Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 concerns the compensation scheme that exists for seafarers and that concerns the maritime sector, Seacare. It arises because of a full court decision of the Federal Court that said that someone was eligible for this scheme, upholding a decision of the AAT, when, according to the government, players in the industry had assumed that such a person would not be eligible. In other words, the full court decision has now said that there are people who are covered by this scheme who up until now people did not think were covered by it.

If you accept that argument at face value, you really have two choices. There are two things you can do if you are a government that is caught on the hop by a full Federal Court decision. One, which would be the sensible one, would be to say to everyone in the industry, 'Well, no-one expected this; let's all sit down around the table and work it out.' Maybe some people did expect it, and maybe others did not. Let us involve the people who represent the workers. Let us involve the employers, and let us involve the state governments, because the effect of this decision is that it alters the balance as to who is covered between state government compensation schemes and the federal scheme. Through that process you could also sit down and work out what it will mean for the various standards of compensation and care around the country if this ruling is upheld. Conversely, if we proceed with some legislation to have a level playing field that 'harmonises' the industry, will that potentially result in some people now having a lesser standard of care and compensation?

Anyone who is familiar with the differences that exist at the federal and state levels between various health and safety and compensation schemes knows that the idea of harmonising something is easier said than done. The idea of reaching a national standard is something that is easier said than done. Because what you have to do is go through each of the various state schemes and work out questions like access to the scheme, the level of safety that is required, and then, of course, the compensation that follows should someone get injured—and then assess it from each state or territory against the national scheme. That would be one way to go. And, indeed, it is a way that previous governments have gone. Whatever our position as the Greens has been on a final vote on that legislation, what cannot be denied is that before bringing such legislation to parliament a very comprehensive process of reviews and discussions took place. That is one way you can address the problem of a so-called unexpected full court decision—although of course some might say that the decision was not unexpected at all.

The other alternative is to do what this government has done, and say, 'Have we got a bill for you! Let us fix it. Just trust us. Here is a bill we want you to deal with very quickly that is going to introduce a uniform set of national standards,' and then attempt to get it through the parliament as quickly as you possibly can without talking to the stakeholders about it at all. Of course, that is what this government has done. That should come as no surprise. If the government paid attention to the Senate inquiry into this bill, one of the things it would have seen is that, apart from the department's submission, every submission to this bill raised serious questions about its operation. The call was made very strongly by the Senate committee that inquired into it, as well as by a number of the parties lodging submissions to the inquiry, to say, 'What is the urgency? There is no immediate problem that needs to be addressed by this bill such that it needs to be rushed through this parliament in this sitting fortnight. This bill, like every other piece legislation, could go through the usual consultation process.' But, notwithstanding the fact that that is what the Senate committee said, and notwithstanding that the department was the only one making submissions to the inquiry that did not suggest that there serious problems with this bill. Notwithstanding all that, the government comes back here and says, 'We have to rush this through quickly.'

That, in many ways, ought to come as no surprise when you look at this government's record on other matters relating to compensation and health and safety for people in the Commonwealth scheme. I can see that they are like a bull at a gate on that. Looking at other industrial relations legislation from this government you can see that in bills that have, thankfully, not yet passed this parliament the government is wanting workers to be able to trade off non-monetary benefits for things like penalty rates. In other words, if you have to work in the fish and chip shop, the fish and chip shop owner can say, 'I want to pay you a hamburger every lunch,' and take that into account when assessing your wage. That is the kind of approach this government thinks is all right. In that context, I think we are right to be very sceptical of the government's desire to rush this bill through.

On current suggestions, it looks like it will pass this House, but I hope that when it reaches the Senate scrutiny is brought to bear on this government's desire to push through changes to a compensation scheme without any consultation with the industry players. For that reason, the Greens will not be supporting this bill, either here or in the other place, and I hope the government hears the submissions and hears the will of the people in the industry and the various stakeholders, and the government just does what good governments should do, which is to go back and talk to the people who are affected and then come back to this parliament after you have done that.

See this speech in context