Tuesday, 22 February 2022

Bills

Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021

Debate resumed on motion of Ms HORNE:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (12:48): I am very pleased to rise as the opposition spokesman for workplace safety and lead speaker for this bill, being the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021. The bill before the house, whilst it does have a focus on workplace safety, is similar to many bills that we see before this house, being an omnibus bill. We are seeing a proliferation of bills coming before this place which make a range of changes in portfolio areas and areas of government which have no commonality. The bill before the house will make changes with respect to the legal profession and in regard to emergency services and victims of crime. I will come to those in due course, but I just wish to place on record that there is a growing concern about the legislative approach of this government in putting pieces of legislation together which bear no commonality in terms of portfolio. I just place that on record.

This bill seeks to make changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Dangerous Goods Act 1985, the Equipment (Public Safety) Act 1994, the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013. In principle the bill seeks to make six key changes. One is to deal with compensation arrangements for certain diseases, particularly in the area of silicosis, which is linked to the government’s silica action plan. It will improve supports for family members and benefits afforded to family members with respect to a workplace injury. It will expand the application of prohibition notices and directions, broaden the scope of matters that constitute notifiable incidents, clarify the infringement notice scheme for certain offences and make a range of other technical and procedural arrangements.

With respect to disease compensation, this bill proposes to amend the Accident Compensation Act and the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to improve compensation entitlements for workers with silicosis and similar diseases. The house would be aware that there has been legislative reform in regard to the management of silicosis and its impact on the Victorian community. The changes in this bill will seek for injured workers with silicosis to be able to pursue a common-law application for damages for a subsequent silica-related disease that may develop after an initial award is provided; currently injured workers are barred from initiating a common-law claim for damages for any further silica-related diseases suffered, ignoring the nature of silicosis as a progressive disease. The bill will also provide improved access to impairment benefit compensation for workers with silicosis and similar occupational diseases, particularly by waiving the requirement to demonstrate that the disease has stabilised for a period of 12 months.

These changes arise from the fact that silicosis, as I mentioned before, is a progressive disease which can deteriorate quickly and is unlikely to stabilise. It also amends the impairment benefit assessment program which applies to workers who have received a lung transplant due to their work-related injury. The change would entitle such workers to be deemed to have a minimum whole person impairment—which is known as a WPI—assessment of 30 per cent, which can be provided prior to the transplant occurring. Victorians that need a lung transplant certainly have to wait many years to have those transplants occur and, particularly if it is work-related, this can be significant. A dear friend of our family was a recipient 25 years ago of a double lung transplant, and she has lived with that. But she is with us, and we are grateful for every day that Jane is with us, having been a recipient of a double lung transplant. So I know firsthand the impact that it has on individuals and also their family and friends. Anything that can be done to support Victorians in need of a double lung transplant or a single lung transplant certainly needs to be supported.

The bill will also seek to make changes with respect to family counselling services for families of workers with silicosis and other eligible conditions. As I said, this bill seeks to make further changes with regard to victims of silicosis, so certainly we know that we are going to obviously in the future have to revisit these issues again as further evidence and further information come to light with respect to this disease.

With respect to the bill’s changes related to family support benefits, the bill proposes amendments to the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation Compensation Act, and they will improve support benefits for families of a deceased worker. The bill is proposing three key changes. This is firstly to extend the eligibility for the disability pension available to young persons following a family member’s work-related death from 16 up to 25 years. Currently we have a situation where a child with a disability is only entitled to receive a pension until they reach 16 years of age. By contrast a full-time student or apprentice is eligible for a pension until they reach 25 years of age. A young person whose close family member has died in a workplace-related death may consequently develop a disability, and that is not addressed by the current legislation. This is an important issue for affected young people, and it is critical that this issue has been picked up and has been recognised and that the relevant legislation is being amended to provide the necessary support for those family members.

The bill will also extend household help service payments for family members of a deceased worker. The change proposes to allow family members continued payments for household help services for six months where the worker has died due to a work-related injury. Currently household help is only offered to families when a worker is injured and ends when the worker passes away, which would mean that a single-income family in their time of greatest need was without support. This is a sensible, reasonable change. I am very pleased to see that this has been identified and picked up in the legislative reform and that family members who are going to be struggling not only emotionally but financially will be able to have access to continued support.

For eligibility for these payments, obviously there must be satisfaction the death resulted from a work-related injury, the worker must have been receiving compensation for household help at the time of the death, the family members receiving that help must reside at the worker’s home and the authority must have been notified of the worker’s death within three months of the date of the death. They are eminently sensible, reasonable provisions, and I think on balance these are sensible measures to put in place to ensure there are adequate protections for the scheme and for the system, but more importantly they are providing support to those people who have relied on it, so we certainly do support this provision being implemented.

The other area of change is to allow for the payment of overseas funeral costs where they follow a work-related death. As we would know in a multicultural community and in a state that prides itself on its multicultural community, there are clearly members of our community who would seek to be buried in their homelands. What this bill does is ensure that families of Victorians who have died as a consequence of a work-related injury are able to have those overseas funeral expenses covered by the scheme. Again it is eminently sensible. Given the fact that costs are provided for burials or cremations within Victoria or within Australia, it seems natural that we should be able to afford this opportunity to people outside of Australia. Clearly that is not going to be a significant number of workers, but again in a multicultural community it sends a very clear message of support for our multicultural members who have passed away from work-related injury and whose families are seeking to bury them overseas.

The bill makes changes with respect to prohibition notices and directions. It amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act to adjust the threshold and circumstances for WorkSafe Victoria inspectors to issue prohibition notices and directions. What it will seek to do is permit a WorkSafe inspector to issue a prohibition notice or give a direction where they reasonably believe that an activity involves or will involve a serious risk to the health and safety of a person due to an immediate or imminent exposure to a hazard. This will seek to allow for greater regulation of activities that do not pose an immediate risk but could lead to serious health and safety consequences if continued. The change is particularly targeted at cumulative risk activities such as long-term exposure to crystalline silica that may, for example, lead to silicosis. On first examination that would seem sensible. However, and this has been raised by many businesses, there is a concern about how prescriptive this will be and what actions will be taken by WorkSafe inspectors to impose these restrictions—provisional improvement notices (PIN)—on their businesses.

I support strongly the opportunity for WorkSafe inspectors to work with businesses to identify future risks so that they do not become a risk. If they see a guard that may become faulty in the future because of a potential fracture on that guard, it is eminently sensible for WorkSafe and the business to work together to identify that potential problem and to have that problem remedied. I do not think anyone would be opposed to that. The concern is, though, that even given the fact that the guard on that machine is not a problem at that given point in time, there is a risk that WorkSafe inspectors may issue a PIN on that business, which may either stop operations at the business or potentially impose a fine on the business for that activity, which at that point in time is actually not causing a potential hazard to employees within the business.

I think within that context it is imperative that WorkSafe returns to having a relationship with businesses which is one of education, one of support and one of removing risk. We know that health and safety is a joint responsibility: it is the responsibility of employers and it is the responsibility of employees. All industry has an obligation to ensure that they provide a safe workplace for their employees, but equally not every business owner is an expert in OH&S legislation, like they are not an expert in financial law and they are not an expert in industrial law. They draw on advice from others to provide them with that help and assistance to improve their business. Even unions will provide advice to businesses on industrial issues and health and safety issues within workplaces in order to try to rectify a potential problem. We would like to see WorkSafe having that role as well, but we just wish to place on record our concerns that we want to see this approach done in a responsible way, one of providing information and collaborating with workplaces as opposed to one that is focused on penalties, because walking in with a stick is not necessarily the best way to endear changes in workplaces. I think there is a greater opportunity for WorkSafe to be working collaboratively with businesses in regard to this issue.

The bill also seeks to clarify that a failure to comply with a direction relating to the COVID-19 pandemic as issued by an authorised officer will constitute an activity that involves a serious risk to the health or safety of a person emanating from an immediate or imminent exposure. Again, this aligns the COVID-19-related provisions of the act with the proposed amendments regarding prohibition notices and directions, namely so that the provisions have the same wording.

We know that WorkSafe plays an important role in this state. Just this week WorkSafe has clearly been in the news, and obviously actions are underway. For the benefit of the Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, who is at the table, it is under investigation so I am not going to make any commentary about the investigation, but again what it does is highlight the role that WorkSafe plays. WorkSafe has a pre-eminent role in this state to deal with incidents in our workplaces. Yes, they have a role of investigation and prosecution, which this act and other acts collectively afford them—the opportunity to deal with workplace incidents—but more importantly it provides them the opportunity to identify potential problems and provide an educative role on how those businesses can in fact improve their practices. If we deal with the issue around workplace bullying, they have a proactive role to advise organisations of the policies and procedures they need to put in place so that people are not victims of workplace bullying.

If people feel as though they are a victim of workplace bullying, they have the opportunity to make a complaint to the regulator without fear or favour of victimisation. I think if anything has come out of the last week, one thing it has shone a light on is that no person in this state should feel powerless to make a complaint to the regulator if they feel that they have been a victim of workplace bullying. I think that is something that everyone in this house, regardless of their view, would actually agree with, because imperatively we put legislation in place to protect Victorians. We need to ensure that Victorians can avail themselves of those provisions in legislation and feel safe in the knowledge that they can do that without fear of further victimisation.

The bill seeks to make changes in regard to incident notifications. The bill seeks to broaden the matters deemed to be a notifiable incident under the Occupational Health and Safety Act such that WorkSafe can address a wider range of serious risks in the workplace. This is going to be done in three key areas of amendment. The first relates to an amendment to section 37(2) of the act, and that will provide that certain prescribed illnesses can constitute a notifiable incident for the purpose of the act. Now, this will better align OH&S reform with the national approach under Safe Work Australia’s model work health and safety regulations. However, the bill at page 33 inserts new subsection (2A):

Without limiting subsections (1) and (2), this Part also applies to an incident constituted by the illness of a person, being an illness prescribed by the regulations.

Rightly so, industry has concern when potential illnesses are going to be prescribed by regulation but will become an offence under the act. The whole point of legislation is to ensure that everybody understands what the rules are, and if you are going to expand the range of illnesses that are going to fall within the purview of this piece of legislation, it is important that they are contained in the legislation so everybody understands what the rules are. However, I have received representations from different industry groups. I just will quote from here:

However, we are concerned that the proposed amendments to section 37(2) of the OHS Act, which will enable regulations yet to be introduced to prescribe the notifiable illnesses, create considerable uncertainty in terms of the scope and impact of the legislative changes … In the absence of consequential proposed amendment to the regulations to accompany the legislative changes, it not possible to assess the likely extent of additional notification obligations, as this will be dependent on how many illnesses will be prescribed under regulations.

I think it is clear from those concerns, that are being rightly pointed out by industry, that industry is not saying that illnesses should not be covered under the legislation. Industry is not saying that there are not potentially a range of illnesses that need to be covered. They are simply making the point that if you put in place a piece of legislation that says that a range of illnesses will be covered by regulation which will not come through the Parliament of Victoria and by default they automatically become law, they are not afforded the opportunity to provide any feedback as to whether the proposed illnesses are legitimate, are reasonable. They do not know the number. Is it going to be five, is it going to be 25, is it going to be 105? We do not know what the illnesses are.

Governing by regulation, particularly when it comes to offences in these areas, again highlights the problems that industry have. If the government had already indicated what the illnesses would be and they were going to be listed in regulation, then people would at least know what they are getting, but even under this piece of legislation they do not know. So I place on record the concerns that industry have highlighted in regard to that provision of the bill before the house.

It will also make changes in regard to incidents relating to the failure or damage of a certain plant and will also expand the definition of ‘notifiable incidents’ to include near miss incidents where there would have been an immediate and serious risk to a person’s health and safety if they had been in the immediate vicinity. Now, obviously that is a sensible area—whilst a person was not injured, if there was a situation where someone, by virtue of being located at the site at the time, would have been a victim of an incident—and that is clearly something that should be picked up.

The bill makes changes in regard to infringement notices so payments will be paid into the WorkCover Authority Fund. We do know that the WorkCover scheme is in a perilous state financially. Things have changed since the former minister left the role. She had money in the bank, and now it is in arrears. I cast no aspersions on her successor, but it is just a matter of fact that we now have a scheme that is perilously in financial dire straits. With the growth of mental health claims—and I cast no opinion on the nature of those claims—the government’s own figures highlight the fact that it is going to be in a more perilous state than it is in now, and that does not augur well for the long-term viability of the scheme that is meant to be there to support Victorian workers, and employers contribute to this scheme, which is meant to cover those costs. Only a few years ago the Treasurer was seeking to take money out of the former minister’s scheme because it was so financial and flushed with cash. Today that is clearly not the case. Again, there are only two options: the government bails it out, which the government has already been doing; or it is going to have to jack up the payments that are made by industry, and that is in no-one’s interest.

The bill also makes some other changes in other portfolio areas, which I will just place on record. In regard to firefighters’ presumptive rights, it is seeking to expand the areas of coverage. One of the first changes it is seeking to do is extend the presumptive rights to compensation to vehicle and equipment maintenance workers. That will mean that these maintenance employees who suffer from specific cancers will also be able to rely on the presumption that their employment caused their cancer, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, so that will bring those employees in line with the existing pool of workers and firefighters that are covered by this piece of legislation. Maybe the Minister for Emergency Services might be able to put on record whether or not the government is considering expanding this any further—for anyone within that field of occupation. It would be helpful to know whether or not the government actually has plans to expand presumptive rights to other people who are currently engaged in the area of emergency services. It will also allow for a part of a year of service to count as a full year of service when determining whether career and volunteer firefighters and vehicle and equipment maintenance workers have met the requisite qualifying period for compensation.

The bill makes changes with respect to victims of crime, and in that regard it will make amendments to the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996. It will prohibit offenders from being notified of and attending hearings for matters that involve family violence or sexual offences. I am sure we all would form a very clear view that any victim of crime would be horrified at the thought that the offender would be notified and potentially attend the hearing. That is just a horrific thought. Clearly these changes have the broad support of stakeholders, and so these changes are eminently sensible in the circumstances. We need to be doing everything we can to support victims of crime. We have the tribunal. They have the opportunity to have their voice. We just do not want them to be placed in a situation where they are in fear of attending their own hearing because they may have to face their offender. So that is eminently sensible.

In regard to the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014, the bill will improve the integrity of the Victorian Legal Services Board by seeking to make three main changes: imposing the same robust probity checks to lawyer members of the VLSB as they currently apply to non-lawyer members—

A member interjected.

Mr WAKELING: I do not think the minister was making a policy announcement at the table, and I will not bring him up on that. It will also, secondly, ensure lawyer members of the VLSB are able to be removed if they are subject to disciplinary action during their appointment. Currently there is a risk that lawyer members being appointed to the board may be subject to action by the Victorian legal services commissioner and thus lack adequate integrity to perform their role, so clearly these changes will provide improvements in that area.

In the short time left that is afforded to me, we understand and we accept the fact that the government are seeking to make ongoing changes to workplace safety. Clearly their action in regard to silica has broad support in the community, and it is important that that is looked at. What we do say, however, is that there is a real need for ensuring that WorkSafe is working with industry and working with employers to better understand their obligations and to better educate industry so that they can eliminate dangers and problems in their workplace which are causing injury and death. Nobody wants to see a worker injured; nobody wants to see a worker die. And I just say to the government: it is imperative that we ensure we get back to a situation where businesses are wanting to call up WorkSafe to come and give them advice. No business at the moment wants to pick up the phone and speak to a WorkSafe inspector, because they are fearful of getting a fine. The ultimate goal here should be to eliminate problems, eliminate risks and eliminate dangers, and the best way to do that is to have education. We just need to get back to that situation.

We also raise the concerns that I have mentioned in regard to the inclusion of illnesses by way of regulation. It is important that the government are working with industry and working with business to be open and transparent as to what the agenda is in this key area. If they are going to make changes, the government need to get to a point where they are making these changes via legislation, by putting them in a bill before the house—let us have a proper debate about the illnesses so that people, if they have a concern, can place their concerns on the record via members of Parliament—as opposed to having it done by regulation, on which nobody has a say and people have concerns about the direction of the government in regard to occupational health and safety. (Time expired)

Ms EDWARDS (Bendigo West) (13:18): I am also pleased to rise to make a contribution on the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021. As has been referred to by the member for Ferntree Gully, this bill does indeed make a number of changes to different areas within the workplace safety and compensation framework that are absolutely necessary to compensation outcomes for Victorian workers and their families. It will also ensure the effective operation of Victoria’s workplace health and safety laws and support WorkSafe Victoria to improve operations and deliver on its objectives. The bill, as also mentioned by the member for Ferntree Gully, also ensures that survivors of family violence and sexual assault are not subject to further trauma when they are seeking assistance. It also expands on the existing presumptive rights framework to provide coverage to eligible vehicle and equipment maintenance workers suffering from cancer and strengthens the Victorian Legal Services Board’s governance arrangements. These are reforms that a Labor government that I am part of is very proud to bring to this house.

I would like to commence my contribution by focusing, if I can, on the amendments to the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 and the changes that this bill will make in relation to that. In the Minister for Victim Support’s acknowledgements in the Victim Support Update the minister referred to the fact that there had been a tremendous shift in community expectations about how victims of crime should be treated. That of course is largely due to the advocacy and the courage of those victims who said ‘Let us speak; let us be heard’ about their experiences and that we needed to listen to what they wanted to tell us in order for us to try and heal, if we can, the impacts of crime. The way we do that is through important legislation like this.

So the bill actually makes changes to the Victims of Crimes Assistance Act 1996 to remove barriers for victim-survivors of family violence and sexual assault applying for financial assistance at the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal. VOCAT, which is the acronym, provides financial assistance to victims of violent crime under the Victims of Crimes Assistance Act 1996. Currently VOCAT can notify alleged offenders and allow them to appear at hearings where they have a legitimate interest or substantial interest in a victim’s application for assistance. This is extremely traumatic and extremely challenging for those victims of crime, particularly those who are victims of a family violence crime or a sexual assault. In 2018 the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) reported on its review into that act, and of course this government has committed to significantly progress the recommendations of that report—and we said we would do that in this term of government.

The review recommended that the alleged perpetrator of the offence should not be notified of a victim’s hearing and should not—should not—be able to attend that hearing, thereby removing the perpetrator notification and reflecting a trauma-informed approach that prioritises victim safety, wellbeing and recovery. These are really important reforms, because we know that for victims of crime, and particularly those who are victims of family violence or indeed sexual assault, the very worst thing—and we heard this clearly from victims—that can happen is that they are confronted by their perpetrator in a setting that is not comfortable for them.

The VLRC report provided extensive commentary about the chilling effect the notification of alleged offenders has on survivors of sexual assault and family violence in making an application to VOCAT. In its submission to the review the Victim Survivors Advisory Council stated that:

Notifying the perpetrator heightens the risk of further injury and damage on the victim survivor. The context of separation is recognised as being the most high-risk time for victim survivors, and notification to the perpetrator of a VOCAT hearing unnecessarily compromises the safety and wellbeing of victim survivors.

In addition, Safe Steps’ submission highlighted the lived experience of victim-survivors who have had to experience perpetrator notification. Some of the comments include:

I had an absolutely horrible experience with VOCAT in the mid to late 90’s as a result of family violence and abuse issues. It scarred me for quite a long time because they wanted to call the perp to a hearing, and I refused to allow this because I did not feel safe. So the application failed.

And another:

At first they said he would not be informed, then he was informed, then they said he would not be at the hearing, then they tried to bully me into attending the hearing despite the fact I would have to have been cross-examined by his barrister.

Similarly, the Victorian Council of Social Service submitted that:

A VOCAT hearing is not a trial—there is no requirement for ‘both sides’ to be heard and their stories weighed.

Also:

VOCA principles include minimising trauma and maximising therapeutic effect. Notifying perpetrators is likely to undermine these goals and risks making the hearing process much less therapeutic.

These reforms align very much with the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Family Violence, which this government is very proud to support. We are getting on with implementing all 227 of those recommendations; I think to date we are up to around 214.

These changes are going to be of great significance to family violence and sexual assault survivors, and I think it sends a very clear and strong message that we believe them and we support them. Survivors should no longer be fearful of making an application to the tribunal.

The amendments also bring forward a key finding of both the VLRC report and the Royal Commission into Family Violence before the establishment of a new financial assistance scheme. As highlighted throughout the victim support update which I mentioned earlier and which the minister handed down in December last year, the government is reforming the way victim-survivors access financial assistance by developing the financial assistance scheme which will replace VOCAT.

As has been referred to by the member for Ferntree Gully, this bill also covers a number of other very important areas, including delivering on some really important aspects of our government’s silica action plan by improving the compensation arrangements for workers with silicosis and other diseases of similarity. We are also making sure that WorkSafe has all the tools it needs to prevent serious injuries by changing the threshold for issuing prohibition notices and directions. We are also underscoring the seriousness of workplace incidents by including a broader range of matters to be notifiable incidents, including infectious diseases and illnesses as well as near misses.

Importantly, firefighter presumptive rights amendments are included in this legislation. Our vehicle and equipment maintenance workers are an integral part of Victoria’s fire services within both the CFA and FRV. They maintain and repair firefighting equipment, and they are on the fireground with the firefighters. They are exposed to the same carcinogens the career and volunteer firefighters are exposed to, and therefore it is important that they are included in the compensation and fire services legislation amendment. We are really proud as a government of this historic scheme to protect firefighters, and we are always, always wanting to work with our emergency services on how we can make them feel safer and more supported. The amendments in the bill will enable vehicle and equipment maintenance employees who suffer from specified cancers to rely on a presumption that their employment caused the cancer in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This will apply to employees employed by Fire Rescue Victoria, the CFA and those who have duties involving the mechanical, auto-electrical or fitting and turning maintenance and repair of firefighting vehicles and equipment.

Just in the last few moments I have left, can I give a shout-out to our local fire services teams across regional Victoria. The fire season has not been as harrowing for them as we thought it might be, but certainly grassfires continue to be a very significant risk across regional Victoria. I want to thank them for all of the work that they do across our regions, particularly in my electorate of Bendigo West. This is an important bill and one that we as a government are very proud of, and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (13:28): I rise to make a contribution on the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021. One of the key parts of this bill is about improving compensation arrangements for workers with certain work-related progressive injuries and improving compensation entitlements for family members of deceased workers, and there are other minor and technical amendments.

In making a contribution on this bill, in my time in public life, both at the Victorian Farmers Federation and then as a member of this place with constituents coming to me, the role of workplace safety and WorkSafe Victoria in particular has been a vexed issue at times on enforcement of the law versus advice as to how people can make their workplaces safer. Over that journey there has been this issue that WorkSafe safety officers do not necessarily believe they should be giving advice to people or businesses as to how they can make their workplaces safer. They say they are there to enforce the law and issue penalties. My view and the view of a lot of businesses is that with a bit of advice we could achieve both outcomes—the workplace would be safer and there would be less injuries in the workplace—rather than workplace safety officers coming in and just issuing a provisional improvement notice (PIN) when someone does something wrong. I suppose that is why I will make some comments on part 3 and part 4 of the bill.

Part 3 amends the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 in relation to funds collected from infringement offences, clarifying that the funds must be paid into the WorkCover Authority Fund, and part 4 amends the Equipment (Public Safety) Act 1994 in relation to funds collected from infringement offences, clarifying that the funds must be paid into the WorkCover Authority Fund. Before this legislation, as I understand it, those penalties, those funds, were paid into consolidated revenue. I am surprised the Treasurer actually agreed to this. I know over time all treasurers are usually opposed to hypothecation of particular funds because they want to see the money go into consolidated revenue, where the Treasurer and the government of the day can make decisions around how that money is spent.

Ms Staley: Indeed.

Mr WALSH: Indeed. Ban all hypothecated funds.

Mr Pakula interjected.

Mr WALSH: I will not verbal the Minister for Industry Support and Recovery at the table. But I suppose the issue there is how the funds are expended. Having had experience with a number of businesses, being that my electorate is on the border of New South Wales, on the New South Wales side that have come to me for assistance with the New South Wales authority, that very rule of hypothecation does apply in New South Wales and those businesses that I have spoken to are firmly of the view that because the WorkCover authority in New South Wales gets to keep the fines, the officers are probably a lot more vigorous in their issuing of fines and the amounts of the fines because effectively their WorkCover authority gets that money. I would assume that people that collect a lot of money for a particular business probably are considered to do their job much better than those that actually go out to a workplace and give advice as to how a workplace could be safer without actually issuing a PIN and raising money for the business. Apart from the fact that treasurers do oppose hypothecation, I would like to think that these two changes, where the funds go to the WorkCover Authority Fund rather than to consolidated revenue, do not end up delivering perverse outcomes for businesses and for the safety of workers in that the WorkCover safety officers will issue large fines rather than going to a business and actually giving advice as to how safety in that business could be improved.

Particularly in agriculture I have heard lots of experiences where farmers have had a WorkSafe officer come there and say, ‘That’s not compliant’, and the farmer will say, ‘Well, what do I have to do to make it compliant?’ and they say, ‘Well, that’s not our job, we’re just telling you it’s not compliant; if you don’t fix it, we’ll issue you with a fine’. And then they have to go away and try and find someone that can give them advice as to how to make it safer. It would be disappointing for the safety of all workers if the fact that the WorkCover authority gets to keep the money empowers them to be even stricter on fines rather than giving advice into the future. I think all employers want to have a safe workplace, all employers want to make sure their workers go home every night to their families, as everyone in this chamber would as well. Let us make sure that we take it on notice that there are some concerns about that change and make sure that it does not deliver perverse outcomes for businesses and for safety and ultimately for the jobs of workers.

The other issue I wanted to comment on was part 5, which amends the Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform) Act 2019 to extend the presumptive rights to vehicle and equipment maintenance employees working for Fire Rescue Victoria and the Country Fire Authority and change some of the calculations around that. No-one would argue with that. I think we want to make sure that our firefighters and the people that service and maintain their machinery go into the field with the best equipment to protect us from fire, and that is also included in this.

I suppose again over the journey of the CFA debate, which has now gone on for five or six years, particularly the Premier’s but the government’s desire to effectively break up the old CFA I think is very, very disappointing. We who represent country electorates know how important CFA brigades are in our electorates and the volunteers that make those up. There is not enough money in Victoria to pay all the firefighters that are needed in this state to protect us, particularly in our smaller communities. So like you did in your contribution, Deputy Speaker, I take my hat off to all those volunteers that give up their life to go and fight fires, but more importantly those that every Sunday go and take the truck for a run, do the fundraising to actually buy equipment for their brigade and do all the stuff that most of the community does not see as they make sure those brigades function. It is disappointing that the CFA volunteers do not get the same level of support under legislation for particular diseases that they may attract or injuries they may attract as part of being firefighters as the paid firefighters and, in this case, the maintenance employees of Fire Rescue Victoria and the CFA.

The thing that I would like to finish off on is the clauses that empower the government of the day to change the types of illnesses that are covered by this legislation, and to do that by regulation. I have been on the record quite a few times in this place on this issue of prescriptive legislation versus enabling legislation. I think there has been creep probably over the last 20 years. Once legislation was quite prescriptive and things were set out in detail in legislation. In this case those illnesses are prescribed, but they can now be changed in the future by regulation. I personally have a view about prescriptive legislation where we as a chamber representing the people that send us to this place have a very clear line of sight about what we are debating and what we are voting on rather than voting on something, as in this instance, that will be changed by regulation in the future. I do not think that is a good trend that has evolved in this Parliament over time—that we are debating and passing bills and we have effectively no idea what the detail will be once they are implemented. In this case it is that issue again of enabling rather than prescriptive legislation by which a government of the day can change these provisions by government regulations rather than bringing the legislation back to the chamber.

I understand the process of being ‘spot booked’ in the government process. By the time you get drafting instructions through cabinet, you get a bill in principle through cabinet and then you get a spot in this chamber to debate the legislation it is a long and tortuous process given the queue for legislation. But I think we owe it to the people of Victoria to have debates around legislation that clearly say what is included in the legislation rather than just saying ‘This will be done by Governor in Council at some time in the future’.

With that contribution, the Liberal and National parties will not be opposing this legislation. We do support making sure that workers have correct compensation and particularly that workers are protected in the workplace by having appropriate rules and appropriate advice from WorkSafe to make sure those workplaces are safe.

Mr HALSE (Ringwood) (13:38): It is a pleasure to rise to speak this afternoon on this bill, the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021, and it is good to learn of the opposition’s support for this bill. I look forward to the contributions that will be made throughout the course of this debate. I note your contribution, Deputy Speaker, and I thank you for that. I want to go just quickly to what the bill lays out and then some of the rationale behind it and the story and the narrative that underpins the bill. The bill, as some have laid out here over the last 40 minutes or so, will ensure that injured workers get the compensation they deserve and that the families of those workers who we have lost get the entitlements they deserve. The bill will help prevent more lives from being lost by increasing WorkSafe Victoria’s ability to prevent and respond to workplace safety incidents. Further, the amendments ensure all funds collected from infringement notices are paid into the WorkCover Authority Fund.

Other outcomes include—as you have touched upon, Deputy Speaker—making application to the VOCAT, the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, scheme more accessible to victims by preventing alleged offenders from being notified of or attending VOCAT hearings relating to family violence or sexual offences; extending presumptive rights coverage to the workers who very importantly maintain the vehicles and equipment of Fire Rescue Victoria and the Country Fire Authority, allowing periods in different roles across the firefighting service to be combined, bringing greater flexibility to the calculation of eligibility for those presumptive rights; and, finally, upholding the integrity of the Victorian Legal Services Board as reflected in lawyer members.

It is always a point of pride to stand in this place representing the good people of Ringwood and the Andrews Labor government under a labour movement that has stood for the rights of workers since its very inception and to talk about how we are actively and proactively creating a better future for workers and their families and a safer future. Our workplace safety achievements are some of our greatest achievements, and we proudly will continue to improve the industrial environments that Victorian workers work within and are exposed to and the protections they receive, because as industries change so too should the laws that are made in this place.

Tragically in 2021 we lost 66 Victorian lives to workplace incidents. Six more lives have been lost since the beginning of this year. As much as these numbers are trending slightly down, we know that any life lost on the job is one too many, and 72 over the course of last year and the beginning of this year is far too many. Labor governments will always be in pursuit of a better daily reality for those who keep our industries going and those who throughout the pandemic have kept the wheels of industry churning that have been necessary for our community, for the benefit of our community.

Although the asbestos crises of the 1970s and 1980s perhaps feel like a distant past, it is important to reflect and recognise that it is not that long ago that many of the rights workers enjoy today originated from advocacy of trade unions during this time. We continue and trade unions continue to advocate for safer working conditions, and it is our job to continue to listen as the government. We are still implementing those lessons, and that is the purpose of this bill. It was right here in Victoria that our nation’s first asbestos breakthrough came, in 1985, when Harold Pilmer was awarded more than $200 000 in damages. He died four years later. It always feels perhaps a little crude that a monetary value can be assigned to those years lost from a worker’s life, but it was this case in particular that pushed us to hold companies responsible financially and otherwise for the loss of life induced or expedited by unsafe workplace conditions.

This bill furthers the work of the silica action plan, combating illness not dissimilar to Harold’s, that we, the Andrews Labor government, passed in 2019. It will give greater support and increased compensation to impacted workers. This is a good thing. Not only did 66 people die too soon in 2021 as a result of a workplace-related injury or incident but 66 families were stripped of someone they love. These families deserve everything that we can give them, because it will never be enough to replace their loved ones. This bill is delivering greater access and better support to those families through the extension of child pensions, through household help services and through other family support benefit changes.

In 2019 and 2020 we witnessed a number of families endure the exact same heartbreak on a national stage with the bushfires. We mourned together at the loss of men and women who were fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, sisters, brothers, daughters and sons. It cut deep at the heart of who we are as a people. It united us in a deep anger at the circumstances and in respect and ultimately love for people whose lives were cut short as they worked to protect others. For that reason a particularly important achievement of this bill is that it extends compensation for firefighters to those maintaining and repairing firefighting vehicles and equipment in conditions that expose them to the same carcinogens as career and volunteer firefighters.

The amendments will also enable claimants to combine periods of service in different roles related to firefighting to ensure that a change in position does not prevent them from being compensated for an equal impact on their physical health. The extensions of eligibility beyond the strict firefighting role were welcomed by a number of industry bodies—AMWU, CFA, FRV—who join the Andrews Labor government in our conviction that every worker has a right to dignity and good health. Like everything done by the labour movement, this bill and the changes it will make to a number of industries represent historic change and offer an unprecedented level of support to workers who show up daily to keep our community going.

I will also take this opportunity to highlight the workers who are a cornerstone of our own community out in Ringwood. I note Russell and the crew at the independent Access Workwear on Bedford Road are an active part of our thriving community and ensure that workers in the east have access to the highest quality workwear and safety gear every day. Trades, labour and machinery operation are among the top eight careers held by people in the Ringwood electorate. It is a community that values good and hard work and they deserve to have their lives and health valued in return. For that reason, I proudly support the bill.

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (13:48): I rise to speak on the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021. I note, as other speakers have said, we all support the right of people to have a safe workplace. It is particularly timely, I think, that we have a bill before us that goes to some quite serious issues around workplace safety, but it is also timely in a week when we have seen the Premier’s private office being investigated by WorkSafe Victoria for claims of systemic and ongoing bullying from a member in the other place, Kaushaliya Vaghela. Of course her claims have been dismissed by the Treasurer, who immediately said they went to her state of mind, apparently recreating the idea that women who complain of bullying are that Victorian term ‘hysterical’. The Premier has until today refused to say her name. This is a week after these serious allegations were made, and they have ended up in referral to WorkSafe. Similarly we have seen the Minister for Women, when asked about this, change the topic to talk about Labor’s quotas. The Leader of the House refused to answer a direct question about whether she believed Ms Vaghela.

At the time we saw the member for Carrum and also the member for Cranbourne sent out with the Minister for Women and the Leader of the House to stand behind the Premier and provide a sort of all-female backdrop to him. But the member for Carrum stayed completely silent in that outing, and yet she is well known for standing in this place and speaking eloquently and repeatedly on feminist issues and the rights of women to speak their mind and to be heard. Where we are with this is that WorkSafe has seen fit to now investigate whether there are ongoing issues of bullying in the Premier’s private office.

This bill also makes some changes in relation to COVID directions. It makes a change that clarifies that a failure to comply with a direction relating to the COVID-19 pandemic will constitute an activity that involves a serious risk to the health or safety of a person. That also is timely because of course WorkSafe now has 58 breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 in relation to the government’s handling of hotel quarantine. Those charges have been laid directly in relation to the government’s handling of the COVID pandemic when it came to hotel quarantine. There are cases still before the Supreme Court trying to expose why WorkSafe only charged the Department of Health in relation to these serious failings that led to so many deaths here and did not charge the Premier, and those court cases continue.

This bill makes a number of changes. I will not talk about all the sections, but there are two that I particularly do want to highlight. The first is in part 9, which is the changes to the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996. I echo the words of the member for Bendigo East, who I note has now swapped roles and is now in the chair as Deputy Speaker. It is one of those situations—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bendigo West.

Ms STALEY: Sorry, Bendigo West. I even had Bendigo West written down. I am sorry, Deputy Speaker, to make such an error. It is one of those changes that, when you read it, you think, ‘Why didn’t we do this before?’. I think the member for Bendigo West put it really well when she quoted from the report, saying that these hearings, when a victim of crime goes to the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal to get assistance, are not adversarial hearings. It should not have both sides; there are no ‘both sides’. There is a victim of crime seeking financial assistance, and to have the perpetrator of that crime enabled to go there for any reason seems just so wrong on the face of it. It is one of those cases where I think we all look at it and go, ‘Well, yeah, we should change that’. So I strongly support those sections of this bill.

I also want to talk briefly about part 5, which is the firefighters presumptive rights changes, and these I also support. These do a number of things, but the one I am interested in, in determining whether the qualifying period has been met, allows claimants to combine periods of service as a career firefighter, volunteer firefighter, forest firefighter or vehicle and equipment maintenance worker. I think this is a practical, sensible and useful change for those people, and we have many in country Victoria. I have several in Ararat who are in fact in two of those categories at once. They are professional firefighters—they are paid firefighters—but they are also CFA volunteers, and to be able to combine all of their service, whether it is concurrent or whether it is sequential, towards them being eligible to access presumptive rights legislation to me is a sensible change.

Like the member for Bendigo West and the Leader of The Nationals, I also want to put on record my thanks to the CFA brigades across Ripon who have turned out particularly over this summer to fight some quite nasty fires that have flared in my electorate. I am particularly thinking about the fire at the Great Western Racecourse that burnt out 19 cars. That moved very quickly on a very hot day, and many of us would have seen the results of that fire. The trucks were there very quickly. They were actually on site and they came around and put it out. It could have been a lot worse than it was, and I pay tribute to them. Beaufort has also had quite a nasty fire, as have other parts of Ripon. I looked on the fire app just as I was preparing these remarks, and I note there has even been one today at Natte Yallock. I thank all the firefighters across Ripon who turn out and support our community by keeping us safe.

This bill makes a number of technical changes, and I will not go into all of them. The final part of the bill that I did want to address includes the changes to assist those with silicosis and to prevent others from developing this terrible disease. Again, I support these changes. I think it is important, when we have a risk that becomes known, that we act to ensure that people are not getting these debilitating and life-ending diseases in this way when that can be stopped via workplace safety mechanisms. So again, there is much to recommend in this bill.

As the member for Ferntree Gully, the lead speaker for the Liberal-Nationals, said, there are some concerns we have around the nature of some of the powers and also the changes that the Leader of The Nationals highlighted, particularly the one that goes to hypothecation. I think he actually gave a very good example of why hypothecation is not a good idea, including in this case, because it changes the incentives for the inspectors from helping people get their workplaces safe and keeping workers safe to raising revenue, because WorkSafe gets to keep the revenue. I actually think that was a perfect example. There are many ways in which one can describe why hypothecation is a bad idea, and here is another one. It changes and makes perverse the incentives for what should be designed to educate and assist people. But with that, we will not be opposing this bill.

Mr EREN (Lara) (13:58): I know that I have got only about 1 minute to go in relation to the contribution that I am about to make, but I will take up a lot of the issues in relation to the bill after question time obviously. It is my pleasure to contribute today on the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021. The bill will amend the following acts: the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Dangerous Goods Act 1985, the Equipment (Public Safety) Act 1994, the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013. This bill aims to improve compensation arrangements for workers with silicosis and similar occupational diseases and deliver on aspects of the government’s silica action plan, which is so important to all of those people that work within that sector. It amends the threshold for issuing prohibition notices and directions to better capture serious risk activities and includes a broader range of matters to be notifiable incidents.

Of course there is a lot more to this bill, and I will get to the main points after question time. I know that I have got a few seconds to go. Certainly I want to put something on the record which is personal in relation to what happened to my mother, and I will do that after question time.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.