Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. There was a time in Australian politics when John Howard was able to persuade a significant number of workers, particularly in the outer suburban seats of this country, that his party represented the working class and had an interest in working class conditions. People who had been concerned about the deterioration of industry in this country and who were mystified by the reduction in tariffs were, in a sense, liable to the appeals of social conservatism that Howard represented. It is in bills such as this that we see some of the realities of where the current opposition stand in regard to workers conditions. That appeal to social conservatism was accompanied by rhetoric about the unnecessary—as they saw it—hope for working-class students to go to university. I heard constant references to the fact that people should lower their expectations; they should perhaps be content to go into the workforce, into TAFE et cetera. Of course, that was not accompanied by any significant expenditure by the previous government on TAFE. One of the major initiatives of this last budget was in regard to the apprenticeship system: (a) the expedition of outcomes; (b) the mentoring; and (c) the delivering of more money et cetera. There has been a doubling in the course of this government.

As I say, it is when we come to bills like this that we have some recognition of where the opposition really stand in regard to the average worker in the western suburbs of Sydney and their conditions, because, as I see it, we are today rectifying a major attack on their conditions in relation to, for instance, off-site injuries. It is interesting to note the estimate of the minimal cost of this for Australian taxpayers. It is about $2 million. When we look at the size of the budget of this country, that is infinitesimally small, and yet the coalition were prepared to go out of their way to legislate so that workers injured whilst on their lunch breaks could not have coverage.

The previous speaker, the member for Banks, has given an example of exactly what occurred in the real world to one of his employees. The member for Farrer typified the kind of rhetoric and conservative reaction on this matter with fanciful suggestions that what we are trying to do here is cover somebody who goes scuba diving. I have been privileged, like most members of this parliament, not to have been in workforce situations where I had to travel to get my lunch. Perhaps the only times in my life were a few university jobs on the Water Board. I recall that people had to go to shopping centres from distant areas in suburbs that were having Water Board sewerage laid. Most of us here have not experienced that reality, but Australian workers do. The opposition suggest that basically we should not give them coverage for something that is in their working day—when they would rather be sitting on the couch at home doing nothing. But, if workers are part of the workforce and they need to get their lunch away from the work site, I think the majority of people in this country would believe that they should be covered if they are hit by a car or, as the member indicated, injured as the result of a faulty footpath. The opposition are trying to save $2 million on this measure but, in a real sense, that just represents their lack of attention to and interest in working-class conditions.

As another member indicated earlier, the backdrop to this is the move towards harmonisation of workers compensation measures around the country, an attempt to make sure that we have a degree of regularity across state and territory borders. The measures in this bill, besides the question of coverage of people on lunch breaks, are also practical, necessary and in the interests of public servants. I should note, when we talk about the attitude of the opposition, that I recall in 1996 the elevation of the Howard government and the massive swathe of redundancies and sackings that occurred in the Public Service in this country and particularly in this city as a result of their policies.

In this bill we see a number of other measures that are commendable. If, for a variety of reasons, people are not fully cooperative about rehabilitation, they do at least receive their medical costs during that period. I listened to the New Zealand High Commissioner this morning talking to the foreign affairs committee about the trauma after the events in Christchurch and the very deep concerns in the New Zealand psyche about what is going to happen to the people who have endured that. We cannot predict the reaction of every person in this country if they are injured or how they will react afterwards. There can be a variety of reasons why they do not wish to participate in or do not participate in rehabilitation. It should not be accompanied by measures that restrict their ability to get medical assistance, because in the long term all that can mean is that their rehabilitation is delayed or it does not happen, and there are even more long-term costs to the Australian taxpayer in the rectification of their problems. So it is right and proper that in this legislation there are measures to make sure that those medical expenses are covered.

Another measure here is to get some more expeditious reaction by the fund in its clearing up of cases. It was mentioned earlier that, when this was investigated, the degree of finalising claims in this sector was quite low by any comparison with state and territory jurisdictions. I find that a bit surprising because of what I would expect about the nature of the workforce and the jobs they do in the Australian Public Service compared to other sectors. One would expect perhaps the reverse. But, as I say, there are measures here to try and make sure that there is a more expeditious reaction in how these matters are finalised.

I commend the legislation. It is an indictment of the opposition that their senatorial representatives found ways to quibble about it and to try and throw fanciful possibilities as reasons that we should not legislate to protect workers in this fashion. This bill comes as a result of investigation into the system. It is not separate from what was found at that inquiry. I commend the legislation.

See this speech in context