Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to give my support to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. This is a worthwhile bill and is importantly part of the Labor tradition in looking after the rights of workers. The bill provides protection for workers—protection which was, in part, removed by the previous government. The bill is a second attempt by the government to redress the inequities introduced by the changes in April 2007 to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

In 2007 the government announced a review of the Comcare scheme. The review was to ensure that the Comcare scheme had suitable occupational health and safety and workers compensation arrangements for self-insurers and their employees. On 26 November 2009 the Occupational Health and Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill was introduced into the House to implement the improvements recommended by the review. The bill lapsed when parliament was prorogued. This bill now will implement those improvements arising from the review of the Comcare scheme through amendments to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

The primary purposes of the bill are as follows. It will amend the SRC Act to enable Comcare to access the Consolidated Revenue Fund to pay compensation claims in respect of diseases with a long latency period such as asbestos and mesothelioma. It will allow for continuous workers compensation coverage for employees who are overseas and who are in a declared place, or who belong to a declared class of employees—for example, those DFAT officials who are required to work in Afghanistan or Iraq. It will reinstate claims arising from off-site recess injuries—for example, if an employee is injured at lunchtime. It will allow compensation for medical expenses to be paid, where payment of other compensation is suspended. For example, in a case where an employee has sustained a workplace injury but is reluctant to undertake rehabilitation, medical bills will continue to be paid even if compensation is discontinued. And the bill will allow for time limits for claim debate termination so that employees are not kept waiting unnecessarily for a decision to be made in relation to their claim for compensation.

When the original bill was introduced in 2009, it was referred to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee for inquiry. Not surprisingly, the coalition senators produced a minority report stating that there was insufficient reason to merit the changes proposed by the bill in relation to off-site recess breaks. A number of difficulties have resulted from the 2007 removal of coverage of off-site recess break claims. Firstly, there is a basic equity issue in the case of employees who are not provided with on-site facilities; secondly, it is difficult to determine what would and what would not constitute an off-site recess break where employees such as Telstra workers are required to undertake their work off site and their usual place of work is their vehicle; thirdly, there is also inconsistency in the fact that an employee would be covered if attending an employer-sanctioned off-site training program but would not necessarily be covered during lunchbreaks; and, fourthly, reinstating coverage for off-site recess breaks will realign the Comcare scheme with the majority of jurisdictions.

In my own electorate office, we were faced with the inequity of the April 2007 amendments to the act when an employee fell in the street outside the office during a lunchbreak and was unable to claim workers compensation. In my office we have a lunchbreak between 1 and 2 pm, although it should be noted that the employees and I still answer the phone. It is ridiculous that someone who had to go and get their lunch from a place across the station, and who fell in the street during that lunchbreak, is not entitled to claim workers compensation. This amendment bill will fix that, as it should.

It was a mean-spirited approach by those opposite to have taken this away in the first place. Indeed, it was the mean-spirited approach by the former government that saw their demise at the 2007 election, in relation to the Work Choices policies that they introduced. They went too far in this area. It was an ideological pursuit of workplace conditions by the former Prime Minister—an ideology, in fairness to him, that he had held in all his public life—but he was repudiated at the 2007 election. I think it was a good thing that he was the Prime Minister at that election and was repudiated by the electorate particularly in relation to his view of the world when it comes to workplace legislation. During the Senate committee's hearings, DEEWR provided an explanation of the practical difficulties in its submission No. 1, on page 3:

One concern was the difficulty in determining what would and what would not constitute an off-site recess break where, for example, employees worked off-site or where no facilities were provided for lunch breaks. Another concern was the inconsistency between the fact that an employee would be covered when attending employer-sanctioned courses at educational institutions either within or outside normal working hours but not necessarily during lunch breaks.

The majority of state and territory jurisdictions already provide coverage for off-site recess breaks. At the same time, DEEWR made it clear that there are other provisions in the SRC Act whereby compensation would still not be payable in respect of self-inflicted injuries and that would also carry over to recess breaks or as a result of serious or wilful misconduct on behalf of the employee. The committee majority report viewed this particular amendment as an important reinstatement of workers' rights which had been removed under the 2007 changes—that is the reason, no doubt, that the coalition senators did not support the amendment.

The access to consolidated revenue for long latency claims is an important aspect of the bill before the House today. As part of its claims management role, Comcare collects premiums from Commonwealth agencies to finance its administration and pay for the cost of claims. This system did not commence until 1 July 1989. Therefore claims that accrued before that date were paid for from consolidated revenue as no premium-paying employer could be held accountable for those earlier injuries. As an indirect result of the Full Federal Court decision in Comcare v Etheridge, Comcare's access to the Consolidated Revenue Fund to discharge its liabilities for one particular category of these earlier claims was closed off. In particular this impacts on long latency diseases such as asbestosis and mesothelioma. Obviously this is not acceptable. We all know how long and how hard unions fought on behalf of workers affected by these terrible diseases. While its omission is inadvertent, it is vital that the provisions be reinstated. It is simply not acceptable for workers diagnosed as having asbestosis, for example, to be excluded from potential workers compensation payment because of an unexpected consequence of a court decision.

Another amendment concerns the continued payment of medical bills when incapacity payments are suspended. The SRC Act provides that workers compensation payments will be suspended when an employee fails to participate in reasonable rehabilitation. This suspension currently includes the suspension of payment of medical benefits. Obviously this suspension could well be counterproductive to the employee's recovery and eventual return to work. To that end this bill, as did the OHSOLA Bill, seeks to amend the SRC Act to protect the payment of medical and related benefits to claimants notwithstanding the suspension of their weekly benefits. Similar arrangements are contained in workers compensation legislation in several other jurisdictions; for example, in Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT. An example of the real world implication of this could be the case where an employee is on stress leave and perhaps dealing with a mental illness. That employee may, in the course of his or her illness, refuse rehabilitation. If this amendment is not enacted, that person, because of the nature of their illness, would not have their medical bills paid. That is not a reasonable or equitable outcome given that the person's eventual recovery and return to work could be directly impacted by the nonpayment of medical bills.

Another aspect of the bill which should be noted is the mechanism whereby certain employees of the Commonwealth will have the benefit of continuous 24/7 workers compensation coverage while overseas. The usual proviso applies, of course, that the injury must have arisen out of, or in the course of, his or her employment. That is, the provisions will not apply if the employee sustained an injury because he or she voluntarily and unreasonably submitted to an abnormal risk of injury. This provision arises from the introduction of the Australian Civilian Corps Bill 2010. The Civilian Corps will comprise civilian experts who can be rapidly deployed to assist in international disaster relief, stabilisation and postconflict reconstruction efforts. When that bill is enacted, according to Bills Digest No. 35 prepared by the Parliamentary Library at pages 3 and 4:

The Australian Civilian Corps will comprise a register of up to 500 civilian specialists in areas such as public administration and finance, law and justice, engineering, health administration and community development. Specialists will be chosen for inclusion on the deployment register based on their expertise and demonstrated experience in relevant areas. It is intended that personnel will be sought from both government and the broader Australian community and will remain in their regular employment until accepting a deployment.

Given the role of the Australian Civilian Corps, it is, of course, important that workers compensation provisions apply while they are serving overseas. At the same time the changes also address the need to ensure that other Commonwealth employees deployed in such high-risk areas as Afghanistan and Iraq have workers compensation coverage during the time of that deployment. For instance, there are a number of officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade currently working in Afghanistan. The amendments will also provide for the minister to declare high-risk places to be places where the 24/7 coverage will apply.

This bill is a direct response to the Government's Comcare review. The measures it contains are designed to improve the Comcare scheme by reducing injuries, strengthening the focus on rehabilitation and return to work and increasing benefits for injured workers. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context