Wednesday, 29 November 2023

Committees

Economy and Infrastructure Committee

Reference

Debate resumed.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (14:03): Deputy President, thank you very much for your patience and understanding as I return to some remarks that I was making earlier on the motion before us on WorkCover. I am delighted to take on these additional 7 minutes to talk about what is going on in WorkCover.

It is true that since 2010 WorkCover’s claims liabilities have tripled, driven by the increased cost of weekly income support, many workers staying on the scheme long term and the rise in mental injury claims, which now represents an astonishing 16 per cent of new claims, which was never envisaged when the scheme was initially designed. These drivers must be addressed to ensure the scheme is financially sustainable so the benefits of the scheme can continue to be accessed by Victorians. That is why the Victorian government’s priority now is to make necessary reforms to the scheme so that it is contemporary and fit for purpose and can continue to support Victorian workers into the future.

The WorkCover scheme was designed and created by Labor, and only the Andrews now Allan government can be trusted to modernise the scheme now. It is worth reflecting on WorkCover, which was introduced by the Cain Labor government in 1985 primarily to support workers with physical injuries. Workplaces right now are very different places. Technological advancement has changed how and where we work, and as a result the workplace risks and hazards have changed. This has certainly shaped the field of workplace injury reform in Victoria.

Where the risk of physical injury was initially the focus of WorkSafe, addressing the rise in mental injuries in Victoria is now the priority. Modernising the WorkCover scheme so it can continue to support injured Victorians well into the future is a key priority of this government and will ensure the scheme can manage the challenges of the future. If we do not, the vital support that WorkCover provides injured workers will be jeopardised. We know that health outcomes for workers on compensation schemes are four times worse than those with the same conditions outside of the schemes, which can lead to prolonged injury and unemployment. We are getting on with modernising the WorkCover scheme so it can continue to support workers into the future.

The reforms in this bill are reasonable. They are balanced and follow many, many months of consultation with workers, as I mentioned earlier on. Every day, every week and every month wasted with delay will mean higher premiums for our business community and more strain on the Victorian community.

I note with great interest that in 2020 when this question did come up the initial thoughts of those opposite were to raise the scheme during that time and throughout the year. Throughout this year those opposite have also raised the pressure the premium increase has had on small businesses. If those opposite continue to oppose the reform and delay the passage of this important bill, we will have in fact no choice but to raise the average premiums to between 2.4 and 2.5 per cent of remuneration. There is indeed a lot that can be said when it comes to the WorkCover scheme and the necessary reforms required to change the scheme, including that this will mean an average premium increase of 88 ‍per cent since the start of this year – a huge burden on our small business community during a cost-of-living crisis, which is entirely preventable – and we know that that will get passed on to consumers. It is in the best interests of employers and workers to pass this bill now and create more certainty for workers as we head into this important holiday period.

Although these changes must be made, the work that the Allan Labor government has done in mental health is nothing short of outstanding. We are implementing all the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, which came in the last term of Parliament. This government knows the importance of having a strong mental health system and will ensure that Victoria leads the country when it comes to mental health reform and services. I have spoken a great number of times in this chamber about my work in the workplace health and safety system and can say firsthand that I know the damage of psychosocial injuries when it comes to workers. The injuries can last a lifetime but do not have to if we have an effective return-to-work scheme and a return-to-work system that is drafted, written, implemented and delivered in a way that supports the worker’s health and safety first.

In this state it is true that we have not wasted a day working to build our state’s new mental health system, investing over $6 billion following the royal commission, which is the largest investment in Australia’s history. We know that this investment was done by a Labor government because we committed to implementing every single one of the recommendations of the mental health royal commission, and part of this work was to introduce the mental health and wellbeing hubs throughout Victoria, ensuring that Victorians have access to free mental health support when they need it most. Some of these have opened. The first six in fact opened last year, providing a free and easy way to get treatment and support in the community, and I encourage folks in this chamber to become well familiar with their works and good deeds for the Victorian community. There is indeed the development of Return to Work Victoria, which I have already spoken about briefly. But I will say clearing the path for workers to return to the workplace and access better rehabilitation is just so important. I look forward to joining with others in this place as we continue to examine this motion but also WorkCover and the two amendments that are before us in this place now, and I thank you for the opportunity.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:10): I am pleased to sum up on this and to do so first by thanking every honourable member who has spoken in this debate. It is an important debate. What we have sought to do with this motion is to establish an inquiry – a short, sharp inquiry – to deal with the issues around WorkCover. There are massive issues. This bill that we have discussed in the chamber is a bill that is insufficient. It is inadequate. It does not put WorkCover on a sustainable footing into the future.

I want to put on record the statements of Danny Pearson, the minister, in the lower house that premium rises will occur whatever the situation is with the bill at the moment – premium rises are coming in March or April. I want to confirm that Mr Tarlamis has actually confirmed to the opposition that that is the case. People should understand that premium rises are coming because the scheme has been allowed to be mismanaged over a number of years.

The Finity report that I circulated from December 2020 shows that the scheme was in serious trouble then and many of the issues were identified at that time. The government chose not to bring those issues to the fore, not to begin the work to improve the scheme through that period. The return-to-work issues are real. The blowout in the tail and the lack of support for workers is real, as are the massive premium rises that have hit employers, that will hit employment and that will make Victoria less competitive. We need a scheme that is sustainable, that is actually on a sound footing, and the government – frankly, their behaviour has been reprehensible in not dealing with this much earlier. We have an opportunity for a short, sharp inquiry. That can deal with the matters constructively and propose some useful ways forward in addition to what the government has put forward in its bill.

Secondly, I want to talk about the date. We tried to find a reasonable date in 5 March, and the government has sought to find a different date. In discussion with the government and crossbenchers we agreed to compromise on 22 February in a legitimate and reasonable set of steps. We understand that some – the government in particular – want to seek 6 February as the date for reporting. We will persist with the compromise date which we arrived at after communication with the crossbench and indeed the government and hope that that is the fairer date, because more work will be able to be done and the scheme will be able to be put on a more sustainable footing.

Make no mistake, this government has allowed WorkSafe to deteriorate very badly. It has allowed so many workers to be left in a very difficult position where they do not have adequate support and do not in particular have adequate return-to-work backup and arrangements. We need to work hard to ensure that this is a fair outcome for workers, a fair outcome for employers and the economy and to ensure that the scheme is made sustainable. It is not sustainable now. It is very clear that it is billions of dollars in deficit. It is very clear that the sustainability track is not there; all of the government’s own reports show that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We have a rather complicated scenario before us because there are currently three questions before the house, being the amendment proposed by Mrs McArthur to Mr Batchelor’s amendment in respect of the motion, as well as the substantive motion. The house will deal with the proposed amendment to the amendment first. At this stage the initial motion stands. We will not move on to the amendment to the motion until we understand what that amendment may look like. The question that we are dealing with now is Mrs McArthur’s amendment to Mr Batchelor’s amendment.

Council divided on Mrs McArthur’s amendment:

Ayes (19): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Aiv Puglielli, Samantha Ratnam, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Mr Batchelor’s amendment agreed to.

Council divided on amended motion:

Ayes (23): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, David Ettershank, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (17): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Tom McIntosh, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amended motion agreed to.