Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, which establishes a workers compensation and rehabilitation scheme applying to Commonwealth employees and those employers of non-Commonwealth licensees.

The Commonwealth is the Australian government agency that has primary operational responsibility for the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, including claims management for premium-paying Commonwealth agencies. This legislation implements some of the recommendations that came from the Comcare review. In late 2007, the government announced a review of the Comcare scheme to ensure that it is a suitable OH&S and workers compensation scheme for licensees and employees. This was necessary because under the previous government, the Howard government, the conditions and effectiveness of the Comcare scheme had been eroded. There was a move by the previous government to undermine the Comcare scheme. I spoke on that legislation on many occasions in this House as condition after condition was eroded from the scheme. That was of great concern to me, particularly as I had worked with injured workers prior to coming into this parliament. They were people covered by the Comcare scheme. I knew how important it was to have in place an effective scheme that looked after people and ensured that when they were injured they were cared for and offered good quality rehabilitation, certainty and assistance to re-enter the workforce. Prior to the Howard government coming to power, that is how the Comcare scheme operated. The Howard government eroded the scheme over the time that they were in power.

Since being elected, we have worked very hard to restore the scheme to its previous position and the changes in this legislation look at some of those issues. One issue is the workers compensation coverage for injuries sustained during off-site breaks, which was removed by the coalition in 2007 and which this legislation reinstates. I heard the member for Farrer say that people can go out and scuba dive during their recess break. That is absolutely ludicrous. A example of injury would be when somebody working at Telstra or a contractor has their break, walks across the road to the shop—because there is nothing on site for them to purchase during that break—and is hit by a car. It is a farce to think that the opposition could compare scuba diving with going across the road to buy sustenance in a break. It just shows the level that those on the other side will stoop to when it comes to attacking workers. They do not like workers. They do not believe that workers should have any conditions and they do not believe that they should have proper coverage when they are injured at work. If workers do have coverage, they believe that it should be minimal. It is all about reducing the liability to the employer, not ensuring that an injured worker has the proper coverage so that they can retrain or receive the medical treatment they need and then retrain and return to the workforce.

A Senate committee looked at this legislation and it was no surprise whatsoever to find out that the coalition senators took the view that an employer's liability to an employee should not be sustained if they are injured during their recess break. We on this side of the House know that the opposition has no commitment to workers. We have only to look back at the previous Work Choices legislation to see what they think of workers and their commitment to workers. I think the reinstatement of off-site recess breaks and coverage during off-site recess breaks is an important aspect of this legislation. It should not be trivialised in the way that I have heard from opposition speakers this morning.

The next point I would like to deal with relates to medical costs and whether they should continue to be paid where a worker's weekly compensation benefits are suspended for refusing to participate in the rehabilitation process. As I mentioned earlier, I come from a background where I worked with injured employees and I know that one of the most important aspects of a person's rehabilitation program and return to work is certainty. Quite often the person who has been injured feels that they are incapable of undertaking a return-to-work program because they feel that the status of their injury still has not been clarified and they feel that if they do participate in the rehabilitation program they will further injure themselves. Discontinuing the payment of medical costs creates greater uncertainty and can inhibit the rehabilitation process, and it can actually inhibit the person's ability to return to work. Everybody knows that it is quite often the person who has the injury listening to their body and knowing that things are not right and knowing that if they undertake certain activities they will injure themselves further. The last thing we want in this parliament is a situation where workers are forced to return to work and further injure themselves.

That is a very important aspect of this legislation and I think it is important for us to look at what the coalition senators on the committee said when the committee looked at this legislation. It was no surprise to find out that the coalition senators strongly disagreed with the amendment, expressing their concerns that the amendment to the suspension of payment provision under the SRC Act may facilitate a culture of noncompliance by rewarding employees who do not comply with their obligations. I think nothing could contrast more the approach by the opposition and the approach by the government than that statement by coalition senators.

We on this side of the House know that it is important to address the medical status of somebody who is injured, even if they have declined to be involved in a rehabilitation process and return to work. We know that by resolving the medical problems that a person has we have the best chance of their returning to work, while those senators in the coalition are only interested in noncompliance. One side of this House cares about workers and cares about returning them to the workforce and enabling them to be productive members of our society while the other side of this House is more concerned with punishing workers and making it harder for them. Anyone who has been involved in that process knows that if medical expenses are not being paid, it is very difficult in some cases for an injured worker to be involved in the process; it makes it very hard for them to pay for the treatment they need to receive. The opposition stands condemned for the position it has taken on that aspect of this legislation.

Another part of the legislation I would like to concentrate a little on is the introduction of the statutory time limits within which claims must be determined by Comcare as a means to encourage timely determination of workers compensation claims. It is very important and I am pleased to report to the House that when the opposition looked at the issue in the Senate they agreed with that aspect of the legislation. It is very surprising to us when we hear in this House that the opposition agreed with any aspect of any piece of legislation. The one thing they are very good at doing is saying no, but they agreed with the statutory time limits and that is vitally important. Most of the state workers compensation systems have incorporated statutory time limits and, as such, it is vitally important to the effective operation of the system. This piece of legislation also gives Comcare access to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The Comcare scheme's premium system was introduced in July 1989. The system provides a financial incentive to employers to improve their injury prevention and management systems by linking the size of their premium to their performance in these areas. That is vitally important. It encourages employers to take responsibility for their workers. It encourages a better outcome for Comcare, for the government and for injured workers.

In 2006 a decision of the full Federal Court, in Comcare v Etheridge, on matters unrelated to the funding of Comcare's liabilities closed off Comcare's access to the CRF in respect of liabilities for long latency diseases. As a result, Comcare was forced to use premium funds to pay for these liabilities. The rationale behind the premium system will be undermined if Comcare is to pay for liabilities that predate the premium system's introduction.

The amendments contained in this bill will realign the operation of the SRC Act with the original policy intention by restoring Comcare's access to the CRF to pay for workers compensation liabilities arising pre 1 December 1988. That covers things such as asbestosis and other diseases that do not become apparent until further down the track.

This is good legislation. It is about ensuring that workers have the protection that they need at the appropriate time. It is about restoring some of the elements that the Howard government took away in their savaging of workers, in their anti-worker campaign, and recognising that to have an effective system you need effective coverage. That is what this legislation will ensure. I commend the legislation to the House.

See this speech in context