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

I find it very interesting to follow the member for Dobell in this debate on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. I note that she worked for WorkCover prior to becoming elected to parliament. The context of her speech and the direction of her speech was all about reducing costs, about efficiency, about the cost of compliance, about the cutting of red tape, about the cost to employers and the cost to insurers, and there was really no mention about providing support for injured workers. Occupational health and safety and workers compensation was introduced into this country, into the various states in our Commonwealth, to provide cover for workers who are injured at work. While she talked about employees or workers taking personal responsibility for their action, there was no talk about employers taking responsibility for the action that they take.

I think the member for Dobell's contribution really puts this debate in context. We have one side of the House, the side that I sit on, that is really concerned about ensuring that workers are properly protected if they are injured at work, and you have the other side of this parliament that is all about reducing cost to employers and reducing cost to insurers to enable them to make a greater profit at the expense of injured workers. That really puts it in context and it probably goes across the divide when you look at a number of issues. We are about people, we are about workers and we are about seeing that people have proper coverage, whilst the other side of this House is about ensuring that those that employ, or those that are in big business, can actually make a substantial profit.

I see this legislation as another attack on workers by a government that very much has a hidden agenda to undermine workers' rights, to undermine workers' conditions and to undermine workers' protection in the workplace. The government has history in relation to this. Under the Howard government, I was a member of the House committee that did a review into workers compensation laws, and the agenda that the then government had in relation to workers compensation was very obvious.

There has been a gradual whittling away of protection if you look at other jurisdictions. I cannot help but look to New South Wales, which is my home state, where the O'Farrell government introduced the most draconian changes to workers compensation legislation that I have ever seen. I have had worker after worker coming into my office telling me how they have got no coverage now and how they are unable to have that operation that they were scheduled to have because of the timing, as the changes have been put in place retrospectively. Most changes to workers' compensation, in both New South Wales and this jurisdiction, have not been retrospective—the changes take place from the date they are introduced. In New South Wales, they cover everybody that is on workers' compensation. It really shows the agenda of the Liberal and National parties on workers' compensation.

I used to be a rehabilitation counsellor before I came to this parliament, and in that job I worked with injured workers, with insurance companies and with employers. The aim of my job was to get people back into the workforce, preferably with their previous employer, and to have the workplace modified so they could return to their job and, maybe after rehabilitation, go back to full duties. During that time a number of obstacles were put in the path of those workers. Employers were reluctant to take them back into their workplace and insurance companies did not provide the support that they needed. If you provide the maximum of support you have the best opportunity for a good outcome, but walking away from workers leaves them in a situation where they cannot have the optimal outcome.

This government's agenda is very questionable when it comes to anything relating to workers' compensation, wages, workers' rights, workers' pay or workers' conditions. I believe this legislation before the parliament is just another step down the track of this government's antiworker agenda. The bill amends the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Work Health and Safety Act to expand the eligibility of corporations to self-insure through the Commonwealth's Comcare scheme, which will allow companies operating across state borders to self-insure under the scheme. It also removes the need for the minister to declare eligibility to apply for a self-insure licence while maintaining the ability of the minister to issue directions to the Safety and Rehabilitation Commissioner, and it enables corporations currently required to meet workers' compensation obligations under two or more workers' compensation laws of a state to apply to the commission to join the Comcare scheme. It also allows a Commonwealth authority that ceases to be a Commonwealth authority to apply directly to the commission for approval to be a self-insurer. This, along with other changes, enables the commissioner to grant group licences to related corporations. I feel these changes have not been properly thought through and I do not think there will be proper oversight of the changes that will take place.

The government has refused to guarantee that no worker will be worse off. I have shared with the House the New South Wales experience where practically every worker is worse off, and now we have another Liberal-National Party government set to deliver a blow to workers, refusing to say that workers will not be worse off. For those on the other side of this parliament, it is not all about the worker that will be injured in the workplace, it is not all about ensuring that they can get the best possible outcome—rather it is about, as the member for Dobell mentioned, cost-cutting, efficiency, compliance, cutting red tape and reducing costs for employers. A person seriously injured at work will never be able to undertake life as it was—their life is changed forever. One of the most common complaints from those on the other side of the House relates to people who have a back injury. If you are a manual worker who has very limited literacy skills and you injure your back, then not only has your work been taken away from you but you probably have very limited opportunity to find another job and then every other aspect of your life is changed. That is what those on the other side of this House do not get. I do not see anything in this legislation that will assure Australians that workplaces will be as safe as they are now. Nothing that speakers on the other side of this House have said convinces me of that. Rather, I hear about things such as reducing costs, efficiency, compliance and reducing red tape—nothing about ensuring that workplaces throughout Australia are safe, about ensuring that workers are not seriously injured, about ensuring that workers do not lose their lives when they are working on a building site or in a mine. In the electorate that I represent workers in both those sorts of workplaces have lost their lives.

I see this government as bowing to the interests of big business. The government just not does not consider the impact of injury, disability and death. When it does open up the scheme, it will reduce the financial impact in the state systems and it will increase premiums for the remaining businesses in those schemes, adding pressure on workers' entitlements. It will leave sick workers worse off. If we go back to look at what workers compensation is about, it is compensating workers for injury at work. It is doing something to help them adjust to the fact that they went to work, they were seriously injured and they cannot go back to the work they did. They are worse off physically and now this scheme, I believe, will leave sick workers worse off in every aspect of their lives.

This is a really important point: the compliance obligations under Comcare are weaker than in the state systems. Comcare offers lower payments to injured workers, and Comcare's capacity to inspect workplaces and enforce laws will be reduced further as more businesses gain coverage. Comcare has only 44 inspectors nationwide—44 inspectors nationwide that are supposed to ensure that workplaces are safe—whilst each state based scheme has hundreds of inspectors working to ensure that workplaces meet their safety requirements. I find it extremely concerning that there is nothing in this legislation that places any obligation on employers and insurers to ensure that workplaces are made safe. There is no hint that the number of inspectors will be expanded and no hint that this government has any concern for injured workers.

I know the shadow minister has moved an amendment, and I know that the shadow minister is very, very concerned about the issues that I have raised. I note that workers will not be covered during breaks, and I also note that examples have been given of workers that take a break whilst working at a job that takes them outside their workplace, and I do not think that question has been answered. I believe there are a number of questions that this government has not answered. Rather, it is legislating to ensure that its ideological, philosophical hatred of workers and its enslavement to big business are enshrined in legislation rather than trying to put on the table fair legislation that will benefit both workers and employers—and, then, insurers as well. I find I cannot support this legislation. It is bad legislation, and it is typical of this Abbott government. (Time expired)

See this speech in context