Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 before the House this morning. The bill reflects some of the recommendations contained in the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations' 2008 report, Review of self-insurance arrangements under the Comcare scheme. Although not explicitly stated, the review was part of a broad program by Labor to eventually shift all existing Comcare self-insurers back to the relevant state based workers compensation systems.

In 2008 the government implemented a moratorium on non-government employers seeking access to the scheme. This was subsequently enshrined in legislation in 2009 and the coalition did not oppose the bill. While the coalition will not oppose this legislation, we note our very real concern about this bill which is simply that it is an element of Labor's program of changes to water down the Commonwealth government workers compensation scheme, Comcare. Provisions in this bill will bring the Commonwealth laws in line with existing state workers compensation laws thereby reducing the attraction for non-government Comcare participants. This review was part of Labor's plan to shift all existing self-insurers back to the relevant state based workers compensation systems. The 25 or so non-government self-insurers will be forced to return to state systems, sending us back to the dark ages.

Currently an employee who is injured during a break from work, for example leaving a worksite during a lunchbreak to purchase a meal at a nearby shop, would not be eligible to claim for such an injury. This would be reversed under the changes proposed in the bill thereby allowing a worker to claim an injury suffered when temporarily absent from their normal workplace during such a recess. Obviously this expands the extent to which an employer has liability. It also removes the ability of an employer to control the degree of safety compliance of a worker. For example, the worker might choose to cross a busy road rather than use a pedestrian crossing or may sprain their ankle whilst running during their lunchbreak. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many contested injuries occur in either recess or journey circumstances and an unscrupulous employee may exploit the lack of dedicated workplace supervision to sustain an injury for which compensation is sought. The Productivity Commission found that the employer's ability to exert control over workplace recess breaks and social activities is a relevant consideration. It recommended that coverage for recess breaks and work-related events be restricted on the basis of employer control to those undertaken at workplaces and at employer sanctioned events. In line with recommendation 13 of the department's review and the Productivity Commission's 2004 recommendation that claims arising from injuries sustained during off-site recess breaks should be excluded, the coalition will seek to amend the bill proposed by the government to remove the changes to recess claims.

We know from the Senate committee that if an employee goes scuba diving in their lunch break the employer is liable for anything that happens. We believe that people should take individual responsibility and that the liability to an employee should continue to be limited to circumstances where the employer has an element of control. It would be unreasonable to make employers liable for all types of injuries sustained by their employees independent of the employment relationship.

If this bill were to succeed, an employee working on a building site in Manly who goes scuba diving in the lunch break and injures themselves will be pleased to know that, despite being on their lunch break, the Commonwealth would be liable for them. It is unreasonable to make employers liable for all types of injury sustained by their employees independent of the employment relationship. This justifies the common-sense test, and the coalition will put forward a sensible amendment to insert some common sense in this bill.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our approach to these matters is quite simple: we do not start from the presumption that workers are on the shirk, that they are trying to rip off their employer or that they are trying to defraud the Commonwealth, their employer or anybody else. Secondly, we take the approach that, when an employee, bound by a contract of employment, is under the supervision and control of their employer, they lose none of their responsibility but they do lose some of their autonomy and control over their work situation. It is a principle that has been adopted and accepted in Australian common law for several decades. It is a principle that has been understood in Australian statute law since we adopted the approach of the Robens committee in the early 1970s. And for the member for Farrer to stand here and use some of the more ludicrous examples, suggesting that somehow the provisions in this bill, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, are going to lead to a flood of Commonwealth employees taking up the sport of scuba diving in their 15-minute tea break, does her side no credit and does nothing to advance the cause of credible debate in this place.

I am pleased to speak today about Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, the government's bill to amend the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The SRC Act established a workers compensation and rehabilitation scheme for Commonwealth employees and employees of non-Commonwealth licensees, many of whom are former Commonwealth entities which have subsequently been corporatised and, in some instances, privatised. Comcare is the Australian government agency that has responsibility for the administration of the SRC Act, including managing claims for those Commonwealth agencies that pay premiums under the SRC system.

By way of brief background, there was an earlier bill, the Occupational Health and Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, that was introduced into this place on 26 November 2009 but which lapsed when parliament was prorogued on 19 July 2010. The bill before the House today is not identical to that original bill but there is certainly a lot of overlap in subject matter. The provisions of the original bill were referred to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee for inquiry and report by 25 February 2010. Some of the comments reflected in that report of February 2010 are relevant to the bill before the House today. In 2008, the government established a review into the operation of Comcare, and the bill before the House today represents the government's response to that review as well as some consequential amendments.

The measures in this bill will: reinstate claims arising from injuries sustained during off-site recess breaks, allow compensation for medical expenses to continue to be paid in cases where payment of other compensation is suspended, and allow time limits for claim determination. In addition, and importantly, the measures in this bill will enable Comcare to access the Consolidated Revenue Fund to pay compensation claims in respect of diseases with a long latency period—for example, asbestos related diseases—where the employment period was pre 1 December 1988 but where the condition did not manifest itself until after that date. Finally, this bill will allow for continuous workers compensation coverage for employees while overseas and who are in a declared place or who belong to a declared class of employee, such as the Australian Civilian Corps.

I will now talk about the off-site recess breaks—something which seemed to excite and concern the member for Farrer in her earlier contribution. This is about the reinstatement of claims for injuries sustained during off-site recess breaks. There is no doubt that the removal of these claims in 2007 by the previous government—a removal which was aimed to remove a right and benefit of Commonwealth employees and others covered by the scheme—has led to some practical difficulties in the administration of the act and also some inequitable situations. It is probably the failure of the member for Farrer to grasp and understand the operation of these practical difficulties and inequitable situations that led her to stand here moments ago and make such ludicrous claims about the impact of this bill. Why were there inequitable situations and practical difficulties? Some employers do not provide on-site facilities for recess breaks, so one category of employees would be covered at work while another would not—often within the same employing agency. In many cases it has proved difficult to determine what would and what would not constitute an off-site recess. It is also difficult to determine what constitutes an off-site recess where employees are required to undertake their work predominantly off site. We know that many Commonwealth employees travel from location to location during the course of their employment on a day-to-day basis. Far from the typical notion of Commonwealth public servants as colourless old men clad in vests sitting behind desks pushing pens, there are literally thousands of employees who are engaged in inspectorial, audit and enforcement functions—and they probably do not own vests or work socks—who have to in the course of their day-to-day employment work outside what most people would consider to be normal on-site premises.

Many Commonwealth employees also travel off site to attend employer-sanctioned courses at educational institutions either within or outside normal working hours. These would include, for example, assessors from the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, interviewers from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and auditors from the Australian Valuation Office as well as many of the employees involved in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship in inspectorial and enforcement roles, to name but a few. Without this legislation, inconsistency arises as to whether these types of employees would be covered during lunch breaks and when attending these courses.

The bill will ensure that there is consistency between the Commonwealth and all state jurisdictions, with the exception of Tasmania and South Australia. It is unfair to expect Commonwealth employees to accept a lower level of workers compensation coverage than that which is enjoyed by the majority of their state counterparts.

At present, the SRC Act provides that workers compensation entitlements are suspended when an employee fails to participate in reasonable rehabilitation. Currently this suspension of entitlements includes the loss of medical benefits as well as weekly compensation benefits. The amendment in this bill recognises that the loss of these medical benefits might be counterproductive to a person's recovery and return to work by inadvertently affecting that person's recovery. Put simply, it is counterproductive and counterintuitive, if the objective of the workers compensation regime is to work towards not only compensating but also ensuring that a worker recovers from an injury, to remove from them—through the misplaced notion that a punitive sanction has some work to do in these instances—their capacity to be rehabilitated. That is why this bill contains an amendment that would provide that only the weekly compensation benefit is suspended, while the ongoing medical expenses would continue to be covered in these circumstances. I hope that it is a sanction that is never needed to be applied, because, after all, the basis of the act is to ensure not only compensation but rehabilitation and return to work. The majority report of the Senate committee inquiry into the bill in 2009 made the observation that the rehabilitation of an injured worker should be a clear priority of the Comcare scheme, and these amendmentsto the legislation give force to that recommendation.

On the issue of time limits, this bill also introduces a time limit for the determination of a claim for workers compensation. The 2008 Comcare review noted that claims determined quickly tended to be shorter in duration and less costly, as claimants can commence rehabilitation much sooner than they would otherwise. There is currently no requirement under the SRC Act for decision makers to act within time limits—that is, there is no statutory requirement, and I cast no aspersions on those who are employed by Comcare. I know that they work to the best of their ability to assess and determine claims as quickly as possible, but there is no harm or injury in ensuring that there is a statutory requirement that those claims be assessed in a timely fashion. We know that this is a beneficial provision, because state workers compensation schemes apply statutory time limits for the determination of claims in all state jurisdictions. It is therefore another important move to ensure there is consistency in Commonwealth and state approaches to these issues. This is particularly the case as data shows that the determination of new claims and diseases currently takes longer for Commonwealth employees than for their state counterparts. It is our contention that the inclusion of statutory time limits will ensure that these types of claims are determined in a timely fashion.

A further measure in this bill is a remedial provision that will allow Comcare access to the Consolidated Revenue Fund—the CRF—to pay compensation claims in respect of diseases with a long latency period, such as asbestos related diseases. This applies where the relevant employment period was prior to 1 December 1988 and the condition did not manifest itself until after that date. As members here would be aware, the Comcare premium scheme, which was introduced on 1 July 1989, provides a financial incentive for employers to improve their injury prevention and management systems by linking the size of their premiums to their performance in these areas. These are incentives which are known very well in the private sector. Allowing Comcare to access the CRF for liabilities that arose before the Comcare premium system was introduced in 1989 will maintain the rationale behind the establishment of the Comcare premium system. The reason that this particular measure is needed now is because, until the Federal Court decision in 2006, Comcare had that access to the CRF to pay for certain pre-Comcare scheme premium liabilities that are taken to be Comcare's liabilities.So this measure is remedial legislation to deal with a decision arising from the Federal Court in Comcare v Etheridge, which closed off Comcare's access to the CRF in respect of those long latency liabilities.

This bill also contains measures that will ensure that there will be continuous workers compensation coverage for employees while they are overseas and in a declared place, or who belong to a declared class of employee. The need for this measure has arisen in part as a result of the establishment of the Australian Civilian Corps, and I am sure it is an amendment that should enjoy the support of all members in this place.

To conclude where I commenced, our approach to these matters in the broad is not to assume that employers are beset with employees who are on the shirk, who are trying to defraud the Commonwealth or any other employer, but that the employer has an obligation and employees have responsibility to manage health and safety in the workplace and that they need to be continually reviewed from time to time. We believe that this legislation is both timely and of benefit to the Commonwealth.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to make some comments, though fairly brief ones, today on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. Providing a safe workplace is an obligation on an employer, and no-one can deny that this responsibility is one of the paramount obligations of employers and their managers. Naturally it is also in the best interests of the employer to do so. Good, hard-working and committed employees are what every organisation wants. Apart from doing the morally right thing and making sure that accidents are avoided, the costs of replacing or retraining staff and the overall costs in so many ways make sure that there are a range of reasons beyond the legal obligations to make workplaces as safe as possible. It really is a common-sense matter, and everybody agrees on this.

This bill, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, offers a number of amendments. It is not my intention to speak on the Amendment of the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 element, as these are purely technical amendments relating to new arrangements and terminology introduced some years ago. In the same way, given the technical nature of amendments to the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992, excessive comments on those will also not add any great value. Instead, I will speak of matters relating to the amendments to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, where amendments are proposed for sections 6, 36, 37, 50, 61, 62, 90 and 92.

I began my contribution to this debate by speaking of the responsibilities of the employers, whilst also speaking of the clear benefits to those employers of offering a safe workplace. As I said, it really is common sense. Certainly much has been said in the last 30 years in this country about safety hazards. Whether it is providing safety equipment and ensuring that it is worn, or installing safety equipment and guards around machinery, or even fixing trip hazards, not doing these things can result in injuries that benefit neither the employer nor the employee, obviously. It is certainly the case that a negligent employer may be liable for very large penalties that could even result in the closure of the business itself; therefore, the losses may extend beyond the employer and the injured employee. I therefore make the point that it is certainly in the interests of the employer to examine the physical environment in their workplace. They should also look at the detailed processes of the workplace to again ensure that the risks are dealt with. The training and vocational knowledge of the employee, or the lack thereof, would also represent a possible weakness that the employer is obliged to assess and act upon.

Clearly, being an employer involves not only actually running a business or organisation but also meeting the full range of legal and moral safety responsibilities. It is not easy, and anyone who says it is obviously has never run an organisation. As I have said, from the time the employee enters the land that the business is established upon, the safety risks must be assessed and addressed. The complications are significant. Sometimes employees must be watched closely; sometimes their work must be prescribed in some detail. Yet in all cases what happens in that work environment must be risk-assessed and addressed. It is very complicated, yet also, obviously, very necessary.

The problem is that this bill has loaded the burden onto employers to an even greater extent, because of what is proposed for paragraph 6(1)(b). This paragraph currently reads, before this amendment:

(1) Without limiting the circumstances in which an injury to an employee may be treated as having arisen out of, or in the course of, his or her employment, an injury shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as having so arisen if it was sustained:

…   …   …

(a) while the employee was at the employee's place of work, including during an ordinary recess, for the purposes of that employment …

So that is what this paragraph currently says. But what the government proposes for subparagraph (b) is this:

(b) while the employee was at the employee's place of work, for the purposes of that employment, or was temporarily absent from that place during an ordinary recess in that employment …

This change means that the employer will now be made responsible for the actions of the employee beyond the business or organisation. In the area that he or she does not control and cannot hope to control, he or she will become responsible for the employee. As has previously been said by the shadow minister, when employees have to cross a dangerous road, rather than at an intersection, that is a risk that will be placed upon the employer, even though the employee undertakes the action. I wonder whether employers in business organisations that are covered by Comcare around the country may want to supervise how their employees move to the lunch bars. Clearly the liability of the employers, the managers and the organisations is expanded under this proposed change, but the degree of safety compliance by the employee is, of course, completely up to the employee themselves.

The Productivity Commission undertook an inquiry back in 2004 that covered such matters. It found that the employer's ability to exert control over workplace recess breaks and social activities is actually a relevant consideration. The commission recom­mended that coverage for recess breaks and work related events be restricted, on the basis of employer control, to those undertaken at workplaces and at employer-sanctioned events.

The last speaker implied that this was in some way a unilateral action by the Howard government. While the Howard government did undertake this action, and stood by it, the decision was absolutely based on the view of the experts, the Productivity Commission. This is a very important issue. It is certainly the coalition's view that it is unreasonable for an employer to be responsible for employees when they leave the workplace, and that is why we propose an amendment to this section of the bill.

This really does go to one of the key principles that divides the coalition from those opposite. We on this side of the House believe in personal responsibility, that we have to accept the consequences of the decisions we make as individuals. But it appears that there is a belief on the other side of the House that, whatever happens and wherever it happens, someone else is always responsible. I would make the further point that, should we be unsuccessful in amending the government's changes under section 6(1)(b), it will be interesting to see by what figure the number of claims for injuries or incidents outside the work place rises. Given the amount of insurance frauds that already take place in Australia each year, I suspect that some—hopefully very few—will seek to take advantage of the changes that the government has brought before the House today.

In summary, it is the intention of the coalition to make an amendment to address what we consider to be a retrograde step. Beyond that, there are no great concerns with this bill. As a member of the coalition, I support good and effective workplace safety laws that provide for the fulfilment of responsibilities. I emphasise that, while there is employer responsibility, at no time should the personal responsibility of the employee ever be set aside. I worry that, while such a philosophy may be an article of faith with some in this place, it does not serve the best interests of any person in this country, particularly the employees of Australia.

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. A bill similar to this, the Occupational Health and Safety and Other Legislation Bill 2009, was introduced into the previous parliament on 26 November 2009 but lapsed due to the proroguing of parliament on 19 July last year. Consequently I have been waiting a long time to speak on this bill—and finally the day has arrived.

Occupational health and safety and workers compensation are greatly important to me. Before coming to this place, I spent many years as both an occupational health and safety representative and a professional in that area as well. My particular concern was the construction industry, which to this day still has one of the highest rates of injury, death and claims when it comes to workers compensation. A lot of that comes about as a result of the itinerant nature of the industry, and that is going to be an ongoing problem. Anything we can do at the Commonwealth level, especially for those companies that are covered by Comcare, is always a good improvement.

While this bill itself does not make major changes, it is part of a much bigger and broader package of reforms that the Labor government has undertaken in the area of workplace relations and occupational health and safety. The centrepiece of those reforms was the implementation of the Fair Work Act in the previous parliament. And we also saw in 2009 the establishment of Safe Work Australia, an Australian government statutory agency with primary responsibility for improving health and safety at work and workers' compensation arrangements across Australia. I am proud of the work that the Labor government has undertaken in working towards national standards in such important areas, and I look forward to the harmonisation process reaching completion. It has been a long road and it has required the coming together of many different elements. But it is actually going to happen, and that is a great thing.

The bill before the House introduces a number of amendments to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 to make some changes to the Comcare scheme as well as some other associated changes. In 2009-10 the Comcare scheme covered 371, 300 employees and received 10,551 claims, of which 8,777 were accepted. A total of $203 million was paid to claimants and the return to work rate of 93 per cent was higher than the national average of 85 per cent for other schemes.

The bill follows the government's 2008 review into the Comcare scheme, which was a commitment made by the Labor Party in the lead-up to the 2007 election. That review focused especially on the self-insurance arrangements, which allowed for the entry of private sector corporations into the Comcare scheme, and whether the scheme was providing suitable arrangements for self-insurers and their employees. On 11 December 2007 the government placed a moratorium on private corporations seeking to join the scheme. This had the effect of freezing the number of private companies in the scheme. I have previously spoken in this place of my concerns about Comcare in the private sector—specifically, the number of on-site inspections conducted compared to state based compensation schemes. There are several changes that are proposed in this bill. Firstly, it reintroduces workers' compensation for claims arising from off-site recess injuries. I think this is a rather big area. Listening to the last speaker and the opposition's concerns about off-site injuries I would like to say that maybe they should try it themselves. For many, many years I worked off-site and for many, many years I did not have lunch facilities or rest break facilities. Being in a service industry, many times the only place you could buy food or go to the toilet was off-site. You had to leave your place of work, drive up the street to find a public toilet or a food outlet. I do not think that should be held against anyone whilst at work. They also deserve coverage. That may be just walking to the shop, as I said, it may be driving to the shop, it may be going elsewhere to a public convenience, but these things have to be done during the course of the working day. Bringing such claims back under Comcare brings the scheme into line with most other jurisdictions, other than South Australia and Tasmania. It is also important to note, as I have said, that not everyone has access to facilities that most of us take for granted, and those people should not be forgotten.

This amendment bill also places specified time limits within which compensation claims must be dealt with. There are two obvious benefits to this change. Firstly, it provides greater certainty for people lodging a claim. When workers lodge claims it is usually a very stressful situation. There are a lot of things going on, a lot of changes from the ordinary, and the impacts that has on the mental state of the worker is not always apparent. Depending on the seriousness of their injury, sometimes it can be particularly severe. For a worker to know that their claim will be handled within a specified time frame hopefully provides some minor relief for people who are, unfortunately, in such a situation. Secondly, it is logical to believe that claims that are dealt with quickly will be less costly. The introduction of statutory time limits is an improvement to the Comcare scheme.

The bill also amends the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 to allow for medical and related costs to be paid when payment of other compensation has been suspended. Weekly compensation benefits that are not for medical purposes, such as payment for loss of wages, can be suspended if a worker refuses to attend rehabilitation for their injury. While suspending payments provides an incentive for injured workers to fulfil their requirements under the scheme, the suspension of payments for medical expenses would seem to be taking this a step too far, and is probably quite counterproductive. If someone is injured on the job, they are entitled to the appropriate treatment and care that will allow them to return to work as soon as possible. Denying them the payment for such treatment will only impede this goal. This revised system strikes an appropriate balance between incentives and penalties—a 'carrot and stick' approach.

The bill also restores Comcare's ability to access the Consolidated Revenue Fund to pay for workers compensation claims and expenses arising from long latency injuries claims. This access to funding was shut off in 2006 as an indirect result of a decision of the Federal Court. Examples of long latency injury claims are asbestosis and mesothelioma, many cases of which may not become apparent for decades after the initial exposure. It is not only decades; sometimes people do not even know which employer may have been the source of that exposure, because it is so long between the time of contracting the disease and any signs of it showing.

This provision in the bill will allow Comcare to access consolidated revenue for payment of its liabilities relating to events which happened before 1 December 1988, but which did not result in an injury until after that date. That certainly covers the examples I have noted. Restoring Comcare's access to the Consolidated Revenue Fund for such injuries is a minor administrative change, but it is one that makes sense given the purposes of the Comcare scheme.

Finally, there is a provision in the bill that allows for continuous workers' compensation for employees who are working overseas and who are in a declared place. The Australian Civilian Corps and the employment of DFAT staff in high risk areas such as Afghanistan and Iraq are examples where this cover could apply. The effect of these provisions is that employees in declared places or a declared class of employee will have access to 24/7 workers compensation for the duration of the overseas employment with the usual exceptions that apply to workers compensation such as serious and wilful misconduct, intentional self-inflicted injury and a few other exceptions.

This bill makes some small but significant changes to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 that will provide better outcomes for workers employed by the Commonwealth government and those private businesses that are covered by the Comcare scheme. I welcome the changes and I look forward to continued progress in this important area. I commend the bill to the House.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in favour of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, but before I go into any detail about that I just want to take issue with the overblown comments that were made by the member for Farrer with regard to her concerns about the off-site recess element of this bill. She suggests that people go scuba diving at lunch and so therefore she had an objection to elements of this bill. She maintained that that element of the bill defies common sense. Her comments defy common sense. I cannot believe that she said that. It shows a complete distrust and a misunderstanding of Australian workers and of Commonwealth employees and people who would be covered under this scheme.

How many times have you been out on a lunch break, when we do get a lunch break, driving around Lake Burley Griffin and the place is—what?—bobbing with people scuba diving? Commonwealth public servants just all bobbing round—it's absolutely chockers! Winter, spring, summer, autumn, there they are, down there scuba diving! It is a completely ridiculous statement and it should be highlighted as such. It also shows a complete misunderstanding and distrust for Australian workers. So, in a way, the comments of the member for Farrer really do not surprise me, particularly with regard to Commonwealth employees. She has a complete misunderstanding and a complete distrust of them.

This bill will have a positive impact on many of my constituents here in Canberra and I would like to congratulate the Gillard government for responding to the Comcare review. The Comcare scheme has grown since its introduction to now include 200 employers and over 400,000 employees nationally. The Prime Minister, in her then capacity as minister for workplace relations, agreed to make a number of amendments to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act following the report of the Comcare review. In particular, the government made amendments to reinstate the coverage of workers injured during an off-site recess break; continue the payment of medical costs, even if the employee refuses to take part in the rehabilitation process; and introduce statutory time limits within which claims must be determined by Comcare.

Although the language and technicalities of this bill can seem dry, this bill ultimately is about the very real problems that can and do face Australian workers who are injured at work. There are few things that can be more worrying and disruptive than to be unable to work due to injury and to face the prospect of no longer being able to carry out your trade or profession. In considering this bill we should therefore bear in mind that we are addressing the realities of the workplace.

This bill will, through its amendments, redress a number of anomalies which can make the position of workers affected by injury even more difficult. To illustrate these amendments, and the need for them, just think of something we see every day. For many people today, workplaces provide a place where they can go for recess breaks but for many others taking a recess break means going to a venue off site, as the member for Deakin just pointed out. Normally, that is a pleasurable, relaxing experience but under the present act there is an inequity in coverage of workers injured during an off-site break, between those employees who have an on-site facility for recess breaks and those who are not provided with one.

It is difficult, furthermore, to determine what would and would not be considered an off-site recess break for those employees who undertake their work off site—for example, a Telstra technician. There is another real-life situation that is relevant here. Most of us will know of someone engaged in an apprenticeship, or otherwise undergoing work related study to improve themselves. This means attending a work sanctioned course of an education provider such as a CIT or TAFE. But under the present arrangements this person would not necessarily be covered while on a lunch break. For these very real and common-sense reasons, one of the amendments the government is putting forward will reinstate the coverage of workers injured during an off-site recess break.

Now turning to another reality of life, we can all agree that rehabilitation for an injured worker is important in restoring confidence and a return to the workforce. But we also know that this can be a difficult process and that not all can easily take part in what is often a demanding process. Showing the necessary commitment and discipline can take time. Under present arrangements if a worker does not, or is not ready to, take part in a rehabilitation and return-to-work plan then all benefits can be suspended. This provision has some merit in so far as it is an incentive for a worker to stick to a rehabilitation and return-to-work plan. The recommendation of the majority report of the Senate inquiry into this legislation was that the rehabilitation and return to work of the employee were a priority of the Comcare scheme. And this is a view shared I would think by most of us.

But, while the suspension of benefits can be a useful mechanism to compel employees to comply with their rehabilitation and return-to-work plan, we should analyse more carefully the way in which this is done. In particular, the suspension of medical benefits appears to me to be a bit ill-judged. If the worker is unable to continue to receive treatment it makes it highly unlikely that the medical condition will improve sufficiently to make a return to work possible. For this reason the bill proposes an amendment under which the payment of medical costs can be continued even if the employee refuses to take part in the rehabilitation process. The effect of this amendment then is that only weekly compensation benefits would be affected in the case of a worker not engaging in rehabilitation; the payment of medical benefits would not be affected.

We all know how dispiriting and annoying it can be to face what seem to be unnecessarily long delays in the settlement of a claim we have made. Imagine, then, the effect on injured workers of waiting for a decision on which, it is not too much to say, their futures and their families' futures depend. The Comcare review noted that if claims are determined quickly then claimants can gain access to rehabilitation and medical treatment sooner.

Claims that are determined quickly also tend to be of a shorter duration and less costly. As it currently stands, there is no requirement under the act for decision-makers to act within a certain period. This is contrasted by those schemes operated by the states, which do apply statutory limits. The government is therefore proposing an amendment to introduce statutory time limits within which claims must be determined by Comcare.

Currently, the average time taken by Comcare is in excess of the time taken by these schemes, and therefore these amendments will provide a clear standard to determine claims quickly. As to the introduction of time limits, it was noted by the Comcare review that Comcare does not have a particularly good record of accomplishment in resolution of claims. In their submission to the review, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers noted:

... in 2004/2005 every state system had resolved more than 80% of claims within nine months while Comcare lagged behind with just 45% of claims resolved. These are the figures in a year where Comcare handled just 2660 total claims (disputed and undisputed) - Victoria and Queensland managed 27,000 each and NSW 52,000.

The AWU noted similar issues, saying:

The scenarios allowed under Comcare can result in extended periods before an injured worker may receive treatment and rehabilitation, reducing the potential for a sustainable return to work.

There is a definite link between the time it takes to resolve a claim and the positive outcome and return to work of an employee. Those claims that are determined quickly tend to be of a shorter duration and less costly. It also means claimants can gain access to rehabilitation and medical treatment sooner. As it stands, there is no requirement under the act for decision makers to act within a certain period. This is contrasted by those schemes operated by the states, and this bill addresses those issues. This bill will also give Comcare access to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which was closed off as an indirect result of a Federal Court decision. These moneys have been used to pay for liabilities accrued prior to the premium system being introduced in 1989. As a result of the Federal Court decision, premium moneys are being used to pay for liabilities they were not intended for, thus compromising the system. This amendment will fix this and ensure the government has made contingencies for the provision of long-latency illnesses, such as asbestosis.

This legislation will also allow for the continuous coverage of employees who have been deployed overseas or are members of a declared class of employee, such as those deployed as part of the Australian Civilian Corps. This is particularly welcome news to me because I know many people in my electorate who have been deployed overseas, often to dangerous and unstable positions and locations. They are often called upon at a moment's notice to serve their government and country and they do so willingly and proudly. It is good to know that while they are away the government has them covered, should they be injured.

I also note with pride the specific mention of the Australian Civilian Corps as a declared category of employee. I am a proud supporter of the corps and am pleased to see its inclusion. For those unaware, the Australian Civilian Corps is a select group of civilian specialists who deploy to countries experiencing or emerging from natural disaster or conflict. Members of the corps are drawn from a register of screened and trained civilian specialists. They are selected for their technical skills and ability to work in some challenging environments overseas.

Members of this corps come from all levels of government and the broader community to provide advice, assistance and capability building in public administration, finance, law and justice, agriculture, engineering and health administration, and many of them are from Canberra. The Australian Civilian Corps is not part of the emergency relief effort but is designed to support stabilisation, recovery and development planning with a view towards the long-term viability of countries in need. It builds on the initial humanitarian efforts to set the foundation for sustainable development and self-reliance. For a range of reasons, this is a welcome bill and I commend it to the House.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 2006, a Commonwealth public servant in Queensland told the story of having sprained an ankle just two metres from the front door of his building while going out for a lunch break. Would any of us reasonably think that that was not a workplace accident? Would any of us reasonably seek to deny someone who suffered such an injury fair compensation? The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 may look technical, but in its essence it is about fairness and it is about equity. If you have ever been injured at work, you know that it can be a time of incredible stress and uncertainty. This bill provides greater assurance to employees covered by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act about their rights and entitlements. This bill also expands the application of the SRC Act to ensure that people deployed on dangerous missions, whether here or overseas, have greater certainty about their workers compensation coverage.

The recess breaks amendment reinstates a previously held entitlement to workers compensation insurance coverage for workers on unpaid recess breaks. Leaving work for a coffee, for lunch or for an appointment during your own time currently leaves public servants without workers compensation coverage. This means that public servants participating in a lunchtime stroll around Lake Burley Griffin are left without workers compensation coverage, even when the walk is part of a charity activity supported by their department. People who slip on the frosty Canberra grass on a winter's morning on their way to warm up with a coffee or a hot chocolate are denied coverage for any injury they sustain.

Under current arrangements, workers on a recess break may only claim some compensation through their motor vehicle insurance. So the workers who are punished by these Howard government reforms removing coverage for recess breaks are those workers who are being more socially and environmentally responsible. Restoring this coverage to workers covered by the Comcare scheme is important to me as the member for Fraser, not just because of the significant number of Australian Public Service employees living in my electorate but also because the Comcare scheme covers employees of the Australian Capital Territory government. Additionally, employees of non-Commonwealth licensees that self-insure under the Comcare scheme will see those rights restored to their working conditions. The rights restored by this bill apply to ACT government employees as well as Australian government employees. Unusually for public sector workers, ACT government employees are not able to lobby or negotiate with their direct employer over their workers compensation arrangements. In that respect, as their representative here in the big house in Canberra, I feel an additional duty to ensure that the rights of these workers are improved.

Workers compensation coverage is a basic right in Australia. Most voters would reasonably expect that if an employee is injured by their work or while carrying out their work then they should be compensated for their injury. I need to be clear here and stress again to the House that workers compensation coverage for employees on recess breaks is not a new entitlement. It restores a right previously held by Commonwealth and ACT government employees from the introduction of workers compensation insurance in 1988 right up until 2006 when, as a part of then Prime Minister John Howard's broader attacks on the rights of workers, the Liberal and National parties saw fit to deny their own public servants rights enjoyed by workers across other jurisdictions in Australia. In fact, South Australia and Tasmania are the only two jurisdictions aside from those in the Comcare scheme that do not provide workers compensation coverage for their employees during recess breaks. It is a right enjoyed by most Australian workers that must be restored to workers covered by the Comcare scheme.

As well as restoring rights, extension of workers compensation coverage to recess breaks removes a substantial number of grey areas. Think about the following situations: an employee leaves work for a coffee with their supervisor to discuss a range of work related issues; an employee takes a work related telephone call on their lunch break; an employee runs into a contact or a colleague on their lunch break and proceeds to have a long conversation about a work related matter; and a group of employees attend a work lunch. Restoration of workers compensation coverage for recess breaks means that workers at workplaces that do not provide on-site lunch facilities are not offered different treatment to workers lucky enough to have on-site lunch facilities. Similarly, work sponsored health and fitness activities that occur off-site during breaks currently leave employees exposed to situations where they are not covered by workers compensation, and have left employers reluctant to encourage off-site health initiatives. I am proud that my local public sector workplaces encourage their employees to get out of the workplace during their unpaid lunch break to undertake community activities, healthy activities and fitness activities. But I am disappointed that the current law acts as a disincentive for people to participate in these healthy activities.

There are plenty of examples around Canberra of healthy lunchtime activities. There are walking clubs, there is netball, Tai Chi, Pilates and Zumba. Department of Defence employees use onsite gyms, badminton courts and pool facilities, participate in lunchtime competitions including volleyball, touch football, basketball and softball, and participate in lunchtime classes including aerobics, weights, resistance training and ballroom dancing. The way the laws currently stand, it is unclear whether the employees would be covered for workers compensation purposes in these situations. Breaks during the working day cannot always be divided neatly into 'working' and 'not working'. We need laws that recognise the diversity and flexibility of working arrangements.

As to time limits, this bill adds further benefits and protections to workers by introducing statutory time limits for the determination of claims. Procedural rights can be just as important as substantive rights to allow people to access their entitlements. Without time limits an application for compensation could technically be allowed to sit with a decision maker for days, weeks, months or years on end before a decision is finally made. Administrative law has long recognised the need for decisions by government to be made in a timely manner. Introducing time limits provides assurance to workers in the Comcare scheme that their claim will be dealt with by a particular date. Making these limits a statutory right rather than an administrative process means that these rights are given greater prominence and certainty. Claimants can rely on the laws to remain constant and reliable.

For those that have suffered an injury at work, uncertainty about their workers compensation claim can cause considerable distress. People who suffer an injury at work, and are unable to attend work as a result, are forced to sit at home and wonder about when they will be able to return to full health and return to work. It can be an incredibly distressing time and it allows plenty of time for the injured worker to worry about their claim and their entitlements. Providing as much assurance and certainty as we can about when and how a worker will know their precise entitlements is a key step forward in ensuring that our workers compensation system is as effective as possible at getting people back into work. Evidence in the Comcare review showed that Comcare had a much lower rate than the national average for assessing and determining claims. Providing statutory time limits should encourage Comcare to provide the same level of service to workers covered under that scheme as workers from other jurisdictions.

I have long supported the principle of policy based on considered evidence. The changes to time limits proposed in the bill arose from the review of Comcare conducted by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Statistics about these time limits leave me convinced that without an adequate statutory requirement workers will continue to be denied important rights with respect to their workers compensation.

One new aspect of this bill, which was not a part of the Comcare review, is the extension of workers compensation coverage to particular areas or particular classes of employees. The bill amends the SRC Act to provide workers compensation coverage for injuries sustained while an employee is working in a 'declared place' outside Australia. This is above and beyond any existing extraterritoriality provisions and will provide additional certainty for employees on overseas postings about their workers compensation entitlements. This means that the relevant minister can declare high-risk places, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, to be places where workers compensation coverage will be continuous for all Commonwealth employees. The very act of being in a dangerous situation, as determined by the minister, means that a worker is deemed to continuously be at work and any injuries sustained while in that dangerous place as a result of work will be compensable.

The changed coverage also applies where a person is a member of a 'declared category' of employees whose work requires deployment to places outside Australia. The need for this flexibility arises specifically in relation to the establishment of the Australian Civilian Corps, who will assist in disaster relief, stabilisation and postconflict resolution in developing countries and failed states. The effect of these changes will be to provide 24/7 coverage under the SRC Act for employees exposed to unusually high risks while working outside Australia.

I spoke recently at the Lowy Institute about the need for targeted, effective foreign aid. The Australian Civilian Corps is very much in this mould. It will provide expertise where it is most needed: after natural disasters or in times of acute stress. We have a duty to help our neighbours and an obligation to provide our expertise on a global scale. But in providing this aid we should recognise that the Australian government still has a role in protecting its people who are sent into these dangerous situations and should ensure that their workers compensation is assured and not left open to interpretation or confusion. Providing continuous workers compensation coverage for such groups will also assure them, both before and during their deployment, that there is a safety net in case anything goes wrong during their deployment.

I am proud to be part of a political party that always seeks to look after the rights of workers. I am proud to be part of a political party that looks after the substantive and procedural rights of people who are unfortunate enough to be injured at work. This bill goes some way to undoing the damage of the Howard years on public servants in Canberra and throughout Australia—those working for the Australian government or the ACT government, as well as non-Commonwealth licensees. I am also proud to be a part of a political party that recognises its obligations when new and challenging situations arise for people carrying out work in our name in places of high risk or danger. I commend this bill to the House.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all members for their contributions to this debate on the second reading of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. This bill implements the government's response to the review of the Comcare scheme. It also introduces certain associated amendments. In late 2007 we undertook to review the Comcare scheme—in particular, its self-insurance arrangements, which provide for the entry of private sector corporations into the scheme. This review was designed to ensure that the Comcare scheme has suitable occupational health and safety and workers compensation arrangements for self-insurers and their employees.

The bill implements improvements arising from the review through amendments to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988—the SRC Act. It also makes amendments that respond to policy issues unrelated to the review that address Comcare's access to the Consolidated Revenue Fund as well as workers compensation coverage for employees working in high-risk environments overseas. To encourage the timely determination of workers compensation claims, the bill amends the SRC Act to enable the setting of statutory time limits within which claims must be determined. This is because claims determined quickly tend to be shorter in duration and less costly. In addition, the bill amends the SRC Act so that medical and related costs will continue to be paid when a worker has their compensation benefits suspended for refusing to participate in the rehabilitation process.

The bill also reinstates workers compensation coverage for off-site recess breaks. This will realign the Comcare scheme with the schemes of most jurisdictions and remove the inequity in coverage for employees whose employers do not provide on-site facilities for meal breaks.

In the coalition senators' minority report on the Occupational Health and Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, senators recommended that the bill be amended to continue to exclude workers compensation claims arising from injuries sustained during off-site recess breaks. The government does not support this recommendation. A number of practical difficulties have resulted from the April 2007 removal of coverage of off-site recess breaks. These problems include the inequity of coverage for employees whose employers do not provide on-site facilities for recess breaks.

There is also the difficulty of determining what would or would not constitute an off-site recess break. One example is when employees are required to work off-site, such as Telstra technicians whose usual place of work is their vehicle. A further inconsistency arises in that an employee would be covered when attending employer sanctioned courses at educational institutions both during and outside normal work hours but might not be covered during lunch breaks. Reinstating workers compensation coverage during recess breaks does not mean that workers will be automatically covered for all injuries sustained during their breaks. Workers compensation is not payable in relation to self-inflicted injuries, injuries sustained as a result of serious or wilful misconduct on the part of the employee or injuries sustained because an employee voluntarily and unreasonably submitted to an abnormal risk of injury. Reinstatement of coverage of recess breaks will cost Comcare $1.7 million in 2010-11, indexed for future years.

The measures proposed in the bill 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. The bill also seeks to make a number of additional reforms to address issues that have arisen separately to the Comcare review. In particular, the bill amends the SRC Act to provide workers compensation coverage for injuries sustained while an employee is working in a declared place outside Australia or where the person is a member of a declared category of employees whose work requires deployment to places outside Australia.

The bill will allow the minister to declare certain high-risk places—for example, Afghanistan or Iraq—to be places where the SRC Act will be deemed to provide continuous coverage for all Commonwealth employees. The bill will also allow the minister to declare certain classes of employees to be covered while outside Australia. The need for this flexibility arises specifically in relation to the establishment of the Australian Civilian Corps, who will assist in disaster relief, stabilisation and post-conflict resolution in developing countries and failed states. The effect of these changes will be to provide 24/7 coverage under the SRC Act for employees exposed to unusually high risk while working outside Australia. The fiscal impact of these amendments will be in the order of $2 million per annum.

Other amendments to the SRC Act contained in this bill restore Comcare's access to the Consolidated Revenue Fund to pay for its workers compensation liabilities and associated expenses arising from long-latency injury claims, such as those related to asbestos exposure. Comcare's access to the Consolidated Revenue Fund was closed off as an indirect result of a Federal Court decision in 2006. However, the intention of the SRC Act has been and still is that the Consolidated Revenue Fund should fund these claims because they relate to employment related injuries not covered by Comcare's premium system. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.