Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Wong, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Minister, are you aware that there is a lack of consistency in workers compensation laws that cover employees beyond retirement age? Are you aware that in New South Wales a worker injured after turning 65 can receive a maximum of 12 months income support from WorkCover, but in Victoria and Queensland age is no barrier to workers compensation? In South Australia, an injured worker aged between 65 and 70 can receive a maximum of six months income support, but that cuts out at age 70. However, in Western Australia workers over the age of 65 are ineligible for income maintenance, with only their medical expenses being covered. Given the need for older workers to be encouraged to remain in the workforce, what does the minister intend to do to ensure that there is national consistency for injured workers over the age of retirement?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to 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.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for her answer. Would the minister agree that this issue falls broadly within the Rudd government objectives of attempting to address and reduce conflicting or inconsistent regulation for corporations across different state and territory boundaries? Does the minister agree that for a Tasmanian worker, for instance, who is an older worker flying in and flying out from Western Australia to a different WorkCover regime it does pose some challenges when they are shifting from one expectation of how they will be treated to another? Could the minister perhaps indicate to the Senate whether this is the sort of topic that could be taken to the Council of Australian Governments—not to provide a national scheme but to provide a harmonised and more consistent regime for the workers and employers of Australia?

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

I thank Senator Murray for the supplementary question and for the suggestion. As I said at the outset, I am not aware of any commitment in relation to a national scheme. In relation to the harmonisation issue, that is a matter on which I can take advice. I certainly am advised that we do have a commitment to work with the states and territories to provide a streamlined delivery of workers compensation in the context of multistate employers. But, as I understand it, what Senator Murray is raising is a slightly different issue. I will take some advice and if I am able to provide any further response I will do so.