Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great honour to kick off 2016 with the first contribution. I am in continuation on a speech that I think I started back in May last year, so forgive me if I am a bit rusty on some of the details of this bill. I had a lovely break with the family over Christmas and, during that break, I forgot most of what was in the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015. But I swotted up on it this morning and I am ready to make a further contribution on this very important bill. It is rather an administrative and process driven bill, but nonetheless it is important because it is about ensuring, ultimately, that we have a more financially robust and sound way of ensuring people who are injured at work receive appropriate compensation. As I am sure you are aware, Mr President, the Comcare scheme is the Australian government scheme to help and rehabilitate workers who are injured, largely in Commonwealth workplaces but other agencies can be members of this scheme. Some Commonwealth agencies have their own arrangements and are not members of the Comcare scheme. The ACT previously had an arrangement where it was a member of this scheme for the purposes of its employees and was defined as a Commonwealth agency for those purposes.

The need for this bill to amend the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 has largely been brought about because the ACT has made a decision to leave this scheme, which is their right. They have previously been a member of the scheme, but they have decided that it is too costly and there are too many delays, and they are going to seek their own arrangements for their public servants and employees. It is perfectly their right to do so. This decision was announced last February; on 26 February The Canberra Times reported that the ACT government would be leaving the Comcare scheme. Because of that, the Commonwealth government has decided that it is important to ensure the continuing financial viability of the Comcare scheme, notwithstanding the ACT leaving, because many of the employees or former employees who require compensation under the scheme are or were ACT public servants. Of course, with the ACT government leaving the scheme, there will be fewer premiums going forward to fund those costs. Indeed, my understanding is that the ACT government is the fourth-largest premium payer in the Comcare scheme, so it is a sizeable contributor to the overall budget. Given the sizeable number of ACT public servants, there would also be a sizeable number of those receiving compensation through the Comcare scheme. So the ACT's leaving will leave a financial burden for Comcare, and is very important we maintain its financial viability. To do so, the government has proposed providing arrangements for an exit fee for members who seek to exit the Comcare scheme. In this case, when the ACT exits, a fee will be calculated based on the actuarial value of the future commitments for those former ACT public servants and their compensation needs, and the ACT government will pay to leave the scheme.

It is not a particularly novel approach to these arrangements. I made the point back in May that we have similar arrangements for irrigators who leave an irrigation scheme without paying or amortising the full cost of the network. When they leave, they have to pay an exit fee so that the rest of the irrigators are not left with those costs. The same arrangements will apply here. The ACT government will be asked to pay a fee so that all the other Commonwealth agencies are not asked to pick up the bill for ACT government employees.

It is also something that exists in other parts of the country. While this is the first time we will establish such an arrangement for Commonwealth workplace compensation, my understanding is that workplace compensation arrangements in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia all allow for an exit fee to be charged to agencies or organisations that leave their schemes. Those arrangements are similar to what we are proposing. It is a perfectly sensible approach to this particular issue that has arisen as a result of the ACT decision. While it is the first time we will set up an ongoing, committed and generic arrangement for exit fees, the Commonwealth parliament established similar arrangements when Medibank Private was privatised and it left the Comcare scheme. A fee was calculated for it, and special legislation was agreed to by the Australian parliament at the time to establish the authority to levy that fee. What we are doing here is simply repeating that approach, but we are not doing something specific for the ACT government. Instead, we are setting up a process which would apply if, in the future, any payer that is currently a Comcare premium payer decided to leave the Comcare scheme.

The Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, chaired by my colleague Senator McKenzie, has looked at this issue as well. It recommended we should pass this particular scheme. It noted in its report that the current Comcare scheme is actually not fully financially funded. It is not fully funded right now because, over time, premiums in the past were not set based on actuarial values. Premiums paid into the scheme did not fully cover the costs of workplace injuries. However, there has been a slight improvement over the past year. I believe it had 68 per cent of funds available for what was measured as the actuarial funds needed. Around 68 per cent were covered. I believe that has gone up above 70 per cent in the past year, but there is still a sizeable unfunded gap there. Given that gap, we cannot afford to have that gap grow by not appropriately levying the ACT government for the ongoing costs imposed on the Comcare scheme by leaving and, of course, no longer paying premiums for its workplace employees who have been injured.

As I said, the Senate committee in its majority report recommended the bill be passed. However, I note that Labor senators on that committee did not quite agree. I do not believe they made a recommendation, but in their report Labor senators urged the government to request that the ACT government provide written assurances to ensure its workers would not be worse off. What that was going to was that the ACTU made a submission to the inquiry, saying that the new ACT workplace compensation scheme that could be established may not fully compensate workers for their injuries to the same level that the Comcare scheme does. As the government said in response to that, it is a matter for the ACT government. It is not a matter for the Commonwealth government. The Comcare scheme was not established to take care of ACT government employees. It was set up to allow the ACT government to have access to a well-funded and liquid pool of workplace insurance to meet its required needs—needs that it would establish. It is not our job to establish those needs; it is up to the ACT government. It is not the Commonwealth government's responsibility to decide how the ACT wants to deal with and fund workplace injuries in its own workplaces. We had this option available as a product. The ACT government has decided not to buy our product going forward. That is their right, but it is not our job to try to second guess what they want to do over the other side of the lake in their legislative assembly.

What was also a little bit unusual and perplexing about the Labor senators' recommendation that we request the ACT government to provide such assurances is that, as I said earlier, the ACT government made this decision and it was announced on 26 February last year. As many senators would be aware, the ACT Chief Minister at that time was Katy Gallagher, who is now a Labor senator in this place. Labor senators are saying that the decision made by that ACT government in February last year was insufficient and denied workers their proper rights. Well, instead of asking the ACT government, could they not just ask their colleague Senator Gallagher? That would be a suggestion for the Labor Party if they have concerns about this.

If they have concerns about the decision that the ACT government made last February, surely they could ask the former chief minister, who made that decision and signed off on that decision last February. They signed off on that decision last February. It was a decision made by Ms Katy Gallagher. I make no particular complaint about that decision. I do not know the specifics of what the ACT government had to consider when they decided to leave the Comcare scheme, but they made a considered decision to do so. Ms Katy Gallagher is now Senator Gallagher, senator for the ACT, and surely if they want an explanation about the decision making of the ACT government they could go to their own senator.

What this indicates to me is not that the Labor Party have some principled objection to the arrangements that are being put in place here—which, as I said, are rather technical and are replicated over the rest of the country, but that the Labor Party simply want to oppose everything that is put up by this government. They do not want to do anything that may be constructive and forward moving for our country, as limited as this particular issue is. They are simply on the lookout for particular political differences that they can abuse and take advantage of for political purposes, not for national interest purposes. That to me needs to be called out. Why are they really opposing this bill? Is it because the ACTU have said to do so and they have made a submission against it? Is it because some of them see Senator Gallagher as a threat to their future positions? She has just been promoted recently. Is that the reason? Why are they opposing this? A territory government of their own political colour has decided to do this, and they are still opposing it. This is a legislative amendment being proposed as a consequence of that ACT decision, but it is being proposed by a Liberal-National government and not by a Labor government. That is why they are opposing this.

I know the federal Labor Party seem to like to pick fights with state and territory governments at the moment. They are warring with at least one state Labor government at the moment, South Australia, about their confused position on how to fund policies. At the moment it is World War III between South Australia and the federal Labor Party over the GST. But you would think they could at least get their story straight on something as administrative as workplace compensation arrangements. But they cannot even do that. They will oppose everything we put up.

I think later this afternoon or this evening we will debate in this chamber a motion about how the Liberal-National party coalition have not changed. We have not changed, because we are continuing to provide good government and are continuing to make decisions like this in the interests of the nation. But the Labor Party also have not changed. A new year may have ticked over, but it is the same Labor Party opposing everything we put up. It is the same Labor Party simply wanting to make political points and not wanting to deal with issues overall in the national interest. They just oppose everything that the coalition government does. They are good at negativity, but they are not good on policy, and that is what their approach is here today.

Maybe I am being too pessimistic, Mr President. Perhaps I should be less cynical in my first contribution here today in this chamber. Maybe I should be more positive. I did say that I would turn over a new leaf on a few things. So maybe I should give the Labor Party a bit more of a fair go. Perhaps the next speaker on this bill will get up and say that over the break the Labor Party have reconsidered, they have turned over a new leaf, they have made a new year's resolution not to simply oppose everything, and they will come out and support this bill because it is pretty simple, it is technical and administrative and it happens in other states. Perhaps they will get behind the government and support this bill. Perhaps that is what they will do.

It is a new year and it is a new opportunity. Hopefully they have made some new year's resolutions, like the rest of us, and perhaps that is what they will do. If they do, I will have to come into this place and eat humble pie and I will have to say, 'The Labor Party have turned over a new leaf and they are going to support this.' Perhaps their next step will be to support more transparency and oversight of trade unions that have shown themselves to be completely worried about their own back pockets and not their workers' interests. Hopefully their next step will be that they join us in making sure that we reform those arrangements.

Maybe their next step will be to actually join us in how to fix our budget situation, which is still far too negative. We need to do more on that front, but the Labor Party have produced no suggestions to help fund budget repair over the longer term. Perhaps they will join us in a proper tax reform debate, rather than going around and eating lettuce and annoying mums and dads in supermarkets and running a ridiculous scare campaign. Perhaps they will do that as well but, I am sorry, Mr President, despite it being a new year, I am not that hopeful that the Labor Party will be dragged that far. But let us just hold our breath and hope that they will reconsider and join the coalition government here, the Liberal Party, the National Party, many of the crossbenchers and at times the Greens and actually help us to get something done for this country and move this place forward.

As I said, this issue in front of the government is not a nation-changing issue. This is not going to be a watershed moment for our Commonwealth. But it is small example of how an inflexible negative approach stops us from making the little decisions that add up to making this a better place and enabling better government and better governance for our whole nation. So I implore the Labor Party and other senators to look at the detail of this bill. It is a sensible bill. It builds on what is already a good scheme in Comcare. It uses other states as examples of what should be done in this scheme. It will help make sure that we have a sound financial footing for what is a very important scheme and it will help ensure that we can continue to pay those unfortunate workers who are injured while at work for the Commonwealth.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just at the outset I note that Senator Canavan would not be a true Nat if he was not always in the doldrums. Nothing much has changed in relation to this bill over the Christmas break. He may have wished them all Christmas cheer, but this bill does not bring workers any cheer. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, which provides for the rehabilitation and compensation of injured employees of the Commonwealth, its agencies and statutory authorities and of eligible corporations. What this government has not owned up to is that it has brought this bill in by itself. This bill is really one part of three; it is a trio of bills through which this government is seeking to implement changes to Comcare and which will, when put together, significantly and adversely impact workers in this country. This particular piece of legislation concerns the exit arrangements for a declared Commonwealth authority which decides to exit the scheme. The Australian Capital Territory announced back in February last year its intention to leave the Commonwealth scheme and design its own scheme after a six-week consultation process.

The problem with debating this bill in isolation is that we are not privy to the two other bills that the government has been trying to bring through this parliament. They sought to claim that they are not interrelated and to claim that they are not part of a trio of changes which will negatively impact workers under this scheme. What Labor continues to be concerned about is that this government should own up to this. They should declare that it is one of three bills; they should deal with them concurrently; they should deal with them appropriately. But I do not think they are game to do that. They want to be able to introduce this as a noncontroversial piece of legislation and then to persuade the Senate that we should adopt this one—it is not a trouble—and let it pass, but the true aim of the coalition is to gut Comcare and to adversely affect workers compensation schemes. They want to do—or try to do—what they did in Queensland many years ago, and that was to move to self-insurance; that is, they want to put it into the market so that workers' rights would no longer be covered by schemes that would give them a fairness opportunity and protect their legitimate compensation rights. That happened in Queensland: a previous coalition or Liberal-National government allowed self-insurance to occur, but around 21 large companies, including the Brisbane City Council, opted out of the scheme. That meant that the pool of white-collar workers significantly decreased and the remainder were left with high premiums. Further, they were left with some challenging industries that needed to improve their workers compensation and the safety outcome for workers.

Those with lower premiums exit the scheme and that makes the remainder even less viable. The whole idea in Queensland was to junk the state scheme, and in this case the Commonwealth scheme, and allow the private market to flourish. It all sounds laissez-faire, but it means Commonwealth workers lose out. They end up in poor and overly watched schemes; they end up with compensation payments that are not related to their income and so they lose out. Underpinning all of this is the coalition's intention to head towards what the Queensland government tried to achieve back then. Thankfully, that was reversed by an incoming Labor government, which implemented a much stronger state based scheme—a scheme which looked after workers' interests but which adopted a carrot-and-stick approach to ensure that employers were rewarded with lower premiums if they looked after the safety of their employees. However, a number of self-insured entities remain in Queensland. I do not think the coalition have a stronger scheme as their root cause or their root desire here. What they ultimately want to do is put it out into the field to the detriment of workers more broadly.

The impact of these bills would be to reduce the premium pools in state workers compensation schemes. Labor's priority is, however, to ensure that workers are looked after and their rights and entitlements are maintained. If a worker is injured on the job, they must be properly compensated; they and their families must be able continue as before during this difficult period. Labor remains concerned that, with the introduction of this legislation, the government does not have the workers' best interests at heart; it is also concerned that there has been a lack of consultation.

This government has not come clean with its aim by serving up the three bills, by claiming them to be unrelated and by arguing them one at a time. It smacks of a concerted effort to drive workers compensation down into the hands of self-insurers. The government has said that these changes to the Comcare scheme are designed to make the scheme more sustainable over time. That seems to mean cutting money out of schemes, which would mean a worse outcome for employees. I do not think you can look at it any other way. The government certainly have not claimed there is going to be any significant administrative saving that they can pass on. These bills, if passed, will see cuts to lump-sum compensation payable for permanent impairment for the vast majority of injured workers and they will remove the already modest pain-and-suffering payment. These bills will also mean changes to eligibility requirements, where injured workers may be locked out of schemes altogether. There will be a reduction in incapacity payments and an expansion of sanctions against workers, including: the removal of medical support if a worker fails to attend a medical appointment and harsh job search requirements for injured workers if they say they have no suitable employment, in which case they will need to find a job with a new employer or take up self-employment. There will be a new, punishing approach to workers with psychiatric injuries. Employers will have the right to impose health related and work capacity decisions. Workers will have no independent right of review when an employer orders them back to work. That is the direction that this government wants to take, with this bill being the first of the related bills. I think they should be highlighted for the path and direction they are pursuing.

In dealing more broadly with this bill, I think that Labor senators in the Education and Employment Legislation Committee made some very apposite remarks in their additional comments. Whilst Labor senators support legislation to 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, the real heart of this issue is that we must ensure that no workers will be worse off under this legislation and that the passage of this bill will not provide an incentive for employers to disadvantage workers. Ultimately, the majority report did not address this in any significant way.

We have dealt with this bill as a bureaucratic piece of legislation which will allow the ACT to exit the Comcare scheme, but ultimately we have not dealt with it as an instrument of how workers will be worse off if it is passed. Ultimately, the aim of this coalition government is to pass the costs of workers' compensation not onto employers but back onto employees themselves. We note, as outlined in senators' additional comments, that the reason for referring this bill to the committee was to ensure a thorough investigation of the bill and to allow sufficient time to consider the bill. However, since this bill was referred to the committee, the government introduced what I referred to earlier as the third substantive bill relating to Comcare. Given we do not have that bill before us, I think it means ultimately that there is nothing stopping the government, now that those bills have been introduced, from bringing them all together, laying out this strategy and telling us in no uncertain words what their intentions are. When you look at the related bills, it seems to be crystal clear that the legislation is all about attacking workers' rights. Labor senators remain unconvinced by the Department of Employment submission that the passage of this bill would not result in a reduced premium pool in state workers' compensation schemes, about which concerns were raised by the ETU and the Victorian government.

If you were going to improve the outcomes for Comcare workers and broadly allow for exits out of the Comcare scheme into state based schemes, you would not do it this way, by simply allowing the ACT government to exit the scheme, reducing the premium pool, and allowing others in state systems to exit Comcare and jump into less onerous state schemes. You would deal with states and territories more holistically to ensure that workers did not lose significant benefits on the way through. I do not think this government has any intention of doing that. When you look at the range of parts to the bills that are not before us, the picture becomes a lot clearer. This is simply the first tranche in that direction that this government is pursuing. When you look at the proposals that have been put forward—that employees who have been injured would not be allowed to choose their own doctor under Comcare, that approval of doctors and amounts payable would be set by regulation, and that it is Comcare that would determine what is and is not considered reasonable treatment, not an employee's treating doctor—you then get a flavour of the direction in which this government wants to take Comcare. To suggest that any person other than the treating doctor should determine the necessary treatment for an injured worker is quite frankly beyond belief. The bill also proposes severe cuts to incapacity payments for all workers. This would be particularly detrimental and would have the toughest impact on those employees with injuries which take longer to resolve or those who are permanently and significantly disabled. You can see that this is simply an attack on workers' entitlements to workers' compensation.

The government has sought the support of Labor and the crossbench for this legislation. I would urge the crossbench to reject this bill as part of a trilogy of bills through which this government is seeking to cut compensation outcomes for workers. Our first priority should be to ensure that workers will not be worse off under the proposed federal government bill. There is no such clear guarantee coming from this government on that point. We have heard speakers talk about this bill but not give a guarantee that workers will not be made worse off as a consequence of its introduction. It is within the minister's power, in her summing up speech on the second reading, to state that it is not the intention to rip money out of workers' pockets, to short-change them on compensation payments, to make it difficult or impossible to achieve a reasonable workers' compensation outcome. It is important that this government does not make adverse changes to the Comcare scheme, because those proposed changes would directly and indirectly risk the workplace health and safety of Australian workers.

In the first Comcare bill that the government introduced it sought to hollow out state schemes by opening up the Comcare scheme to private sector companies by applying a very liberal definition of what a national employer is. The reduced premiums pools in state workers compensation schemes would mean increasing premiums for remaining businesses in those schemes and would add significant pressure on workers' entitlements. This bill, if constructed incorrectly, may provide leverage for the federal government to force entities to stay in the Comcare scheme, which the now Turnbull government is going to try and make further adverse changes to. We know that the government has more bills to come. It has at least made its plan more transparent than it was when this bill was first introduced. I think the time is now right for this government to lay out its entire plan of how it is going to address Comcare from go to whoa and what its intentions are, because we can only now glean it from the trilogy of bills it seeks to have passed in this parliament. This government should make plain what its intentions are in relation to workers compensation, particularly Comcare itself, when you look at its intentions more broadly. But I do not think they will. I think they will continue to say, 'This is one single bill. This is about allowing the ACT to exit the Comcare scheme and nothing more.' I do not think that is a reasonable answer to this.

When you look at self-insurance issues, these bills will widen the pool of employers' eligibility for self-insurance. It will enable an employer with employees in more than one state to apply for a self-insurance licence, which exempts them from paying premiums in those states where it is currently registered, and will allow an employer to be responsible for managing its own workers compensation claims. This occurred in Queensland in the nineties. It was unsuccessful and it did not last. It did have a significant adverse impact on the existing workers compensation scheme in that state. I think it would have ultimately driven it into oblivion. I think that is the underlying direction that this government wants to take—to drive workers compensation into self-insurance markets, drive it away from properly funded compensation schemes for employees and put it in the employers' hands so that they can drive premiums down. They can do that by driving outcomes for workers down by making it harder and harder for employees to be fairly compensated for when unfortunate injuries do occur in the workplace. Ultimately it will do nothing to improve and incentivise employers to provide good safety outcomes for their employees in the first instance, because, of course, the best way to avoid an injury is to have a safe place of work in the first place and not have to ultimately pay workers compensation.

But I think the employers who have the ear of this government want the best of both worlds. They want the ability to not spend their money on ensuring a safe place of work and then not spend their money on premiums to assist workers should they be injured as a consequence of their own inactions or neglect. Of course, the most concerning aspects of these bills is the absence of a robust regulatory framework for managing self-insurers. What this government would do, if it was serious about dealing with this in a broad way, would be to also implement a regulatory framework for managing self-insurers. It would not be a trilogy of bills. There would be four bills to deal with this.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I indicate at the outset that I will be supporting the second reading stage of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015. But I do reserve my position in respect of the third reading stage because there are a number of legitimate questions that need to be asked and ventilated in the committee stages. That is what the role of the Senate is on an important piece of legislation such as this. I want to thank the minister and her office for their assistance today, and I also thank the opposition. I met with the shadow minister, Brendan O'Connor, early today and spoke to his office about that. I do have a number of unanswered questions about the position of both the government and the opposition in respect of this.

I think it is interesting to note that in the additional comments to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee's report on this bill from a number of months ago Labor senators expressed some reservations about the bill rather than outright opposition. I accept and respect that the opposition has since changed its position, as they are entitled to, to oppose the bill. But I want to take issue with one thing that Senator Ludwig said. It is not a criticism, but it is an issue—he is coming back into the chamber.

Senator Ludwig interjecting—

I would not be too worried, Senator Ludwig. Senator Ludwig says that this bill will allow for a reduction in the benefits of injured workers. The only thing that will allow for the reduction of the benefits of injured workers will be if the ACT government imposes a scheme that will reduce the benefits for injured workers compared to the Commonwealth scheme. I suppose one argument is that, in respect of the Comcare scheme, it allows an exit to something that is unknown, so I will accept that. But ultimately it is up to the ACT government as to whether they want to take a draconian approach in respect of this.

I do want to disclose that I am still, for my sins, proprietor of a very small law firm that practices in the field of workers compensation law in South Australia. My understanding is that we do very little Comcare work. I was, in my previous prepolitical life, president of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association in South Australia, as it then was, when we campaigned very hard against the then Olsen Liberal government's changes to workers compensation laws. I remember that Graham Ingerson, who I regard as a friend of mine and who was then Deputy Premier, asked me about my time as a member of the Communist Party at university. I had to tell him gently that, in fact, I was a member of the Liberal club, when he accused me of being a Marxist for opposing the legislation.

I can say this: whatever the then Brown and Olsen Liberal governments proposed in workers compensation changes was very mild in comparison to what a state Labor government ended up doing years later. From 1 July 2015, the Weatherill government has introduced draconian changes to workers' rights—much more sweeping and much more draconian than anything a Liberal government proposed. It has taken away workers' rights substantially, and it seems that some unions—including the peak body, SA Unions—rolled over in relation to those changes, which I will refer to briefly.

The framework established by this bill will allow Comcare to determine and collect exit contributions from former Commonwealth authorities. Senator Cash has characterised this—and I think it is not unfair to characterise it—as a procedural bill, a process bill, because, if an entity such as the ACT government wants to exit the scheme, it can do so but there will be some ambiguities or some uncertainty in respect of the transitional provisions. I guess the question I want to ask in respect of the committee stage is: will the absence of this bill make it impossible for the ACT government to exit this scheme? In other words, whilst I accept in good faith that the minister says that this is a process bill, if this bill is not passed, will it effectively mean that the ACT government cannot proceed with its plans to exit the scheme, or will it simply mean that it can exit the scheme but there will be a lot of uncertainty for workers? I think that is something that needs to be dealt with in the fullness and thoroughness of a committee stage.

I understand that the government say that they want an existing employer not to be able to leave the scheme without contributing an appropriate amount to cover any current or prospective liabilities, and I think that is one thing that needs to be taken into account. The bill also seeks to ensure that any employees injured before their employer exits the Comcare scheme continue to be supported by an appropriate rehabilitation authority. The question that I will ask in the context of a committee stage is: what will that mean to injured workers? Will they still be subject to existing Comcare legislation for those injured before that date, and what will happen if there is an aggravation? This is a technical question: if somebody has a primary injury and then they are injured subsequently in the course of any new scheme, how is there an interplay between Comcare and any new scheme in respect of that? This is something that is coming to mind now—I just want to make that clear to the minister. It is not a trick question. I genuinely want to get to the bottom of this.

In essence, this bill provides a pathway for agencies to leave the Comcare scheme while requiring them to honour their obligations to injured workers. That, I think, characterises the government's position. The opposition is saying, 'Don't support this, because it will lead to a reduction in workers' benefits.' But if they can, under the current legislative framework, exit the scheme and you cannot stop them from exiting the scheme, are we at least providing more certainty? That, to me, is the nub of one of the issues.

The impetus for this bill is the ACT government's announcement that it wishes to leave the Comcare scheme. I understand the ACT government can do this whenever it likes and that it does not need permission or approval from the Commonwealth government to do so. But whether facilitating this bill would make the difference as to whether this goes ahead or not is one of the issues that I think need to be explored in the committee stage. There is currently missing from the ACT government's exit pathway a requirement that it honour its existing obligations to injured workers, and that, I understand, is the government's motivation for this bill: it is attempting to close this loophole.

But, in the bigger picture, the Comcare scheme covers employees working for Commonwealth government agencies and statutory authorities—excluding members of the Australian Defence Force—as well as the ACT government and agencies and corporations who have been granted a licence to self-insure, provided the date of the injury was after the date of the licence. I just want to understand—and this was raised by the Senate committee's report—the effect that the bill may have on workers and their entitlements. I think that is a legitimate question. There is also an issue as to the breadth of this scheme: what other agencies or authorities can avail themselves of this bill? In other words, will it make it easier for other agencies or authorities to exit the bill? The point that Senator Ludwig made is: will that affect the viability of Comcare in itself? Will it mean a shrinking pool of revenue? Has any advice been provided by Comcare to the government about its viability with a smaller premium pool, if you like, with these proposed legislative changes?

I just want to reflect briefly on the fact that Comcare is far from perfect. Comcare was established in order to support workers who have suffered a workplace injury or illness. It is there to help employees recover and, where appropriate, return to work. That is what all workers compensation schemes should be doing, and it carries with it a very heavy responsibility.

When I think of Comcare, there is one case that always comes to mind—and I can refer to this because I introduced a bill to this effect—and it relates to my constituent Barry Crush. In 1988, Mr Crush was the master and chief engineer of the lighthouse supply vessel MV Candela. During a supply run, the ship was caught in a gale with 35-foot waves and 70-kilometre-per-hour winds. Rushing to secure equipment on deck that could otherwise shift or possibly capsize the ship, Barry fell 10 metres onto the deck. He broke his back, his ankle and his knee and suffered massive soft tissue damage. He was forced to stay on the ship while the gale raged for another three days, and what occurred when he finally got to shore was nothing short of disgraceful. He was treated appallingly by Comcare. They lost his files. They ignored him. The man had to live in the most appalling conditions until his claim was resolved many years later.

I must pay tribute to the former head of Comcare Paul O'Connor, who made a specific trip to Adelaide to go to my office and personally meet Mr Crush and apologise for Comcare getting it so absolutely wrong. There was subsequently a mediation settled on confidential terms, where I believe there was a satisfactory resolution of Mr Crush's claim on a fair basis for all parties involved. But that was a case where Comcare got it absolutely wrong and where an ombudsman's report was very critical of Comcare. Legislation that I put up to try to remedy that, whilst it was not passed, did ventilate the issue, and the eventual apology from Comcare meant a lot to Mr Crush and the matter was resolved. It shows you that Comcare can get it wrong, as can other workers compensation agencies, but Comcare did demonstrate that it was capable of owning up to its mistakes and making amends for them.

The ACT government wants to get out of the Comcare scheme, and it has cited long processing delays, high premiums and ineffective rehabilitation services as the reasons for which it wishes to leave Comcare. On the one hand, there is the Electrical Trades Union supporting that exit from Comcare, saying that the ACT should get out of the Comcare scheme. On the other hand, there is the ACTU saying, 'Not so fast! We want to know what scheme workers will be left with.' If it is simply a matter of process—and this is something that I think the committee stage ought to look at—and this is an inevitable move that the ACT government will go ahead with, then it is appropriate to have some process measures in place. I wonder, though, whether the scope of this going beyond the ACT government is appropriate at this stage. That is something that needs to be dealt with in the committee stage.

A March 2015 Canberra Times article gave figures released by the ACT government which showed that, of the 531 current territory claims, only 45 were less than a year old—in fact, more than 200 of the claims dated back more than a decade. So you really wonder whether Comcare had fulfilled its role in terms of workers rehabilitation and getting people back to work. What concerns me is the absence of any comprehensive details of a replacement scheme that injured ACT government workers will be subject to once their employer leaves Comcare. The contrary argument is: 'If they can leave Comcare anyway, there is not much you can do about it.' But I would prefer that the ACT government provide details of how that scheme will work. The March 2015 Canberra Times article referred to the ACT's Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations, Mick Gentleman, who revealed that there would be no compensation payable for pain and suffering under the new scheme. That concerns me, but, if there is a statutory scheme for lump sum payments for permanent disability, that may ameliorate those concerns. We do not know what they are planning, and that is something that needs to be taken into account.

I want to reflect very briefly on how bad things are in South Australia. It was a Labor government that slashed benefits effective from 1 July 2015. WorkCover SA has been transformed to ReturnToWorkSA, but it could well be rebadged as 'ReturnToOblivionSA', because what has happened in that state, my home state, is that many injured workers will find themselves cut off from benefits, facing the loss of their homes and in extremely difficult situations because a Labor government in that state changed the law in a draconian way. It will be a disaster for injured workers. For instance—and it concerns me that the ACT government may go down this path—it changed the criteria for assessing workplace injuries. Under the Return to Work Act in South Australia, an injured worker's payments will cease after two years from the date the incapacity occurred, unless the injury is a 30 per cent whole-of-body impairment. Examples of a whole-of-body impairment would include a severe brain injury, multiple spinal fractures and, for instance, severe injuries to both shoulders together with carpal tunnel syndrome of both hands so that you cannot effectively use your hands and your arms. Short of that, one or two spinal fractures will not do it. You will lose your benefits, even though you will never be able to go back to your work if you were in a manual job. If you have a so-called mild brain injury which means that you cannot perform cognitively as you could before, and it is a requirement of your job to have even a moderate or high level of cognitive functioning, you will be pretty well gone in terms of benefits. What concerns me is that, if the ACT government adopts the South Australian legislation, it might involve a slight reduction in premiums but it will involve a massive reduction in the benefits for genuinely and seriously injured workers.

I understand the government's argument that we cannot stop this from happening, but I do think there are some legitimate questions to ask about the scope of this legislation, how it will work, what safeguards are in place and whether other government authorities and agencies can avail themselves of this facilitative legislation. That is where I am at. It is an issue I have a particular interest in, given my previous life working as a workers compensation lawyer. I do want to engage constructively with the government and my colleagues in the opposition in relation to this. I think it is worth supporting this bill at the second reading stage, but there are some reasonable and legitimate questions that need to be asked in the committee stage before a final decision is made.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have only been in the chamber for a short period of time while the contributions have been made on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015. I have had the opportunity to listen to Senator Ludwig's contribution and the contribution of Senator Xenophon. I have to say that there was an extraordinary contrast in the approaches of these two senators to this bill.

Senator Xenophon is taking a very sensible approach. Obviously, he is seeking more information about what the detail of this bill is and the consequences on the people that would be affected by this bill—most particularly and most importantly those people who are currently injured and off work and who are requiring the assistance of an insurer to get them back to work, hopefully, but in some instances to look after them because their injuries are such that they may not be able to return to the work that they had previously done. He has offered to engage in a constructive debate to try to reach an outcome that is in the best interests of these particular people. He also acknowledges that, in a situation where the federal government may not have the capacity or ability to have control over what a government such as the ACT government might do in this space, the Commonwealth has an obligation to make sure that we make the best of the situation so that, once again, the people who are impacted by this action are the ones that we seek to protect.

Contrasting with that was the contribution that I heard from Senator Ludwig, where he seems to have either purposely or through ignorance—I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he has probably not done this purposely—tried to confuse what has been proposed in this bill with other bills that may be proposed to be put before this place. At the moment before the Senate—I will start again—is the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015. This bill is a process bill. It is not a substantive bill; it does not deal with arrangements specifically about compensation. It is a process bill—and I will say this quite clearly—that has no capacity to have any adverse effect on employees' entitlements to compensation. I think that is absolutely the key to this.

The fact that Senator Ludwig would come in here and state in the chamber that there is any capacity whatsoever for the passage of this bill to be likely to have a detrimental impact on the entitlements and the benefits that are currently being received by employees I think does a disservice to him and to this place because all this serves to do is to create uncertainty, fear and concern in the minds of the people who are impacted by this, when there is no need for that to happen.

I take my role as a senator very seriously in that I am here representing the people of Australia—and in this instance I am here to represent the interests of the people who, potentially, would be impacted on if the ACT chooses to follow through with its decision of February last year to exit this particular scheme—who are currently being compensated under that particular scheme, ensuring that their rights and entitlements are protected into the future. So it is not my job to use scaremongering tactics for political purposes, to make the lives of those people even more miserable than they currently are. As you would well know, Madam Acting Deputy President, to be injured in any situation—workplace or otherwise—is a very debilitating thing to have happen, and these people need all the support that we can give them. Carrying on with this kind of scaremongering activity that we saw from Senator Ludwig earlier on I think is very sad, and it would be very sad that he could use these people for political gain.

The reality is that this bill actually protects the rights of those employees. I really hope that it is possible, when we get into the committee stage of this bill, that Senator Ludwig comes into this place and properly clarifies to some extent what he was actually up to in his comments earlier on this morning so that he can put the minds of those people who are impacted at the moment by the requirement for compensation for a workplace injury in the ACT to rest. Let us be really clear: this bill is set to amend the compensation act of 1998—the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998, or the SRC Act, as it is known—to provide financial and other arrangements when a Commonwealth authority which is a premium payer exits the Comcare workers compensation scheme.

We saw in February 2015 that the ACT government announced that it intended to leave the Comcare scheme to establish its own workers compensation arrangements. It is interesting: if my memory serves me correctly I would suggest that Senator Katy Gallagher would still have been the Chief Minister of the ACT at the time. As Senator Xenophon rightly points out, sometimes you have to be a little bit careful about what you wish for in this space. Often you may think that a scheme is not particularly good, but the downside of trying to set up a scheme for yourself—as we found out in South Australia—needs to be taken into account. The one thing that needs to be very clear in this is that in a situation like we have seen in South Australia, under the workers compensation scheme that we have there, is that we need to make sure that the injured workers are not the ones who are disadvantaged because of mismanagement, bad management or inefficient management of a scheme. We take that as a given.

But the reality of the bill that we have before us at the moment is that it actually does not delve into those sorts of details. What it actually serves to do is just to make sure that anybody who is currently covered under the ACT scheme in this specific instance—or, for that matter, any other scheme—is not disadvantaged if that particular Commonwealth entity decides that it is going to exit this particular scheme.

The purpose of the bill is quite specifically to close that legislative gap. It would ensure that when the ACT—or, for that matter, any other employer—leaves the scheme that they pay a contribution to cover their liabilities as they currently exist so that the Commonwealth is not left to pick up the tab. As you would know, quite rightly, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds—coming from an economic background—when the Commonwealth is left to pick up the tab that means that the taxpayers of Australia are left to pick up the tab. We need to make sure that in every message we send from this place people understand that if we continually keep putting an expense on this government all we are doing is making sure that those people who currently pay the taxation in this country are being asked to pick up an ever-increasing burden because of these actions. It is our responsibility as federal legislators to make sure that we do what we can to minimise the impact on the taxpayers of Australia, who are our responsibility.

Currently, the act does not include any arrangements to enable an employer who leaves the scheme to be responsible for their liabilities after exit. What we are saying is that the ACT government is more than welcome to leave the scheme; the reality is that there is probably very little that we can do about it as a Commonwealth government—and you could possibly even question whether we should be doing anything about it as a federal government. But if they choose to leave the scheme they cannot just automatically pass the liability that they currently hold onto the new entity. So all this bill serves to do is to say to the ACT government, 'You need to be responsible for your existing liability.' If they want to transfer out of the scheme, obviously, they pick up their new liability when they start with their new scheme, but it is not for the taxpayers of the whole of Australia to pick up the tab for what currently exists and is currently a liability of the ACT.

As I said—and I think this is the most important thing—this bill does not impact on employees' benefits. I cannot say that often enough and I cannot stress that highly enough. The reality is that the content of this bill more broadly is not new. This has occurred in other jurisdictions around Australia before, so there is nothing new in this.

Specifically, the amendments to this bill will enable Comcare to calculate the liabilities of an existing employer—in this case the ACT—and issue them with a levy to ensure that the liabilities are covered once the employer leaves the scheme. This will ensure that the Commonwealth is not left picking up the tab. Contributions will be determined on a cost recovery basis, so it will not allow the Commonwealth to recover anything more than the debt that is currently owed. There is no capacity whatsoever for any gouging or anything to occur in this space; the Commonwealth will merely have a mechanism by which an existing liability that does not reside with us does not end up residing with us. It remains residing where it currently exists. This is sensible management on the part of the government.

It also ensures that employees who are injured before their employer leaves the scheme will continue to receive compensation from Comcare on the same terms as well as ongoing support for their rehabilitation and, hopefully, their return to work.

Obviously, on the basis of the information that is contained within this bill—for those who have had the opportunity to go through the detail of this bill—it is quite clear that this bill is a process bill, is responsible because it is ensuring liability rests where liability should rest and at no time and in no way threatens the benefits of employees. I think we need to be very clear in debating this particular bill that we understand what the bill actually does and that we do not confuse the debate by suggesting that we are actually in here talking about issues that relate to the entitlements, benefits or, most importantly, ongoing rehabilitation of employees and their capacity to go back to work. They are very important issues and at times will obviously be the subject of other pieces of legislation that come through this place, but to confuse this particular bill with something as important as that and to use it for political purposes are horrendous things for us to be doing.

Right now the SRC Act does not set out what happens if the ACT or any other Commonwealth employer leaves the scheme. The legislation does not currently require an employer to contribute towards its liabilities for claims when it leaves Comcare. As a result, there could be insufficient funds to cover claims made by employees of that employer after they have left the scheme. As I said before, it effectively leaves the responsibility or the liability at the foot of the taxpayer. This bill seeks to do nothing more than change that.

It says to any Commonwealth entity that is currently in the scheme, 'If you leave the scheme, you must accept your liabilities and your responsibilities as they currently exist.' If the bill is not passed then the Commonwealth will be left with the ACT's liabilities for its workers. Whilst at no time is there any suggestion whatsoever that those workers and the entitlements and benefits that those workers are entitled to are under question, we accept the fact that they will have to be, effectively, accepted by an entity. This bill responsibly says that that entity needs to remain the liability of the ACT and not be a burden on the taxpayers of Australia.

The reality is that the federal government does not have the power to prevent the ACT from leaving Comcare even though the ACT government made the announcement back on 25 February 2015. My understanding is that they actually have not taken the necessary actions to exit. Before they go rushing off down there, maybe they might like to think a little about some of the experiences of other jurisdictions when they have chosen to leave the scheme. But it will be very interesting to have a look at the contribution made by the Labor senator for the ACT, Katy Gallagher, to this given her very intimate involvement in the decision by the ACT government to go down this path in the first place.

Obviously it is quite clear that I believe it is very important that we see this bill passed. As I said, it is administrative. It is process. There is nothing about this bill that even needs to get anybody remotely exercised or concerned about it. It is just good government on behalf of the current government. We are seeking to make sure that we protect the interests of the people that we represent. At the same time, we are making sure that we protect the interests of those people who are affected directly by the actions of the ACT in saying that they are choosing to leave this particular scheme.

I commend the bill to this place but I most particularly commend the bill to those opposite, that they actually take a little bit of a step back and have a think about the consequences of allowing this bill to go through and most particularly about the consequences for the people who currently require the compensation and benefits that exist under this particular scheme. Think about the implications of scaremongering about this particular piece of legislation. Have a think about the impact on their state of health, their state of mind and their families, because they do not have, as we have in this place, the benefit of a number of people who assist us in interpreting legislation and making sure that we understand clearly the intent of the legislation and the consequences of the legislation if it is passed or not passed. All these people will see is possibly a headline in the paper: 'Federal government legislation'—or bill—'has the potential to reduce benefits to injured workers in the ACT.' That is an irresponsible thing to be saying in this place and a completely irresponsible thing to be saying anywhere.

So I would call on those opposite when they get up to make a contribution, when they ask questions or when they debate bills such as this that they restrict their debate to facts of the matter and make sure that they very clearly understand the consequences of anything they say not only for people in our community that are not as well equipped as we are to get the information about these things but also for people who are in a vulnerable state because they have suffered a workplace injury—and some of them have quite serious workplace injuries. So they might be sitting at home, they might have limited information, and all we are serving to do is to cause them to worry more about what their circumstances might be into the future and, in the process of doing that, probably hindering their recovery.

It has been a great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. I commend the bill to the house. I hope that we will see some sensible debate about the substance of this bill and not a whole heap of scaremongering, which is what seems to have occurred by some who have spoken on this bill before me.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to 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—

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

You don't. That's for sure!

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

I know it is getting difficult, because over time the good work of this coalition government has been eroding your reputation with the workers. Indeed, over the next couple of weeks your position is going to be tested very thoroughly—as Senator Ludwig referred to in a coded way in his contribution to this debate.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Didn't you watch the news in New York?

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

No; I have not watched TV since I watched The Killing Season triangulation on the Labor Party. I have been too frightened to go back! But the fact of the matter is that this is all about providing this stability and this security for workers. I am almost out of time, but let me make the important point: I invite you to join us to ensure this legislation passes and provides the workers with the security that they are entitled to and that this government is determined to give them.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, have you concluded your remarks or do you wish to be in continuation?

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

I was burdened by the clock, Mr President.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. You are in continuation, Senator O'Sullivan.

Debate interrupted.