union movement, have a proud tradition of fighting for the rights of these workers in the time past and would also agree that this can be a monstrously depressing and difficult period of time not just for the person who is injured but indeed for their whole extended family and their friends. I have seen people whose lives have been put on hold for many years. It is almost as if in some instances they suffer a psychosis when they realise that their life has been so affected by an injury in their workplace that they will never recover to 100 per cent. I can say to you with some experience that they never ever come to terms with that 100 per cent either.

So I urge all who are making a contribution to the debate on this bill to be very careful with their language. This is no time to be exacerbating the circumstances of people who are watching, who have an interest in what we might do as a parliament with this legislation or who currently have, for example, a pending claim that might be affected by the changes that are being proposed here. I want for anyone listening to my contribution to understand there are no circumstances under which I would support any legislation that I thought diminished the circumstances that these people—current and future—might find themselves in.

This legislation is, amongst other things, a necessary and probably precautionary piece of legislation that has every right to anticipate that there may be departures from the current scheme; therefore, certain provisions have been made. There are no current arrangements for exits. If you accept the proposition put by some across the chamber, this does not worry those opposite. They think that the Commonwealth should necessarily pick up all these contingent liabilities in the event that one of the major clients of the scheme were to leave to go and self-insure or to go to the private sector for premiums.

This legislation is about three or four core issues and core values. It is about time. It is about an anticipation that things may happen in the future and it is responsible to ensure that the legislation has sufficient scope to cope with these departures in the event that they occur. I had the experience of working on cases all over the world where it could take well in excess of 20 years. In fact, the major piece of case law in the United States Supreme Court relating to compensation was the Chick Kam Choo case and it went for 21 years before the family were able to secure an adequate outcome for their action. That we might have a customer of Comcare leave—in this case, the ACT—and leave behind the potential of contingent liability, as you know, is a matter of law. An individual has the right to bring about a claim with respect to their circumstances all the way through until the age of majority. It is not just the affected person. The estate and the minors who might be entitled can bring a claim all the way through to their age of majority. In the worst possible circumstances, events could give rise to liability on the part of this insurance agency, and they would not even be aware of it for 17 years.

If one studies the international architectural structure of Lloyd's of London, their books traditionally will run for almost 30 years. When they put together what is called an insurance book, based in London, New York, Paris or wherever they decide to locate the book, it can have a life of some 30 years. Even on the retirement, even on the sunset closure, of that particular book scheme, it will have a reserve made for contingent liabilities. Actuaries sit, look and decide what that reserve ought to be when having regard to the circumstances before them and the types of liabilities that they might be responsible for, and then they make a financial provision. Indeed, if that provision fails, Lloyd's of London continue to have an ongoing liability within those arrangements.

What this bill proposes to do, at the heart of the bill, is to create an environment where, if one of the participants in the current scheme decides to leave, an assessment will be made of the contingent liabilities, and they will be burdened with having to make provision for them into the future. You do not even need to be a legislator to understand the simple proposition that, if you are responsible, if you have received the benefit of a premium and you have provided an extension of cover to an individual, or you somehow have a related interest in their claim, you have an ongoing liability. I am certain that even colleagues opposite will not want to see us tracking around the countryside trying to recover money from the ACT in 10 years time.

The presentation made by some opposite that somehow Henny Penny is going to become a big player in this exercise if this legislation is passed, and that the sky is going to fall in, is pure scaremongering. In fact, it is inconsistent. I listened very carefully to the contribution by Senator Ludwig. You always know when the Labor Party are struggling to make what sounds like a credible contribution on a very difficult issue to articulate. They roll out Senator Ludwig.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

No. They roll out Senator Ludwig. You do not get a look in, Senator; I am sorry. The minute you start to talk on a subject, everyone listens intently, looking for all the gaps in the argument. But Senator Ludwig comes in here with a monotone—good afternoon, Senator; good to see you—and it is a bit like that saying: you should not operate heavy machinery while listening to Senator Ludwig. But today, if you did listen—and I did listen intently as I was preparing to make my contribution—Senator Ludwig simply concentrated 100 per cent on perceived negatives of this legislation. Some of the statements he made were completely unfounded. I would have to say that, had Senator Ludwig wanted to polish the shield of the Labor Party with his contribution, by talking about benefits for workers, he might have mentioned the fact that when the scheme transitioned under the Labor government—and they want to criticise our measures—the scheme was only funded actuarially by 68 per cent of its 100 per cent commitment. In less than two years the coalition government have lifted that to 76 per cent. Any of you who are students of commerce and insurance would know that that has been a phenomenal effort. At the same time, there has been a reduction in the premiums.

This legislation is not about doing anything that might attack or diminish the cover that different employees have. It is about preserving it, and it is about ensuring that it will remain there into the future. It will close proposed loopholes in the event that the ACT, or any other entity, decides to leave the scheme for self-insurance. It will ensure that those who were in their employ, or under their insurance umbrella, who have been injured will have their rights preserved for a long period of time. It is all about confidence for the workers. It is not about scaring the workers. This legislation is about providing those workers with the confidence that what they thought was so is indeed so, and that in their circumstances nothing will change, notwithstanding that their employer may have decided to go and self-insure.

I listened carefully to the contribution of Senator Xenophon, who on occasions does make a reasonable case on issues. I listened to his contribution about the behaviour of the government of South Australia as they went to self-insure for their workers compensation. I think he made a resounding argument as to why this legislation should go through and be supported in this place by any senator or any group of senators who have the interests of workers at the heart of their intentions. If you really believe in supporting the workers, if you believe in providing them with—