Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Hansard source

I have only been in the chamber for a short period of time while the contributions have been made on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015. I have had the opportunity to listen to Senator Ludwig's contribution and the contribution of Senator Xenophon. I have to say that there was an extraordinary contrast in the approaches of these two senators to this bill.

Senator Xenophon is taking a very sensible approach. Obviously, he is seeking more information about what the detail of this bill is and the consequences on the people that would be affected by this bill—most particularly and most importantly those people who are currently injured and off work and who are requiring the assistance of an insurer to get them back to work, hopefully, but in some instances to look after them because their injuries are such that they may not be able to return to the work that they had previously done. He has offered to engage in a constructive debate to try to reach an outcome that is in the best interests of these particular people. He also acknowledges that, in a situation where the federal government may not have the capacity or ability to have control over what a government such as the ACT government might do in this space, the Commonwealth has an obligation to make sure that we make the best of the situation so that, once again, the people who are impacted by this action are the ones that we seek to protect.

Contrasting with that was the contribution that I heard from Senator Ludwig, where he seems to have either purposely or through ignorance—I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he has probably not done this purposely—tried to confuse what has been proposed in this bill with other bills that may be proposed to be put before this place. At the moment before the Senate—I will start again—is the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015. This bill is a process bill. It is not a substantive bill; it does not deal with arrangements specifically about compensation. It is a process bill—and I will say this quite clearly—that has no capacity to have any adverse effect on employees' entitlements to compensation. I think that is absolutely the key to this.

The fact that Senator Ludwig would come in here and state in the chamber that there is any capacity whatsoever for the passage of this bill to be likely to have a detrimental impact on the entitlements and the benefits that are currently being received by employees I think does a disservice to him and to this place because all this serves to do is to create uncertainty, fear and concern in the minds of the people who are impacted by this, when there is no need for that to happen.

I take my role as a senator very seriously in that I am here representing the people of Australia—and in this instance I am here to represent the interests of the people who, potentially, would be impacted on if the ACT chooses to follow through with its decision of February last year to exit this particular scheme—who are currently being compensated under that particular scheme, ensuring that their rights and entitlements are protected into the future. So it is not my job to use scaremongering tactics for political purposes, to make the lives of those people even more miserable than they currently are. As you would well know, Madam Acting Deputy President, to be injured in any situation—workplace or otherwise—is a very debilitating thing to have happen, and these people need all the support that we can give them. Carrying on with this kind of scaremongering activity that we saw from Senator Ludwig earlier on I think is very sad, and it would be very sad that he could use these people for political gain.

The reality is that this bill actually protects the rights of those employees. I really hope that it is possible, when we get into the committee stage of this bill, that Senator Ludwig comes into this place and properly clarifies to some extent what he was actually up to in his comments earlier on this morning so that he can put the minds of those people who are impacted at the moment by the requirement for compensation for a workplace injury in the ACT to rest. Let us be really clear: this bill is set to amend the compensation act of 1998—the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998, or the SRC Act, as it is known—to provide financial and other arrangements when a Commonwealth authority which is a premium payer exits the Comcare workers compensation scheme.

We saw in February 2015 that the ACT government announced that it intended to leave the Comcare scheme to establish its own workers compensation arrangements. It is interesting: if my memory serves me correctly I would suggest that Senator Katy Gallagher would still have been the Chief Minister of the ACT at the time. As Senator Xenophon rightly points out, sometimes you have to be a little bit careful about what you wish for in this space. Often you may think that a scheme is not particularly good, but the downside of trying to set up a scheme for yourself—as we found out in South Australia—needs to be taken into account. The one thing that needs to be very clear in this is that in a situation like we have seen in South Australia, under the workers compensation scheme that we have there, is that we need to make sure that the injured workers are not the ones who are disadvantaged because of mismanagement, bad management or inefficient management of a scheme. We take that as a given.

But the reality of the bill that we have before us at the moment is that it actually does not delve into those sorts of details. What it actually serves to do is just to make sure that anybody who is currently covered under the ACT scheme in this specific instance—or, for that matter, any other scheme—is not disadvantaged if that particular Commonwealth entity decides that it is going to exit this particular scheme.

The purpose of the bill is quite specifically to close that legislative gap. It would ensure that when the ACT—or, for that matter, any other employer—leaves the scheme that they pay a contribution to cover their liabilities as they currently exist so that the Commonwealth is not left to pick up the tab. As you would know, quite rightly, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds—coming from an economic background—when the Commonwealth is left to pick up the tab that means that the taxpayers of Australia are left to pick up the tab. We need to make sure that in every message we send from this place people understand that if we continually keep putting an expense on this government all we are doing is making sure that those people who currently pay the taxation in this country are being asked to pick up an ever-increasing burden because of these actions. It is our responsibility as federal legislators to make sure that we do what we can to minimise the impact on the taxpayers of Australia, who are our responsibility.

Currently, the act does not include any arrangements to enable an employer who leaves the scheme to be responsible for their liabilities after exit. What we are saying is that the ACT government is more than welcome to leave the scheme; the reality is that there is probably very little that we can do about it as a Commonwealth government—and you could possibly even question whether we should be doing anything about it as a federal government. But if they choose to leave the scheme they cannot just automatically pass the liability that they currently hold onto the new entity. So all this bill serves to do is to say to the ACT government, 'You need to be responsible for your existing liability.' If they want to transfer out of the scheme, obviously, they pick up their new liability when they start with their new scheme, but it is not for the taxpayers of the whole of Australia to pick up the tab for what currently exists and is currently a liability of the ACT.

As I said—and I think this is the most important thing—this bill does not impact on employees' benefits. I cannot say that often enough and I cannot stress that highly enough. The reality is that the content of this bill more broadly is not new. This has occurred in other jurisdictions around Australia before, so there is nothing new in this.

Specifically, the amendments to this bill will enable Comcare to calculate the liabilities of an existing employer—in this case the ACT—and issue them with a levy to ensure that the liabilities are covered once the employer leaves the scheme. This will ensure that the Commonwealth is not left picking up the tab. Contributions will be determined on a cost recovery basis, so it will not allow the Commonwealth to recover anything more than the debt that is currently owed. There is no capacity whatsoever for any gouging or anything to occur in this space; the Commonwealth will merely have a mechanism by which an existing liability that does not reside with us does not end up residing with us. It remains residing where it currently exists. This is sensible management on the part of the government.

It also ensures that employees who are injured before their employer leaves the scheme will continue to receive compensation from Comcare on the same terms as well as ongoing support for their rehabilitation and, hopefully, their return to work.

Obviously, on the basis of the information that is contained within this bill—for those who have had the opportunity to go through the detail of this bill—it is quite clear that this bill is a process bill, is responsible because it is ensuring liability rests where liability should rest and at no time and in no way threatens the benefits of employees. I think we need to be very clear in debating this particular bill that we understand what the bill actually does and that we do not confuse the debate by suggesting that we are actually in here talking about issues that relate to the entitlements, benefits or, most importantly, ongoing rehabilitation of employees and their capacity to go back to work. They are very important issues and at times will obviously be the subject of other pieces of legislation that come through this place, but to confuse this particular bill with something as important as that and to use it for political purposes are horrendous things for us to be doing.

Right now the SRC Act does not set out what happens if the ACT or any other Commonwealth employer leaves the scheme. The legislation does not currently require an employer to contribute towards its liabilities for claims when it leaves Comcare. As a result, there could be insufficient funds to cover claims made by employees of that employer after they have left the scheme. As I said before, it effectively leaves the responsibility or the liability at the foot of the taxpayer. This bill seeks to do nothing more than change that.

It says to any Commonwealth entity that is currently in the scheme, 'If you leave the scheme, you must accept your liabilities and your responsibilities as they currently exist.' If the bill is not passed then the Commonwealth will be left with the ACT's liabilities for its workers. Whilst at no time is there any suggestion whatsoever that those workers and the entitlements and benefits that those workers are entitled to are under question, we accept the fact that they will have to be, effectively, accepted by an entity. This bill responsibly says that that entity needs to remain the liability of the ACT and not be a burden on the taxpayers of Australia.

The reality is that the federal government does not have the power to prevent the ACT from leaving Comcare even though the ACT government made the announcement back on 25 February 2015. My understanding is that they actually have not taken the necessary actions to exit. Before they go rushing off down there, maybe they might like to think a little about some of the experiences of other jurisdictions when they have chosen to leave the scheme. But it will be very interesting to have a look at the contribution made by the Labor senator for the ACT, Katy Gallagher, to this given her very intimate involvement in the decision by the ACT government to go down this path in the first place.

Obviously it is quite clear that I believe it is very important that we see this bill passed. As I said, it is administrative. It is process. There is nothing about this bill that even needs to get anybody remotely exercised or concerned about it. It is just good government on behalf of the current government. We are seeking to make sure that we protect the interests of the people that we represent. At the same time, we are making sure that we protect the interests of those people who are affected directly by the actions of the ACT in saying that they are choosing to leave this particular scheme.

I commend the bill to this place but I most particularly commend the bill to those opposite, that they actually take a little bit of a step back and have a think about the consequences of allowing this bill to go through and most particularly about the consequences for the people who currently require the compensation and benefits that exist under this particular scheme. Think about the implications of scaremongering about this particular piece of legislation. Have a think about the impact on their state of health, their state of mind and their families, because they do not have, as we have in this place, the benefit of a number of people who assist us in interpreting legislation and making sure that we understand clearly the intent of the legislation and the consequences of the legislation if it is passed or not passed. All these people will see is possibly a headline in the paper: 'Federal government legislation'—or bill—'has the potential to reduce benefits to injured workers in the ACT.' That is an irresponsible thing to be saying in this place and a completely irresponsible thing to be saying anywhere.

So I would call on those opposite when they get up to make a contribution, when they ask questions or when they debate bills such as this that they restrict their debate to facts of the matter and make sure that they very clearly understand the consequences of anything they say not only for people in our community that are not as well equipped as we are to get the information about these things but also for people who are in a vulnerable state because they have suffered a workplace injury—and some of them have quite serious workplace injuries. So they might be sitting at home, they might have limited information, and all we are serving to do is to cause them to worry more about what their circumstances might be into the future and, in the process of doing that, probably hindering their recovery.

It has been a great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. I commend the bill to the house. I hope that we will see some sensible debate about the substance of this bill and not a whole heap of scaremongering, which is what seems to have occurred by some who have spoken on this bill before me.