Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) | Hansard source

I'm happy to take the interjection if I'm incorrect on that matter. It is the responsibility of this chamber to hear the concerns of Australians about the legislation that is before us in this place. A long reporting time frame should have given the committee time to engage with these issues and address the concerns of people in high-risk industries. The committee received some 46 submissions from super funds, academics, regulators and other interested parties, but we didn't get to hear and interrogate that evidence before a Senate committee.

In that context, Labor was calling for a longer time frame of implementation on this legislation, out to 2020, the government sought to push ahead with an implementation date of 1 October—some two weeks away. I understand the government is moving amendments in this regard, however, it really does underscore the point that it hasn't taken the time to address the technical issues in this legislation that this place, and the committee, should have had the opportunity to do.

Super funds have expressed to the parliament and the committee their concern about implementing this legislation in such a short time frame, and the regulators also have expressed that concern. Yet here we are, with a start date of 1 October in the draft of this legislation. I'm not across the detail of the amendments that the government might seek to move, but I would want very clear assurances that the new timetable as you amend it—or that I hope you amend—has been worked through with regulators and the industry to make sure that it is something that is objectively achievable.

I note that of the other concerns in relation to this legislation, meeting the existing proposed time line looks to result in significant pricing revisions, and that that doesn't flow through automatically. That will see super funds needing to renegotiate the group insurance contracts with their insurers. I would like to know how those issues will be addressed, in the context of the minister responding on this legislation in the second reading response. We want to see how the renegotiation of contracts is going to fare in the context of the time line for the implementation of these legislative changes. That is why Labor senators have been pushing that the commencement of this bill not be until next year.

I want to return to one of the issues I've already touched on, and that is the concern for members of these super funds who are in high-risk occupations. These issues were at the forefront of submissions made to the inquiry, and they haven't been adequately addressed. We sought to make amendments in the other place on these issues, and we will need to pursue them here, because the government has not adequately responded to the situation that current holders of these insurance policies may find themselves in when they are suddenly without these insurance policies to protect them.

Clearly, the ideal situation for Australian workers is that everyone comes home safe and sound from a day's work. Then we wouldn't need these life insurance policies, which are, in large part, to cover us for workplace injuries or accidents. I want to highlight to this place the fundamental importance that unions play in campaigning and ensuring that superannuation is fit for purpose and the excellent role that industry super funds have played in supporting workers in Australia. But hand in hand with that is coming home safe from work every day. Sadly, this is not the case for all Australian workers. These insurance products, embedded in superannuation, are incredibly important for all workers, but specifically, and in particular, for those in high-risk industries.

From the ACTU's evidence, between 2003 and 2016 a staggering 3,400 workers lost their lives on the job. Of those, close to 10 per cent were under the age of 25. It's all very well to assume that when a young worker loses their life they don't need an insurance product because they don't have dependents and they don't have things that need covering, but you cannot ever assume that's the case. Young workers do have families, they do have mortgages, they do get cancer, they do get sick, and you can't assume that they're not going to need to call on that insurance product to support themselves or to support their families. So for those who work in high-risk occupations, we need to consider their issues substantively in this place, and I do not believe that the government has adequately done that.

I hope very much that you have a very real response to the amendments that the Labor Party will seek to move in this place. The bill, as drafted, currently cancels insurance for police officers, paramedics, construction workers, truck drivers, agricultural workers, forestry workers, prison officers and healthcare workers, all of whom are at high risk of suffering a workplace injury or, tragically, death. More than 27 per cent of workers under the age of 25 are, in fact, in high-risk occupations such as these, and it's very clear that insurance has real value for them and for their families. It is, frankly, nonsense to suggest to young workers that they should seek individual cover for themselves rather than rely on the default cover provided by their super fund.

Let's look at, for example, the intersection of this legislation with the fair work bills that are also currently before this place, one of them being the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2019. The funds that currently enable redundancy payments, which is where employers collect funds on behalf of employees and put them into these redundancy funds, also help protect workers in these high-risk occupations. They're high risk not only in a safety sense but also in a phoenixing sense—the coming and going of industries that go broke and then recreate themselves. In this situation, young workers will reply on their insurance product while they're working and also rely on redundancy products to make sure their entitlements are paid out as they peak and trough from contract to contract. What I'm concerned about here is that you are abandoning the needs of these workers not only in this legislation but also in the proper use of worker benefits legislation. The viability of redundancy funds and of access to reasonably priced and accessible insurance products are incredibly important for this cohort of workers. And, frankly, I think it is ridiculous to expect young people who have plenty of other issues on their minds, who are hopefully saving up for a mortgage, who are just making their way in the insecure world of work—because many of them are also in insecure work—to truly think about having their own insurance product. You can't really choose an insurance product if your work is insecure, and the insurance in your superannuation may be the only insurance product, other than your car insurance, that you really think about having.

For example, Mine Super are a fund where 90 per cent of their members are employed in high-risk occupations. They've raised concerns where they say that these occupations are often ineligible for retail insurance coverage and are uninsurable outside the group insurance offering within the superannuation environment. So surely there's an argument for the government to have addressed whether there are some super funds where it is relevant to opt out from insurance being removed from their products on an arbitrary basis.

The other thing I want to address in this context is the importance of group insurance in keeping insurance premiums down. In the second reading response, you might also address for us the issues that are around the way insurance premiums are derived, particularly if people in high-risk industries are suddenly left needing to purchase their own insurance products because they don't get the bonus, if you like, of being in pooled superannuation funds where you can really drive down the price of insurance—where you've got people in lower-risk industries cross-subsidising the insurance for people in higher-risk industries. That's because, if these people in high-risk industries are truly uninsurable or if the insurance is truly unaffordable, there are deeper questions, really, about the fact that we should be having insurance products, and we really need to look at it in a policy context of how we address life insurance questions for people who do face a higher level of risk.

Mine Super have said that they receive about 800 claims per year, which is approximately one in every 50 insured members making a claim in any given year. Frankly, it seems pretty ridiculous that you would have an arbitrary opt-out in those circumstances, because there's a reasonable likelihood that even young workers will need to draw on that insurance product, and the cross-insurance that they gain, even if they are low-paid workers, is worth investing in.

The ACTU touched on the issues that I was raising before in relation to what happens to insurance premiums—how they sort themselves out when you start opting out high-risk occupations or opting out younger people. They've raised concerns about insurance premiums spiking for those who prudently opt in, as well as for existing members within the group insurance plan.

Labor's listened very carefully to stakeholders that have raised these concerns. We've moved amendments in the other place to protect workers in high-risk occupations, and I look forward to those issues being vigorously pursued in this place in the committee stage. It is a shame to me that the government was unwilling to support amendments in the other place. We do need to have a strong committee stage on this bill to make sure that these issues are addressed. I also want to highlight the fact that there's a key gender dimension to this legislation, and the government do not appear to have given proper scrutiny to those issues either. I don't think that's any surprise, given the rough, rushed process that they have been in in implementing this legislation.

In closing: whilst there are very important elements to this legislation that I certainly see will benefit many workers in protecting the balance of their superannuation product— (Time expired)