Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share 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.

See this speech in context