Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable senator for his question. I understand that Senator Murray has for some time, from recollection, argued for more consistency across this nation in terms of workers compensation laws. We do recognise as a government how important it is for working Australians and their families for the health and safety of Australian workers to be ensured through legislation, regulation and good practice that can be effected in the workplace. Certainly we agree, as all senators would, that workers who are injured must have the appropriate support both financially and in terms of a return to work where that is possible. As the honourable senator points out, these matters are generally regulated by state jurisdictions. Yes, he is correct that there are different workers compensation schemes in all the states and territories and, yes, they do have different applications in respect of older workers. In general, as the honourable senator would know, these schemes do aim to provide adequate income support or other forms of financial compensation in the event of workplace injury. However, there are jurisdictional differences in the design of each scheme, including, for example, the length of time for which an injured worker can receive income maintenance or compensation.

I indicate to Senator Murray that my advice is that age is not a factor in any limits which apply to benefits such as medical costs, rehabilitation costs and lump-sum payments. However, he correctly identifies the fact that entitlement to weekly payments or whatever form of income support in the various schemes is affected by the age of employees in all jurisdictions—except, I am advised, in Queensland, in which a time limit is imposed for a maximum period during which an injured worker can receive weekly income replacement payments, irrespective of age.

I can advise Senator Murray that most jurisdictions have amended their schemes to provide some income replacement payments to older workers whilst recognising that these workers usually have access to other income support measures, such as superannuation or, of course, the Commonwealth funded pension. These modifications aim to provide a reasonable amount of workers compensation for loss of weekly income beyond the age of 65 whilst still containing scheme costs. The fact is that most state governments, I understand, have taken a position that probably reflects the fact that providing unlimited weekly benefits past the age of 65 would involve significant additional costs for all workers compensation schemes.

Senator Murray has an interest in these areas and he would be aware that we do have a range of policy commitments on the occupational health and safety front and certainly also on the workers compensation front in so far as it applies to Comcare. We have a policy commitment to undertake a review of the Comcare scheme to ensure the Commonwealth scheme provides appropriate protections for the workforce it was designed to cover, and we have said that we will work with the states and territories to provide a streamlined delivery of workers compensation for multistate employers. Senator Murray would probably be aware that, as I understand it, we did not make any commitment to seek a national scheme for workers compensation.