Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to continue my remarks on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015. I remind those who are present and those listening that this bill proposes to amend the act to provide for financial and other arrangements for a Commonwealth authority which might care to exit the Comcare scheme. This has been prompted by the fact that the ACT government indicated in February that it might so move. It consulted and it has concluded its consultations. Therefore, why is it necessary that we do it and why now? I would like to reflect on that for a few moments if I can.

Firstly, the framework will enable Comcare to determine and collect exit contributions from former Commonwealth authorities and successors of former Commonwealth authorities. What does this ensure? That the employer does not leave the Comcare scheme without contributing an appropriate amount of money to cover any current or prospective liabilities that are not funded by premiums the employer has paid before exit. I go back to the comments made by senators Rice and Cameron, in which they were expressing, quite rightly, concern for the interests of employees. That brings me to the point that the framework will ensure that employees injured before an employer leaves the scheme continue to be supported by an appropriate rehabilitation authority. That is the primary objective. It goes on to enable Comcare to determine and collect ongoing regulatory contributions from exited employers or the bodies that succeed them. These are entirely appropriate and reasonable factors. Why do we need to be dealing with it now? Because, indeed, the ACT government has flagged the likelihood that it may want to exit the scheme. What we will then do through this legislative amendment is to clarify that premiums for current Commonwealth authorities and entities, such as a government department, should be calculated having regard to the principle that current and prospective liabilities should be fully funded by Comcare retained funds and so much of the Consolidated Revenue Fund as is available under section 90C of the act. That is what the wider community and particularly those likely to be affected would be expecting us to do.

The framework will allow Comcare to agree to instalments of an exit contribution being paid over a period up to seven years from the day on which the determination is made to allow for run-off liability estimates. Furthermore, in terms of fairness, the framework will provide for Comcare to refund all or part of an exit contribution if the assessment reveals that the amount of the available scheme funds attributed to the exited employer exceed Comcare's liabilities. If indeed there has been an over-estimate, they get the money back. Determinations of a refund will only be made within that seven-year period after the employer exits the scheme. It also, on the other side, provides for Comcare to remit the whole or part of an unpaid instalment of an exit contribution if a later assessment reveals that the amount of the available scheme funds that is attributable to the exited employer exceeds what Comcare's liabilities are.

Why are these amendments so important now? Because we have the ACT government contemplating the likelihood of exiting. Indeed, we are fortunate to have the recent Chief Minister of the ACT now in the chamber, and I am sure she could further advise colleagues as to what the thinking of the ACT government was, certainly up until the time she ceased being Chief Minister. The amendments are important for two major reasons: firstly, to protect injured employees who remain in the Comcare scheme and, secondly, to make sure the future viability of the Comcare scheme is protected.

Since 2013-14, Comcare has been progressively restoring the funding position of the scheme. I know people would be very pleased to learn that. This bill will support existing measures now put into place by Comcare to restore funds to adequate levels to meet estimated liabilities. Surely there can be nobody in this chamber and nobody listening to this discussion who would have any argument with that sound philosophy. The bill will also ensure that Commonwealth authorities do not exit the Comcare scheme without paying an appropriate amount to cover any unfunded liabilities arising from claims that will continue to be managed by Comcare into the future. This protects premium payers who remain in the scheme, and this is what we want to see happen.

If I can recap. This bill amends the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to provide for financial and other arrangements when a Commonwealth authority exits the Comcare scheme. The frameworks established by these amendments I have outlined. It is important to have such arrangements in place in the context of the ACT, because the ACT Labor government has indicated that it is looking at a potential departure from the Comcare scheme, citing it as being 'quite burdensome, not only for claimants but for their employers as well'. It is essential that this amendment is passed so that any liabilities the ACT government may have in consideration of existing or prospective employees will indeed be adequately funded so that those people are protected. Employees injured before a Commonwealth authority leaves the Comcare scheme will continue—I repeat, will continue—to receive compensation and rehabilitation under the SRC Act. The bill will ensure stability for workers, employers and the Comcare scheme when a Commonwealth authority exits the scheme. I cannot be more clear than that. The bill goes on to amend the act to clarify that premiums for current premium payers should be calculated having regard to the principle that current and future liabilities should be fully funded by Comcare retained funds and so much of the Consolidated Revenue Fund as would be available under the relevant section of the act, section 90C. So I come back to that commentary again about protecting injured employees who remain in the scheme, as well as ensuring the future viability of the scheme itself.

Mr Acting Deputy President, let me make the point strongly that the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015, the one we are debating at the moment, is not in any way related to other reforms that passed the House of Representatives on 26 November last year and are currently before the Senate. Let me make it clear, again, that the matter we are considering at this moment is not in any way related to these reforms. I am not going to go back and rehash the commentary of Senator Cameron in this particular space, except to emphasise again: they are unrelated. But it is unfortunate that the opposition, in opposing any meaningful reform in this space, is not encouraging, allowing or agreeing to reasonable dialogue and discussion in this area.

The Comcare scheme generally operates effectively. There are four areas that I want to focus on. Firstly, achieving high safety—and surely, that would be commendable. Secondly, return-to-work outcomes—and all of us, whether we are on the employer side or the employee side, know very well that speed of return to work is surely the highest priority, when it is safe to do so. The third area is the provision of income replacement through to retirement age, and the statement is made, 'it is almost the only scheme left in Australia which actually provides income replacement right through to retirement age'. The fourth area—and equally importantly for all people who are covered under these protections—is medical support for life.

It falls to people like ourselves, law-makers in this place, to make sure that each of those four high ideals remains permanent, remains current, and remains affordable. But there are signs that the scheme is coming under pressure. For example, while Comcare's return-to-work rates are better than average, they are falling. They are not where we want them to be. If this is to be the benchmark, we want the benchmark to be set higher. And the current experience is that return-to-work rates are falling; they are still better than average, but they are falling. Secondly, some medical treatments are not making people better in the long term. And thirdly, employers are facing rising premiums and other costs. So what do we need to do about this? The amendments that are proposed and are sitting here in the Senate are aimed, in fact, to address those issues. They are aimed to improve the return-to-work outcomes for injured employees and injured workers. They are aimed to put focus on early intervention and health outcomes for injured workers. And they are, thirdly, aimed at improving the operation of the system by excluding injuries sustained in non-work activities outside the workplace; excluding, of course, secondary psychological injuries, and removing payment for non-traditional treatments.

Mr Acting Deputy President, let me make the point very strongly: reference has been made of course to the fact that if somebody is outside their workplace, during their lunch hour or whatever, they cease to have any coverage; if they go across the road, or if they go into a cafe or whatever—but such of course is not the case. We in Australia know very well the circumstance in which, if somebody is injured, for example in a road-related accident, they are adequately insured under third-party provisions. Indeed, if somebody was in an eating establishment and injured themselves, we know the law requires that the operator of that facility must have adequate insurance to protect customers. So there is a circumstance in which there is still adequate cover under the provisions for which we seek.

The package of reforms which will be considered here in the Senate in due course is important in providing a strong and sustainable scheme into the future to ensure that Australia's only remaining long-tail workers compensation scheme exists, is adequately funded, and ensures that the employees of any organisation who leave Comcare in fact have still got adequate financial funding. I want to stress if I may the fact that this package of reforms has been supported by departmental secretaries and heads of agencies. It has been supported by licensees and has broad support in the community.

Concerns have been expressed in this place and elsewhere—and I am sure they will be raised again—about the question of the viability of state and territory work, health and safety workers compensation schemes in relation to the potential exodus of employers, particularly large employers, from the schemes. The information that is available suggests that this is, at most, a minor issue, if indeed it is an issue at all. The 2004 Productivity Commission inquiry suggested that the volatility in premium rates that might occur in the event of such exits are not supported by evidence. Actuarial assessments commissioned by the Productivity Commission and a 2008 review of self-insurance arrangements under Comcare both indicated that the impact of exits of corporations from state-based schemes on those schemes or on remaining employers would be minimal; and Taylor Fry, in their actuarial report to inform the 2008 Comcare review, concluded that the financial impacts of the exits to the Comcare scheme from other Australian jurisdictions had been insignificant.

To conclude: will the bill adversely affect any employee entitlements to compensation? The answer is no. An employee who is injured before an employer exits the scheme will continue to be compensated under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The bill will ensure that employees injured before an employer's exit continue to be supported by appropriate rehabilitation authority, protecting the rehabilitation rights of employees. Let me finish, if I may, with these two brief observations. The bill will ensure that Commonwealth authorities exiting the Comcare scheme cover the costs of their liabilities. This will protect premium payers remaining in the scheme and ensure that injured workers continue to be supported. And I make this final observation. Anybody in this place voting against this bill is, indeed, voting against ensuring that injured workers have a safety net should their employer leave the scheme.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015 that is before us, and I can assure Senator Back that I absolutely, 100 per cent support workers getting their full entitlement to a workers compensation scheme. To suggest that if you vote against the bill somehow you are voting against the safety and the wellbeing of workers if they are injured is absolute rubbish.

This is one of three bills around workers compensation which will disadvantage workers. This is bill No. 2, and the Abbott government really does need to lay out its plan. There is bill No. 1, although it has not come into the Senate, there is bill No. 2, which is before us today, and, of course, there is a third bill, and to suggest that somehow these bills are unrelated is not true. There are relationships between all of them, and it is clearly about disadvantaging workers. If they are not related then why have they been brought in together and why are they all about Comcare? Of course they are related, and this bill is being put before the Senate because the government thinks that perhaps it will get support for this bill and it will start the softening up process to get the other two bills in place.

Indeed, we were able to have an inquiry for the first bill, and what stakeholders told us in that process was that, yes, they had had meetings with the department, but they were bound by rules of confidentiality. So they were not allowed to speak outside of the meetings about the content of those meetings and when they sought additional information about bills coming forward they were not told anything either. What sort of consultation process is it when we bind people and when we make them sign documents so that they will not utter a word about what happened in the meeting and when they sought information about future bills they were told that was not part of the discussion? That is not an open and transparent process, and of course those stakeholders had every right to be suspicious and to be very concerned about what was going to come next because of these confidentiality provisions. In the inquiry we had on that first bill we asked the department if we could have further information, but we were told, no, we could not either. I think we ended up getting the list of who attended those secret meetings, but we were not able to get much further than that.

Labor opposes this bill. Fundamentally, this bill will allow employers and insurers to scheme swap at will between state and national schemes. The arrangement laid out in this bill may potentially lead to the economic collapse of state schemes, and Labor believes it is likely to drive up premiums for small- to medium-sized employers. Again, with this bill, the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee was denied a public hearing by a majority of government senators on the committee, and it is absolutely shameful that this open and transparent process was denied to us. It is the second time that I have reported in this place that, on government controlled inquiries, senators have been denied an open and public transparent process. It is one thing to have submissions in front of you; it is quite another to have witnesses in front of you where they make particular statements that are worth exploring or they give you further information than was in their written submission.

But, no, the Abbott government and its senators in this place absolutely denied an open, public, transparent hearing into this bill. So it is left to Labor to defend and raise our concerns in this place about the bill because we were denied that opportunity through the Senate processes. More and more we are seeing that, when the government do not want to be held accountable, when they do not want to listen to independent evidence and experts, they simply use their numbers and deny the Labor senators that opportunity for an open and public hearing. It does lead me to say: what are they hiding? What is it about this bill, in particular, that they do not want transparency to be on the record?

Despite what we heard from government senators, there is no need to rush this bill. There is simply no need to rush this bill, because, despite the Australian Capital Territory signalling it wishes to exit the bill, it is a long way from doing that. The Australian Capital Territory government is in the process of consulting about the makeup of any new scheme. It does not yet have a designated scheme and it will not for some time. So why the rush? As we know, there is a bill that has not been voted on in this place that looks to cut workers' entitlements, and what I think the government are trying to do is to soften up the crossbench senators and get this bill through and then say to them: 'It's all a part of a tranche. There are three bills here. You voted for the first bill. The sky hasn't fallen down. Let's bring the other bills in.' I am sure that is their plan.

It is time that the Abbott government laid out their plan and stopped trying to pretend there is no link between any of these bills, because there is a link. The Australian Capital Territory government is out there running an open and transparent process—unlike the opportunities to have an open and transparent public hearing in this place, which we were denied by government senators. So why the rush? Rather than try and push a bill through the Senate, why aren't the Abbott government talking to the Australian Capital Territory government? Why aren't they talking to them? Maybe they are. But, again, we do not know, because we did not have that public hearing. But what we do know from the Abbott government's track record is that they do not like to consult. They do not like open consultations. They do not like independent advice. They do not really like anything contrary to their own positions. So the Abbott government thinks the only way forward is to rush this bill through.

Labor wants to be absolutely certain that no worker will be worse off as a result of this bill. I speak from experience. I worked for quite some time as the workers compensation officer at the WA branch of United Voice. In that role, one of the hardest roles I have ever done in my career, I met workers with debilitating injuries—low-paid workers, cleaners, orderlies, nurses, early childhood educators, and manufacturing workers, many with debilitating injuries. I met workers who desperately wanted to get back to work. They wanted to look after their families and do all the things they did before they suffered a workplace injury. I worked with good employers who respected workers and did everything in their power to get workers back to work and to start the rehabilitation process. Unfortunately, and in the majority of cases, I also met employers and insurers whose agenda was to reduce their costs and to take no responsibility for injured workers. Sadly, I saw too many workers caught up in a situation not of their making and completely outside of their control. I saw deliberate actions taken by insurers and employers to drag out claims, to deny benefits, to put workers in a situation where they had no money coming in, to blame workers for their workplace injury and to suggest it was because a worker smoked or was not fit enough or was old. They would use any excuse rather than take responsibility for the fact that their workplace had injured that worker.

I saw workers treated disgracefully at the hands of employers and insurers: workers who throughout their working life had given extra and who did not knock off right at the end of the shift; workers who always were willing to take on additional roles, who gave loyal service and who expected in their time of need their employer to act in the same way when they needed support. I have seen workers totally broken who started out with a physical injury and ended up with mental disabilities, not because of their injuries but because of the way they were treated once they entered the workers compensation scheme. There were far too many who were broken individuals as a result of a workplace injury not of their own making. As a Labor senator in this place I stand for fairness and justice for these workers.

I want to touch on an other point raised by Senator Back that came out at the hearing we had on the first bill, and I must say that I could not believe what I was hearing. I did not want to believe the words on the page, where the first bill sought to take away the right to workers compensation during an unpaid work break, such as a lunch break. Let us just imagine the early childhood educator who started her shift at seven o'clock and works in the city and maybe travels an hour to get to work. She would have left home at six o'clock, so maybe she got up at five o'clock to start her day. At lunch time she will want to have a break. I do not know whether you have been into a child care centre but, unlike perhaps in a big manufacturing workplace, or in a hospital or in an aged care facility, the staff rooms are very small. They often serve as meeting rooms for other workers or as places where workers do programming. So they are not always a place to relax, to get away from the children and to have a desperately needed break. Working with children is rewarding work, but it is also hard work. From my experience as an organiser in the early childhood sector, I can tell you that many workers like to get out and have a break—they like to leave the centre at lunch time. If that worker leaves the centre and walks over to the shopping centre and then trips and hurts herself, under the bill before the Senate she will be out on her own.

I can also tell you that many of those workers work a day shift. As you would know, getting to the bank or the post office is often something workers do in their unpaid break, because it is the only time they can do those things. I heard Senator Back say, 'Oh, well they will be covered by public liability or they will be covered by motor vehicle insurance.' Can you imagine the scenario? There I am leaving the child care centre and I walk down the pavement and I trip. As a low-paid educator earning about $21 or $22 an hour, am I going to engage a lawyer to sue the council? How likely is that? It is incredibly unlikely, and it is impossible. I would not know where an early childhood educator would get the funds to stump up money for a lawyer to sue the council, and to win. We know those claims are arduous and are hard to prove. What if I am injured walking across the road. Do I then make a claim on motor vehicles? Or if I finally get into the shopping centre and I trip over will I then go after the shopping centre's public liability? What a ridiculous statement to make that somehow someone else is responsible for that worker.

The other thing I can inform the Senate is that the break in child care centres is an hour long, not because the worker needs it, but because the employers like to stretch the day out so that they do not have to bring additional staff in. They have that worker there from seven until four o'clock and they give them an hour off because they want to lengthen the shift to reduce their rosters so that they do not have to bring other workers in. Here we are saying that that worker who leaves the childcare service at lunchtime to have a break or to pay a bill or to get to the post office is somehow on her own. What a ridiculous statement to make! It shows how absolutely out-of-touch this Abbott government is that they do not know what workers do during their lunch hour.

During the Senate inquiry we heard—Senator Abetz and the Abbott government are very good at making things up—about the worker who goes surfing and incurs an injury. I do not know how many workers Senator Abetz has met, but over my lifetime as a union official I have met thousands, and I have never yet met one who went surfing during their lunch break. I have met plenty who went shopping, who bought the dinner, who went to the post office, who paid the bills, who rang their kids to check on how they were doing and did all the things that all of us do as part of our daily life. But that is what you will hear from those opposite: 'What about the person who goes surfing?' What about the early childhood educator who simply goes to pay a bill and then gets denied workers compensation because she has had an accident outside of the workplace? That is ridiculous, and it is not something that Labor senators will support in this place.

I want to be absolutely sure—whether it is this bill, bill No. 1; or whether it is this bill before us, No. 2; or whether it is the incorrectly-titled bill No. 3, 'Improving the Comcare scheme'—that no worker will be worse off. But those assurances are not there—they are clearly not there with these bills. And nothing I have read and nothing I have heard and nothing in my own experience as a workers compensation officer and as an organiser gives me confidence that the bills deliver confidence and real surety and protection for workers. What I see in this bill continues the Abbott government's anti-worker and anti-union agenda. I counted the bills the other day because I got invited to speak at the national day of mourning for workers killed on the job in Perth, and the Abbott government has brought something like 15 anti-worker or anti-union bills before this place. Remember when we heard that Work Choices was dead, buried and cremated? Well, it is not. The Abbott government is trying to attack workers and their unions by stealth through 15 bills—most of them rejected in this place. That is Work Choices—when you start to take away workers rights and when you start to reduce their access to unions. I have spoken before about the appalling death rate in the construction industry which goes completely unnoticed by the Abbott government.

We should have a bill to immediately look at and stop workplace deaths, not these sorts of bills which rip entitlements away from workers. It is a disgrace that we do not respect those who toil, that we do not respect lives, that we think it is somehow okay for someone to lose their life when earning their livelihood. Labor senators do not stand for that, and that is why we oppose these bills. The Abbott government has not undertaken proper consultation with all of the relevant stakeholders about this. No doubt they will tell us: 'We had secret confidential meetings that no-one is allowed to tell you about.' But they denied us a proper hearing where we could get evidence out in the open on this particular bill.

It is really important that there is a thorough investigation of the legislation, because the Abbott government has already sought to make adverse changes to the Comcare scheme. These proposed changes will directly and indirectly risk the workplace health and safety of Australian workers. What we heard in the first hearing—and that is the only hearing I can refer to, because we have not had a hearing on this bill—was that somehow we needed to make these changes to the Comcare scheme because of red tape. I tell you what: if the choice for me and other Labor senators is between red tape and workers' lives, or between red tape and workers remaining fit and well in the workplace, then I will pick red tape any day. I know there is not a Labor senator here who would say: 'Let's reduce red tape and create a risk that injures or, in extreme examples, where a worker dies.' No. There is a view from the Abbott government that all red tape is somehow bad; but it is not, because workers in this country need red tape to protect them. They absolutely need that. We will not be supporting words that say 'improving' and 'simplifying', because we know that that reduces workers entitlements and puts them at risk. We will not be supporting this bill.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise this evening to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015. By way of background for those listening and for those reading this later, Commonwealth authorities—for example, the ACT government—and entities including an agency or a parliamentary department are premium payers under the Comcare scheme. Licensees and some Commonwealth authorities who hold a licence self-insure and, accordingly, do not pay premiums to Comcare. Comcare is responsible for paying liabilities associated with injuries sustained by employees of premium payers from Comcare-retained funds under section 90C of the act. Comcare-retained funds should be adequate to meet current and prospective liabilities from year to year. The amendments made by the bill will clarify this intention as well as ensure mechanisms are in place to support Comcare to manage its liabilities in Comcare-retained funds.

On 26 February 2015 the ACT government announced that it is consulting its workforce on plans to leave the Comcare scheme. Consultations were completed on 8 May 2015, only a week ago. If a premium payer as large as the ACT exits the scheme without paying an amount to cover unfunded liabilities, this would further diminish the capacity of Comcare-retained funds to be sufficient to meet liabilities. The associated risk of underfunding would be borne by remaining premium payers or the Commonwealth. This bill proposes to amend the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act of 1988 to provide for financial and other arrangements for a Commonwealth authority to exit the Comcare scheme.

Firstly, the framework will enable Comcare to determine and collect exit contributions from former Commonwealth authorities and successors of former Commonwealth authorities. This will ensure that an employer does not leave the Comcare scheme without contributing an appropriate amount to cover any current or prospective liabilities that are not funded by premiums the employer has paid before exit.

Secondly, the framework will ensure that employees injured before an employer leaves the scheme continue to be supported by an appropriate rehabilitation authority.

Thirdly, the framework will enable Comcare to determine and collect ongoing regulatory contributions from exited employers or successor bodies.

Fourthly, the framework will clarify that premiums for current Commonwealth authorities and entities such as government departments should be calculated having regard to the principle that current and prospective liabilities should be fully funded by Comcare retained funds and so much of the consolidated revenue fund as is available under section 90C of the act.

Fifthly, the framework will allow Comcare to agree to instalments of an exit contribution being paid over a period of up to seven years after the day on which the determination is made, to allow for run-off of liability estimates.

Sixthly, the framework will provide for Comcare to refund all or part of an exit contribution if an assessment reveals that the amount of available scheme funds attributable to an exited employer exceeds Comcare's liabilities. Determinations of a refund may only be made within the seven-year period immediately after an employer exits the scheme.

Finally, the framework will provide for Comcare to remit the whole or part of an unpaid instalment of an exit contribution if a later assessment reveals that the amount of available scheme funds that is attributable to the exited employer exceeds Comcare's liabilities. The amendments will also make minor contingent amendments related to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014—part 2 of schedule 1. Schedule 2 of the bill amends provisions in the act related to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to streamline appointment processes and ensure appropriate membership of the commission.

That was a little bit of background. This is a straightforward and logical bill that simply takes account of what can and should happen should any premium payer or licensee decide to leave the Comcare scheme. It is important to have such arrangements in place, especially given that the ACT Labor government have indicated that they are looking at a potential departure from the scheme, citing it is as burdensome for claimants and for their employers. They have said:

The Comcare system is quite burdensome, not only for claimants but for their employers ….

Employees injured before a Commonwealth authority leaves the Comcare scheme will continue to receive compensation and rehabilitation under the act. The bill will ensure stability for workers, employers and the Comcare scheme when a Commonwealth authority exits the scheme. The bill also amends the act to clarify that premiums for current premium payers should be calculated having regard to the principle that current and future liabilities should be fully funded by Comcare-retained funds and so much of the consolidated revenue as would be available under the act.

The question is: why are these amendments important? The act is being amended to protect injured employees who remain in the Comcare scheme as well as to ensure the future financial viability of the Comcare scheme. Since 2013-14, Comcare has been progressively restoring the funding position of the scheme. The bill will support existing measures put in place by Comcare to restore funds to adequate levels to meet estimated liabilities. The bill will also ensure that Commonwealth authorities do not exit the Comcare scheme without paying an appropriate amount to cover any unfunded liabilities arising from claims that will continue to be managed by Comcare into the future. This will protect premium payers who remain in the scheme.

We should be aware—this has been touched upon by a couple of senators who have spoken prior to me—that there are two bills here at the moment. The Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 passed the House of Representatives on 26 November 2014, and is currently before the Senate. That bill is focused on expanding the coverage of the Comcare scheme for national employers as self-insurers. The bill excludes coverage for recess breaks where a person is injured during an ordinary recess break away from their employer's premises, unless the injury arises from employment. The bill also excludes an injury arising from serious and wilful misconduct, where it results in death or serious and permanent impairment.

The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015 is not, in any way, related to these reforms.    That said, given the opposition's obsession with opposing any meaningful reform in this space I do want to briefly touch on the other bill that is currently being considered.

The Comcare scheme generally operates effectively. It achieves relatively high safety and return-to-work outcomes, and it is almost the only scheme in Australia to provide income replacement to retirement age and medical support for life. The legislation underpinning the scheme has not changed much since it was introduced 27 years ago. Workplaces and working conditions, health care and rehabilitation practices, technology, social behaviour and expectations have all changed in that time. Various court decisions have also affected the way the act is applied in practice. To keep pace with the modernisation of work and health practices the scheme needs to be updated. There are also signs that the scheme is coming under pressure. For example, while Comcare's return-to-work rates are better than average, they are actually falling. Some medical treatments are failing to make people better in the long term and    employers face rising premiums and other costs.

The proposed amendments aim to do the following:    improve return to work outcomes for injured workers; put the focus on early intervention and health outcomes of injured workers; and improve the operation of the system by excluding injuries sustained in non-work activities outside work, excluding secondary psychological injuries, and removing payment for non-traditional treatments. That package of reforms, which will be considered by this place in due course, is important in providing a strong and sustainable scheme into the future to ensure the continuation of Australia's only remaining long-tail workers compensation scheme. Further—and I want to stress this because it is important—in an unprecedented submission to the Senate committee, that package of reforms has been supported by departmental secretaries and agency heads. It has been supported by licensees, and it has broad support in the community.

Submissions from stakeholders, which were picked up by the opposition in its additional comments, related to a different bill. These are falsities, which have been repeated by the opposition, that this bill will impact on state and territory workers compensation schemes. This bill has no impact on states and territories as it only applies to Commonwealth authorities if they exit the Comcare scheme, and it has no impact on premium payers under the state schemes. Concerns have been raised, however, about the impact of another bill currently before the parliament—the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014—on the viability of state and territory work, health and safety and workers compensation schemes due to the potential exodus of employers, particularly large employers, from those schemes. The concern is that, if large employers with better safety records move to the Comcare scheme, premiums will increase for employers remaining in the state and territory schemes.

The 2004 Productivity Commission inquiry into national workers compensation and occupational health and safety frameworks specifically noted that concern about exiting premium payers from state schemes would lead to volatility in premium rates was not supported by the evidence. Actuarial assessments commissioned by the 2004 Productivity Commission inquiry, and for the 2008 review of self-insurance arrangements under the Comcare scheme, indicated that the impact on those schemes or on remaining employers of the exit of corporations from state based schemes would be minimal. Taylor Fry, in their actuarial report to inform the 2008 Comcare review, concluded that the financial impact of exits to the Comcare scheme from the other Australian jurisdictions had been insignificant.

Assessments commissioned by the Productivity Commission concluded that: the larger the employer, the closer the premium is to the 'true' cost of claims and expenses, such that the exit of large employers would be relatively neutral to the state and territory schemes; and the percentage of exiting employers from state schemes would represent less than 10 per cent to scheme revenues and probably less than five per cent of scheme revenues. In the government's assessment the circumstances have not changed since 2004 and the impact will remain minimal. But, again, I say to the opposition: stop the dishonesty and focus, please, your attention on the bill before the Senate as we speak and not on the other bill.

In conclusion, the bill will ensure that Commonwealth authorities exiting the Comcare scheme cover the costs of their liabilities. This will protect premium payers remaining in the scheme and ensure that injured workers are supported. Any senator voting against this bill is voting against ensuring that injured workers have a safety net should their employer leave their scheme.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill I reiterate Labor's concern that the government seems to be rushing this legislation unnecessarily. The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act established the Comcare scheme in 1988 to provide compensation and rehabilitation to Australian government and Australian Capital Territory government employees, as well as to employees of private corporations that hold a licence under the act.

The ACT government has indicated that it wishes to leave the scheme, citing cost concerns. This bill creates a framework for financial and other arrangements for a Commonwealth authority to exit the Comcare scheme. The framework established by these amendments will enable Comcare to determine and collect 'exit contributions' from former Commonwealth authorities and successors of former Commonwealth authorities. This will ensure that an exiting employer does not leave the Comcare scheme without contributing an appropriate amount to cover any current or prospective liabilities that are not funded by premiums the employer has paid before exit. It will ensure that employees injured before the employer's exit continue to be supported by an appropriate rehabilitation authority, and it will enable Comcare to determine and collect ongoing regulatory contributions from exited employers or successor bodies. The bill also amends the act to clarify that premiums for current Commonwealth authorities and entities should be calculated to ensure that current and prospective liabilities should be fully funded by Comcare-retained funds.

I mentioned at the outset that this bill is unnecessarily rushed, and I say so for two key reasons. Firstly, the government has introduced other legislation which may affect how this bill impacts on injured workers and, secondly, we have yet to see the design of the ACT government's replacement scheme. The ACT government scheduled a six-week consultation to listen to the views of stakeholders before designing a new rehabilitation and compensation scheme. That consultation period only ended last Friday, 8 May. The design of the new scheme is going to take a significant period of time, and the ACT government has made a commitment to work with stakeholders.

Labor's first priority is to ensure that no worker will be worse off under this bill. We must also be certain that this bill will not provide an incentive for others to leave workers worse off. This is why Labor took the responsible course of action to refer the bill to the Senate Employment and Education Committee for a thorough investigation. However, since the bill was referred to an inquiry the government introduced another bill relating to the Comcare scheme. This bill—the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill—is the third substantive bill relating to the Comcare scheme currently before the parliament. Although the committee has concluded its inquiry into the exit arrangements bill, the introduction of the other bill, the third bill, means the committee has not had a proper opportunity to investigate the relationship of this bill with other bills concerning the Comcare scheme.

I mentioned there were three substantive bills relating to the Comcare scheme. In March this year the government also introduced the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill. Labor strongly opposes this bill. The proposed changes in this bill will directly and indirectly risk the health and safety of Australian workers and will remove their rights to fair and reasonable cover when they suffer the misfortune of a work-related illness or injury.

The most recent bill—the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill 2015—is over 200 pages long. It is also highly disadvantageous to workers. This bill makes cuts to the lump sum compensation payable for permanent impairment for the vast majority of injured workers and removes the already modest pain and suffering payment. I have concerns that this bill will leave workers worse off, particularly in relation to how the bill widens the way in which claims can be disqualified from compensation. Changes to eligibility requirements will mean injured workers are locked out of the scheme altogether. I have some examples of how this new scheme will impact workers.

Firstly, compensation entitlements would be suspended where an injured worker is absent from Australia for more than six weeks, for example even if they had a dying relative they needed to care for overseas. Under the current scheme, while a worker needs to seek approval prior to departure, there are no cuts to entitlements if a worker travels overseas. In circumstances where a worker is totally unfit for work as a result of a compensable work-related injury, it does not matter whether the worker lives in Australia or elsewhere.

Secondly, the current exclusionary provision for injuries caused by 'reasonable administrative action' will 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. How would this affect an Australian Federal Police officer who is injured in the undertaking of his or her duties? For example, if an AFP officer is instructed by his supervising officer to investigate a suspected drug lab and is stabbed during that investigation, would the injured officer be excluded under the new law on the grounds that the injury was partially caused by the reasonable direction given by the superior officer to investigate?

Thirdly, there are new tests for vulnerability to injury which would require consideration of whether the worker would have hypothetically suffered a similar 'designated injury' at the 'same time in the worker's life' or at the 'same stage'. It has been a long-standing principle of injury and compensation law that the injured victim is taken as found, including their age, vulnerabilities and susceptibilities. Since any musculoskeletal condition may be regarded as an ailment or any spinal condition as a 'designated injury', the effect of such a provision has the potential to strike out any such musculoskeletal injury. In a society where the working age now extends beyond 65 years and the Abbott government has declared it expects workers to work longer, our workforce is ageing and therefore becoming more susceptible to workplace injury. This provision effectively serves to discriminate against workers on the basis of their age.

These are just a few examples of how workers will not receive any compensation for work-related injuries under the so-called improving the Comcare scheme bill because of the related unfair and draconian eligibility rules. This bill also reduces incapacity payments and expands sanctions against workers including removal of medical support if a worker fails to attend a medical appointment. All of this is totally opposed by Labor. It is typical of this government when they are under pressure to attack the workplace conditions of working Australians. I know there are issues with the resourcing of the Comcare scheme and the workloads of workplace inspectors and Comcare staff, but undermining the rights of workers to fair compensation is not the answer. With these bills currently before the Senate and with the ACT government still designing their new scheme, it is unclear whether ACT employees would be better off under the Comcare scheme or its replacement scheme. This point was made by the Australian Council of Trade Unions in its submission to the inquiry. The ACTU also noted in its submission that it is unclear how the government proposes to manage the rehabilitation and compensation claims of those workers who are currently covered by the Comcare scheme or whose claims are still being processed.

Another concern raised through the inquiry by both the Victorian government and the Electrical Trades Union was that the bill may result in a reduced premium pool in state workers compensation schemes. Labor senators noted in their additional comments in the inquiry report that they were unconvinced by the Department of Employment's submission that the reduction in the premium pool would not result from the passage of the bill.

The principle of giving workers fair compensation and the best opportunity for rehabilitation is of particular importance to me. I have spoken before in this place about the difficulties experienced by workers under the current scheme. For more than five years I have been working hard to represent a constituent who has been fighting to get decent rehabilitation services and fair compensation from an injury suffered as a Commonwealth employee 27 years ago. I know from an independent report given to Comcare that there are another 13 injured workers who have experienced expressed longstanding problems with aspects of their claims and Comcare's services.

While it is vital that we do everything we can to avoid injuries at work, we know that unfortunately injuries will inevitably occur. When they do occur, workers need to have the assurance that they will receive not only fair compensation but the best rehabilitation support they can to restore them to their fullest possible health, both physically and psychologically. Given the difficulties that workers are experiencing with the Comcare scheme as it currently operates, it is absolutely vital that any changes to the scheme do not disadvantage workers and are carefully and thoroughly considered as a whole.

The most unfortunate thing about the government's hasty and piecemeal approach to these legislative changes is that Labor may be able to support the exit arrangements bill—the bill we are currently debating—but we cannot under the current circumstances. There is no need to try and rush this bill through with such haste when the ACT government does not even yet have a scheme designed to replace the Comcare scheme and will not have one for some time. There is no need to rush this bill through when we have a number of other substantial changes to the Comcare scheme also before the parliament. The opposition has not received any information from the ACT government about the consequences for workers of their exit from the Comcare scheme. Labor needs to have assurances that ACT workers will not be left worse off under this bill. We need to be sure there is nothing questionable about this bill before parliament today, and the only way to do this is to take the necessary time for further consultation with all stakeholders.

It is not all right for workers to be not properly compensated if injured while working, and it is not all right to cut standards that protect workers. Labor strongly believe no worker should be worse off under this bill, and that is what we will continue to push for. Workers must be afforded fair and reasonable compensation should they suffer the misfortune of a work related injury or illness—because that is only fair.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015. This bill is a technical one dealing with how Comcare is funded when premium payers under the scheme exit. The ACT government announced in February this year that it is consulting its workforce on plans to leave the Comcare scheme. The ACT government has been a premium payer and the exit of a body of this size would have a detrimental impact on Comcare's capacity to continue providing cover for workers under the scheme. It is vital we continue to ensure Comcare has the resources to deal with the claims of employees under the scheme and is not held hostage by the whims of various premium-paying bodies.

The bill proposes to make amendments to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 to provide for financial and other arrangements for a Commonwealth authority to exit the Comcare scheme. The framework will enable Comcare to determine and collect 'exit contributions' from former Commonwealth authorities and successors of former Commonwealth authorities. This will ensure that an employer does not leave the Comcare scheme without contributing an appropriate amount to cover any current or prospective liabilities that are not funded by premiums the employer has paid before exit. It will also ensure that employees injured before an employer leaves the scheme continue to be supported by an appropriate rehabilitation authority, which is very important. It will enable Comcare to determine and collect ongoing regulatory contributions from exited employers or successor bodies. It will clarify that premiums for current Commonwealth authorities and entities, such as a government department, should be calculated having regard to the principle that current and prospective liabilities should be fully funded by Comcare retained funds and so much of the Consolidated Revenue Fund as is available under section 90C of the act. It will allow Comcare to agree to instalments of an exit contribution being paid over a period of up to seven years after the day on which the determination is made to allow for run-off liability estimates. It will provide for Comcare to refund all or part of an exit contribution if an assessment reveals that the amount of available scheme funds attributable to an exited employer exceeds Comcare's liabilities; determinations of a refund may only be made within the seven-year period immediately after an employer exits the scheme. It will provide for Comcare to remit the whole or part of an unpaid instalment of an exit contribution if a later assessment reveals that the amount of available scheme funds that is attributable to the exited employer exceeds Comcare's liabilities.

This is a very straightforward bill that simply ensures the ongoing viability of Comcare whenever any large premium payer or licensee decides to leave the Comcare scheme. It is important to have such arrangements in place, especially given that the ACT Labor government have indicated that they are looking at a potential departure from the scheme, claiming it is burdensome for claimants and for their employers. Employees injured before a Commonwealth authority leaves the Comcare scheme will continue to receive compensation and rehabilitation under the SRC Act. The bill will ensure stability for workers, employers and the Comcare scheme when a Commonwealth authority exits the scheme.

The bill also amends the act to clarify that premiums for current premium payers should be calculated having regard to the principle that current and future liabilities should be fully funded by Comcare retained funds and so much of the Consolidated Revenue Fund as would be available under section 90C of the act. These amendments protect injured employees who remain in the Comcare scheme and ensure the future financial viability of Comcare.

Since 2013-14, Comcare has been progressively restoring the funding position of the scheme. The bill will support existing measures put in place by Comcare to restore funds to adequate levels to meet estimated liabilities. The bill will also ensure that Commonwealth authorities do not exit the Comcare scheme without paying an appropriate amount to cover any unfunded liabilities arising from claims that will continue to be managed by Comcare into the future. This will protect premium payers who remain in the scheme from having to cover these liabilities with larger premiums.

The Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 passed the House of Representative on 26 November 2014 and is currently before the Senate. That bill is focused on expanding the coverage of the Comcare scheme for national employers as self-insurers. The bill excludes coverage for recess breaks where a person is injured during an ordinary recess break away from their employer's premises unless the injury arises from employment. The bill also excludes an injury arising from serious and wilful misconduct where it results in death or serious and permanent impairment.

The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015 is not in any way related to these reforms. That said, given Labor's inability to do any of the hard work of meaningful reform in this space, I do want to briefly touch on the other bills that are currently being considered. The Comcare scheme generally operates effectively. It achieves relatively high safety and return-to-work outcomes, and it is almost the only scheme in Australia to provide income replacement to retirement age and medical support for life. The legislation underpinning the scheme has not changed much since it was introduced 27 years ago.

Workplaces and working conditions, healthcare and rehabilitation practices, technology and social behaviour and expectations have all changed in that time. Various court decisions have also affected the way the act is applied in practice. To keep pace with the modernisation of work and health practices, the scheme needs to be updated. There are also signs that the scheme is coming under pressure. For example, whilst Comcare's return-to-work rates are better than average, they are falling; some medical treatments are failing to make people better, in the long term; and employers face rising premiums and other costs.

The proposed amendments aim to do the following things: improve return-to-work outcomes for injured workers; put the focus on early intervention and health outcomes of injured workers and improve the operation of the system by excluding injuries sustained in non-work activities outside work; exclude secondary psychological injuries; and remove payment for non-traditional treatments. That package of reform, which will be considered by this place in due course, is important in providing a strong and sustainable scheme into the future to ensure that Australia's only remaining long-tail workers' compensation scheme is able to continue. Further, in an unprecedented submission to the Senate committee, that package of reform has been supported by departmental secretaries and agency heads, it has been supported by licensees and it has broad support in the community.

The Education and Employment Legislation Committee examined this and the associated Comcare legislation in the first months of 2015. Submissions from stakeholders, which were picked up by the opposition in its additional comments, also related to a different bill—falsities that have been repeated by the opposition that this bill will impact on state and territory workers' compensation schemes. This bill has no impact on states and territories as it only applies to Commonwealth authorities if they exit the Comcare scheme, and it has no impact on premium payers under the state schemes.

Concerns have been raised, however, about the impact of another bill currently before the parliament—the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014—on the viability of state and territory work health and safety and workers' compensation schemes due to the potential exodus of employers, particularly large employers, from those schemes. The concern is that if large employers with better safety records move to the Comcare scheme, premium rates will increase for employers remaining in the state and territory schemes.

The 2004 Productivity Commission Inquiry into National Workers' Compensation and Occupational Health and Safety Frameworks specifically noted that the concern that exiting premium payers from state schemes would lead to volatility in premium rates was not supported by the evidence. Actuarial assessments commissioned by the 2004 Productivity Commission inquiry and for the 2008 review of self-insurance arrangements under the Comcare scheme—the Comcare review—indicated that the impact of the exit of corporations from state based schemes on those schemes or remaining employers would be minimal.

Taylor Fry—in their actuarial report to inform the 2008 Comcare review—concluded that the financial impacts of exits to the Comcare scheme from the other Australian jurisdictions had been insignificant. Actuarial assessments commissioned by the Productivity Commission concluded: 'The larger the employer, the closer the premium is to the true cost of claims and expenses, such that the exit of such large employers would be relatively neutral to the state and territory schemes.' The percentage of exiting employers from state schemes would represent less than 10 per cent of scheme revenues and probably less than five per cent of scheme revenues.

In the government's assessment, the circumstances have not changed since 2004 and the impact will remain minimal. I call on those opposite to focus on the bill at hand and do the right thing and provide certainty for workers under the Comcare scheme. The bill will ensure that Commonwealth authorities exiting the Comcare scheme cover the costs of their liabilities. This will protect premium payers remaining in the scheme and ensure that injured workers are supported.

Any senator voting against this bill is voting against ensuring that injured workers have a safety net should their employer leave the scheme. I therefore commend this bill to the Senate.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015. At this time of the day—after the big, long night of the budget—I suppose people are starting to feel a little weary, and it is hard to keep your attention on these things. It is really important to pay attention, because something really important could happen if this legislation were allowed to go through in the way this government is proposing.

The purpose of this bill has been discussed in very different ways in the contributions from both sides of the chamber this evening. The explanatory memorandum of this bill states:

The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act) establishes a scheme (the Comcare scheme) to provide compensation and rehabilitation support to injured Australian Government and Australian Capital Territory employees, as well as employees of private corporations that hold a licence under the Act.

It sounds like a mouthful, and by the time you get to the end of a few sentences like that it is very easy to have your eyes start to glaze over. But we have to remember that at the heart of this piece of legislation is either a positive or a negative outcome for people who find themselves injured while at work. That could be any one of us or any of the people we love or care for or any of the people we work with. This is not an abstract concept, this is not an abstract set of words and it is not a meaningless set of words, even though it does sound like that in the way that it is written for the purposes of legislation. This is about people and real outcomes for people.

In fact, this piece of legislation is more complicated in the way that it has come before this parliament than many others, because this is part of a suite of three bills that are dealing with Comcare. That is why we need to be really careful about what we are doing with it. Senator Lines, Senator Cameron and Senator Bilyk have made very strong claims, articulating our concerns about the haste with which this is being attempted to be pushed through the parliament by the government, and I think with good cause. One of the things that my kids say these days, using a very descriptive word, is that things may be 'dodgy'. I have every feeling that there is something dodgy going on here—the sense of speeding to get this piece of legislation through.

The fact is that, only as recently as 25 February this year, the ACT government announced that it was going to leave Comcare. When that announcement happened, pretty much at the same time the Territory government also announced that it was going to conduct a six-week consultation period before deciding on the design of the new scheme—whatever it might look like. That consultation period has been open to some discussion. There are concerns about how private those conversations have been and there are concerns about why such an important discussion about a scheme that could affect so many people here in the ACT has not been held in a much more public way. Given that the consultation period ended on 8 May, just last Friday, it is really quite remarkable that we are in the week of the budget and this piece of legislation has been rushed into this place.

Pardon me: I do not usually like cynics or cynicism, but I have to say that the alarm bells are ringing at this point in time. What on earth is going on here? A secret, quiet process over six weeks, an attempt to push this through and no chance for us to have the great scrutiny of this bill that the Senate committees can undertake. Labor's first priority with regard to this bill is to ensure that we get the bill right. To do that we need to make sure that any design of any new scheme is going to provide at least the same protection. In my view, if you have an opportunity to review, you should look to ways that would enhance the protection. We can enhance the financial outcome too—they are not necessarily mutually exclusive goals—but we should be determining that this scheme will advance the cause of the people who are going to be sadly caught up in it.

The ACT government, from what I can gather, have made a commitment to work with the stakeholders. There should be sufficient time allowed to unearth any outstanding matters and have public scrutiny of the process, public consideration of what is proposed, and certainly those who have been affected may have some particularly valuable insights that they could bring to the process. In a way, one of the reasons why I am so concerned about this process is that I watched the failure of the government to consult in a public way prior to the last budget—the very first budget that they delivered—particularly with regard to the area of health. Compensation for injured workers is not exactly a health matter, but it is certainly intimately connected with the health sector. We had a government that decided it was a good idea, without consultation, without talking to the RACGP, without talking to the AMA and without talking to any of the state departments of health—they just arbitrarily decided, this week last year—that they were going to bring in a $7 GP co-payment, a GP tax.

Failure of consultation leads to really stupid policies like that, and the government have had to remove themselves from that position to a point. They still have lots and lots of issues with their health policy. They have had to change their minister and they have got to a point now where the minister says she is consulting, but all that is happening in private and it has taken a committee of the Senate to watch what is going on in the health sector publicly and put it on the record. Acting Deputy President Peris, you are well aware of the work of the committee that is doing that and why it is important to have public scrutiny and use the resources of this parliament to put on the record the evidence that experts have to offer, not just people who can get inside a little private room and make some decisions that ultimately might advantage them over others who have less power and less opportunity to have their voice heard.

It is in that context that I really want to emphasise that Labor's first priority is to ensure, with this bill in particular, that there will be no worker worse off. We also want to make sure that there is no structuring of this to provide an incentive to make workers worse off. We wanted it to go to a Senate committee for thorough investigation, but with unseemly haste the government has rushed it here into the chamber. There is something wrong with that attitude. Our story is the Australian Labor story. It is about protecting and promoting the interests of working men and women. The future of Australia, from the values that we hold, is about getting a great job—giving people the opportunity and the support they need to get a job that they can be fulfilled in, where they can go to work each day and come home safely and well. We know that it does not always turn out that way and that people will need, from time to time, assistance if they find themselves injured or so unwell that they require rehabilitation.

The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill is one of the suite of bills that I referred to in my opening remarks. It is another reason that explains why I am concerned about what is happening here tonight. That bill was introduced into the parliament in March last year. What we saw in that bill was absolutely outrageous—directly and indirectly risking the workplace health and safety of Australian workers. One of the things that was threatened in that was the right of Australian workers to have reasonable cover when they suffered the misfortune of a work related illness or injury. Labor completely opposed that bill. We continue to oppose that bill. There is great concern on this side of the chamber that, in that bill, the government has included provisions to hollow out state workers compensation schemes. Part of the process that the community should be aware of is that one of the plans, revealed in the process of looking at that legislation, intended to open up the Comcare scheme to private sector companies.

I am trying, with this abstract piece of legislation, to continue to remember, and to speak about, the people who will be affected if this legislation is wrong and if this legislation is hastily pushed through. We need to keep remembering that people are at the heart of what we do here in this place, and that the impact of this legislation on people is real. I am trying to use language that reminds us of that because we have heard from the other side technical language distancing people from the conversations of this place. Legislation has to be rich and in a particular form of words. But when those on the other side stand up and their language choices do not mention people, do not mention health consequences and do not mention safety in the workplace, and when they do not look like they are there to protect workers but to exploit them, and when their language choices are filled with words like contributions, funds, instalments, liabilities, assessments and remittances, when they are punctuated and littered with those sorts of words and there is no consideration of what those words might collectively mean in terms of impacting somebody's life, then there are more alarm bells ringing in my head. We are concerned that there are going to be large companies that will flee state schemes and that would compromise the capacity of those schemes to properly look after workers. We do not believe it would be in the interests of workers to have that happen. We do not think this legislation should proceed with such haste.

In addition to the bill that is before the house tonight, and the one that I have just mentioned, there is yet another Comcare bill—the third one in the sequence—that has just recently been introduced by the government. This is also one that should have us raising our concern and casting a close eye over what is being proposed by the government. That third bill makes cuts to lump sum compensation payable for permanent impairment for the vast majority of injured workers. Let me just say that again: it cuts lump sum compensation payments to permanently impaired people. It also attempts to remove the already modest pain and suffering payment that people so far can access. In her commentary in this place this evening, Senator Lines spoke eloquently about the reality of a period of work in which she was interacting with people who had found themselves on the wrong side of a workplace incident. These people suffered in the first instance a physical impairment that disconnected them from the experience of work, marginalised them from their community of work and impacted their health and wellbeing and family lives, and then the stress of dealing with the system that was so discriminatory towards them and so aggressive towards them meant that there was an amplification of their injury from a physical one into a mental health injury. We need to be careful about not allowing the construction of a system that will create that reality for people.

This third piece of Comcare legislation that the government is advancing does other things. It changes the eligibility requirements. That means that injured workers are locked out of the scheme altogether. It also attempts to reduce incapacity payments. It expands sanctions against workers, including the removal of medical support if a worker fails to attend a medical appointment. Where have I heard that before? These are some of the most excessive and punitive measures that we have seen this government try to implement since they came into the parliament with regard to people who find themselves unemployed.

We have seen this government almost selectively targeting those who are the most vulnerable, seeking them out, almost, when they are at their lowest point and then really kicking them while they are down. That is why this legislation is so important and deserves the proper scrutiny of a committee. There should be time given to this second part in the bill under the chamber's consideration this evening. We oppose all of the elements of that Comcare bill. We are very concerned about this Comcare bill. We oppose the elements of the first Comcare bill. There is a theme here. These guys are up to something no good. We are onto it. As the Labor Party, we will stand here and make sure that the proper scrutiny is applied, no matter how uncomfortable it is for those opposite.

What we have here is the Abbott government asking the parliament to make a determination on a matter which it has very recently introduced. It is a very substantial bill. It does, potentially, contain crucial information about future changes. Given the introduction of a third substantive Comcare bill, Labor really cannot believe that there was proper opportunity to fully investigate the current bill. These bills do not sit as separate entities. Once one gets through, there will be interactions with the other. Those interactions, those sophisticated and complex interactions, need to be given consideration as well.

I said earlier that the ACT government has not made a determination on the make-up of any new scheme. They only announced it in February. They have only just finished their consultation process. So, supporting the legislation that is before us is a foolish thing to do. It is foolish and it is dangerous, because the whole detailed process that should be part of any change is simply being overlooked. Obviously it is not reasonable or fair to suggest that people exit a particular type of arrangement that covers workers if they are injured at work and without being able with any certainty to outline what entitlements they may have in any subsequent scheme. It is simply not reasonable to ask us to support such a proposition. So inevitably we have considerable reservations about this bill.

That is not to say that we seek to usurp the rights of the ACT to make determinations about this. The ACT clearly should be making decisions for its own workforce in relation to workers compensation, including rehabilitation. But it is only reasonable that they make clear their intentions, in a detailed way, before this bill passes. And certainly a Senate inquiry would provide a space in which such reportage could happen and due consideration could be given.

I am advised that there has been considerable conversation with the ACT government. I am led to believe that the concerns that I am raising here in the chamber and that have been raised by my other colleagues who have participated in this debate have been raised with the ACT. We need them to outline their intentions. We need to explain any material changes that might be made to entitlements of those workers if they are injured. We need, in fact, a simple degree of fair scrutiny to be provided. I do not believe we have had sufficient time for that to happen at this stage, and it is certainly unduly hasty to be pushing for a resolution of this matter so promptly. The ACT government really does need to provide that information to this government and to the opposition as well so that we can ensure that there actually are no adverse consequences of this bill before the government exits the scheme.

One of the things I thought it would be worth putting on the record for people who may be listening and are interested in the process of scrutiny of these bills is that one of the very impressive things I found when I was a new senator was the introduction of a consideration of the human rights implications. Each bill has to be considered in terms of that human rights lens. Articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and articles 26 and 27 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. It reminds us, as I said at the beginning of my remarks this evening, that this is a complex piece of legislation. At its heart are outcomes for real people, and I urge a due degree— (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise tonight to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015. Unfortunately, I do not think I will get to complete my contribution, but I am really looking forward to the full 20—full bottle—on this particular piece of legislation when we next have it before us. I am chair of the committee that Senator Lines is deputy chair of. I sat in my office and listened to the tirade from Senator Lines, and I am looking forward to correcting so many of the false assumptions that she put on the Hansard, as if they were somehow fact—as if somehow because she says them they must be true. She complains that the committee did not undergo a full and transparent assessment of the submissions. The inquiry was conducted under the usual practice of the Senate. Public submissions were sought, and we got not hundreds, not thousands but four submissions—from, as we like to say in the game, 'usual suspects'. We had the ACTU, the ETU, my own state government of Victoria, and the Department of Education—so, four submissions. With the workload that the current Senate committee is under—and it is not just my own committee; this is the case right across the Senate at the moment, thanks to the Greens' inquiries and thanks to the numerous reference committee inquiries from those opposite and indeed from the scrutiny of bills process, which is referring so much of the government's legislative agenda, which it has a mandate to deliver, off to committee in a tactic to delay us delivering on election promise after election promise for the Australian people—in that deliberate tactic by those opposite to use those Senate committees, there is an enormous burden. If those opposite want to consider the workers of Australia, then they need to actually consider the committee secretariats and the workload that they are currently under. So, when we get four submissions saying what we all knew they would say—

Debate interrupted.