Thursday, 16 November 2023

Bills

Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (WorkCover Scheme Modernisation) Bill 2023

Cindy McLEISH, Danny PEARSON, Sam HIBBINS, Emma KEALY, Bridget VALLENCE, Brad ROWSWELL, James NEWBURY, Gary MAAS, John PESUTTO, Iwan WALTERS, Mathew HILAKARI, Wayne FARNHAM

Download page

Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (WorkCover Scheme Modernisation) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Danny Pearson:

That this bill be now read a second time.

and Cindy McLeish’s amendment:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government:

(1) agrees to freeze premium increases for 24 months and then limit increases to be in line with CPI for a further 24 months in order to provide certainty to businesses;

(2) provides details of the commencement date, structure, objectives, functions and funding of Return to Work Victoria;

(3) provides a detailed analysis and comparison of public and private sector claims for physical and mental injuries and commits to increasing focus on prevention strategies for each sector;

(4) makes available the reports on the modelling for the legislation; and

(5) commits to reporting annually to Parliament on the implementation and progress of the new arrangements, prior to the proposed legislative review in 2027.’

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister has moved that the bill be read a second time. The member for Eildon has moved a reasoned amendment to the motion – she has proposed to omit the words after ‘that’ with the view of replacing with the words which are on the notice paper. The question is:

That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Those supporting the reasoned amendment by the member for Eildon should vote no.

Assembly divided on question:

Ayes (52): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (24): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Question agreed to.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (49): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (27): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Consideration in detail

Clause 1 (15:38)

Cindy McLEISH: I am pleased that we have the opportunity to go into consideration in detail here. I thank the minister, and I hope that many other ministers in the chamber will actually follow his lead and consider doing the same, because every single time we ask – and looking at the government business program, this is a request we often make – it is very rarely, maybe only once a term, I think, we seem to get it. The Premier is here listening to my plea, so let us hope that they do that.

I want to start at the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is the WorkCover scheme modernisation. One of the things that is mentioned in the second-reading speech and in the government’s press releases is Return to Work Victoria. The bill is silent on this area, and at the bill briefing it was pretty clear that this had not been thoroughly thought through. My question now is to the minister: can you provide detailed information about the body Return to Work Victoria to give us confidence that work in this area has been done? Specifically I am keen to hear about the objectives, functions and funding of Return to Work Victoria. Where is it housed? Is that in Department of Treasury and Finance? Is it in WorkSafe Victoria? Is it a separate entity? What sort of structure and what sort of level of staffing and governance would it have and when would it commence? I would like to know whether it is front ended or back ended after the 130-week test or both.

I want to alert the minister and the house to the Finity report from December 2020, three years ago, page 20, which states:

… it does suggest that …

return-to-work

performance within the first two weeks after injury has slipped over time; this applies to both Mental Injuries and Other Injuries.

So there is quite a lot in that, but I would ask the minister to address all of those concerns.

Danny PEARSON: I will come to the member’s questions in a moment, but a couple of things I just want to note: when I first introduced this bill to the house I did so because I recognised we need to modernise the WorkCover scheme to ensure it is financially sustainable and continues to support injured workers now and into the future. I do want to thank members for their contributions on the second-reading debate. I particularly want to thank members of the government who made very significant contributions in relation to this bill.

The bill that is before the house is the result of months of consultation between business, unions and stakeholders; literally thousands of hours of work have got us to this point. Work is already underway to have Return to Work Victoria ready to be operationalised to assist injured workers to get back to work – and I will come to the member’s question in a moment. And we want to build on a series of existing initiatives to make sure that injured workers get the support that they need.

I note the member for Eildon raised a point about the fact that I led the briefing. I did lead the briefing. I led the briefing, and I invited not just the member for Eildon but other members there, because I wanted the member to know and I wanted the opposition to know that this piece of legislation is so vitally important. I know that I wanted to do everything I could in my power to ensure its passage through the Parliament. I also agreed to consideration in detail for precisely the same reason. I respect this institution. I respect the Parliament. I respect the fact that the opposition have a role to play, and I want to make sure that they are afforded that opportunity.

This bill is detailed and technical, and I want to make this point: the operationalisation of the legislative change will take time to implement and to communicate to businesses and unions. I had originally wanted this bill to come into place on 1 January this year. The advice I received was ‘Look, you’re going to need to –

Emma Kealy interjected.

Danny PEARSON: I will come to that, member for Lowan. The advice was that ‘You would need –

A member interjected.

Danny PEARSON: No, 1 January 2024. The advice I received was the fact that this is quite detailed and technical and that you need to be able to make sure that the legislation reflects the operations, the policies and the procedures of WorkSafe, that it is communicated to employers, that it is communicated to other stakeholders, that it is communicated to lawyers and that it is also communicated to the agents. And so the advice I received was, ‘Look, you’re going to have to push it off with a start date of 31 March next year or earlier.’

I have offered to negotiate on the member for Eildon’s reasoned amendment. We have 12 days before this bill goes to the Council, the other place, and I am happy to meet every single day to negotiate on every single amendment that the member for Eildon has put forward, because I know that with further delay the implementation of this bill just gets harder. It just gets harder. Every day will see the liabilities grow and the cost to stabilise the scheme will increase even more, which means the premiums will have to go higher. If the bill does not –

A member interjected.

Danny PEARSON: No, I want to be clear on this. You need to know what you are doing – because I do not think you do know. So I will make it clear –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Less interjections, or I will remove people.

Danny PEARSON: So if the bill does not pass by the time of consideration of the premium order next year, premiums will have to increase dramatically, and this will be on the opposition. I want to be absolutely clear on this: businesses will foot the bill for this stunt, and that is all it is. Ultimately if the bill fails, then premiums will have to rise even further, and once again businesses will have to foot the bill. What has been done today has been a sensible compromise, because injured workers deserve better and business deserves a sustainable workers compensation scheme. As I said, I want to make sure this bill is passed so we have a kinder, gentler scheme for injured workers and a fairer scheme for business.

In relation to Return to Work Victoria, what I have learned from this experience is that I think we can do a much better job of having targeted interventions early on when a worker gets injured. We need to make sure that small problems do not become large problems. Every Victorian has a contribution to make, and that is why we will be establishing Return to Work Victoria. It will be established as a business unit within WorkSafe, centralising the provision and the oversight of existing and new return-to-work initiatives. Work is underway now, and the new unit will be operational alongside reforms to the WorkCover scheme. So we are serious about funding Return to Work to support the piloting of prevention, early intervention and return-to-work initiatives, building on WorkSafe’s existing return-to-work initiatives.

WorkSafe’s new employment services is an existing program to help injured workers to find new employment. The WorkSafe incentive scheme for employers provides financial incentives for employers to take on a new employee returning to work following a workplace injury. We want to pilot programs allowing for industry-led innovations and to create an evidence base for programs that can be scaled up and rolled out across our state. This is about making sure that we have those targeted interventions so we can try and provide a way to make sure that injured workers get the support that they need when and where they need it, because what we know is that if you are an injured worker and you end up in a long tail – that is, you are in the scheme on benefits after 130 weeks – your mental health outcomes are four times worse than if you are working. We do not want to see workers languishing on WorkCover for years. Every Victorian worker deserves the dignity of safe and rewarding work. Work provides a sense of community and connection that is so very important for our wellbeing, and we will have more to say about Return to Work Victoria.

Sam HIBBINS: I acknowledge the government and the minister for finally going into consideration in detail on a bill. Hopefully it becomes a regular occurrence. On clause 1, the purpose of the bill – this has been described as a modernisation of WorkCover. The minister has indicated that he has gone into extensive consultation on the bill. In his consultations he would have found out that a number of unions – Trades Hall overall, the CPSU, the National Tertiary Education Union and Health and Community Services Union – have all come out and opposed this bill. Rather than being a modernisation, they see this as a step backwards where people with mental health injury will be further stigmatised. Many of them will have legitimate claims denied. Why hasn’t the minister taken the advice of the unions and their members that will be affected so significantly by this and gone back to the drawing board and actually had a real modernisation of WorkCover that focuses on prevention and supporting workers who are injured in the workplace?

Danny PEARSON: This goes to show why you are manifestly inadequate and incapable of ever holding any responsibility in this state. Hard things are hard, and you have to show leadership. We have worked with Trades Hall Council, we have worked with the Australian Industry Group (AIG), we have worked with the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI), we have worked with –

John Pesutto interjected.

Danny PEARSON: I will come to you in a moment, Leader of the Opposition. We have worked with various stakeholders on this bill. I accept this is hard – this is really hard work. But the reality is that the alternative is we do not do it. Okay. So you turn around and say, ‘Oh, look, it’s all too hard. We won’t do it.’ I will talk to you about that in a moment. We have worked extensively. We started consulting with business and with unions earlier this year, and what is before the house is a sensible compromise. As part of this we have to increase premiums. The premium rate had not increased for over 20 years, and we increased it from 1.2707 per cent to 1.8 per cent. What we also have had to do is make sure that we have provided some reform to the system to make sure that people have got a pathway to continue their connection with their workplace. That is incredibly, vitally important. If you lose your connection to your workplace, if you lose your connection to your job, if you find yourself on benefits for the rest of your working life, it is an awful existence. I have spoken with injured workers. I have seen the pain that they have felt, losing a job that they loved that they can no longer do, feeling like they can no longer continue to contribute. The fact that they are by themselves and there is just no future for them – that is not good. We are not doing the right thing by injured workers.

The notion that, for example, you can have stress and burnout in your 20s and that you stay on benefits till you retire at 67 I just do not think is in anyone’s interests. I do not think that is in the interests of injured workers, and so that is why we want to try and modernise and do this work. The other point I would make too is that already there are 9000 workers in the long tail, and the long tail is those who are on benefits after 130 weeks. This goes to the point of why it is so important that this bill passes this year. There are 8000 workers approaching the long tail – 8000. Now, think about this for a moment. If the legislation is delayed, if this is referred off to a committee in the other place and that takes months to report, how many more of those 8000 workers who are approaching the long tail are going to end up in the long tail? What this will do is fundamentally undermine the scheme, and it will mean there will be no choice but to increase premiums. That is just a simple fact of the matter. So I would say to the member for Prahran we need to make sure that we have got a viable compensation scheme, because what will happen – and I appreciate the member for Prahran probably has not run much in his life – if the liabilities of this scheme are greater than the revenue –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Danny PEARSON: If the liabilities are greater than the assets, then this scheme will collapse, and there will be no workers compensation scheme – none – and I will not cop that.

Emma KEALY: I refer to Return to Work Victoria, which was mentioned in the minister’s second-reading speech; however, it is not referenced within the legislation of the bill before us. During the bill briefing we were told that stress and burnout claims would be eligible for the 13-week payments and also then managed by Return to Work Victoria. Return to Work Victoria is not yet funded. There is no structure behind it at all. I am concerned about people who have stress and burnout claims over that 13 weeks of provisional payments, and I would ask the minister: what will happen to workers in the absence of Return to Work Victoria, or even when it is available in the future, who initially access the 13 weeks of provisional payments for a stress or burnout related injury at the conclusion of those 13 weeks, particularly in the light that it is very difficult to get a mental health appointment within a 13-week period? Further, if the matter is not fully resolved within those 13 weeks, will those workers simply be required to return to the work environment that is doing them harm?

Danny PEARSON: On this point, Return to Work Victoria, as I indicated in my answer to the member for Eildon, will be a business unit within WorkSafe, and we are already doing some of these interventions to date. As I said, I think that there is an opportunity here to have a more hands-on, granular approach to injuries when they occur. My observation of the claims experience to date is that an injury occurs, a claim goes in and there are various interventions at different points in time in the journey, but all too often injured workers do not get the support that they need when and where they need it, and they find themselves in the long tail. As I have indicated, the mental health outcome is four times worse if you are on benefits for the rest of your working life than if you are back working.

Back in 2021, just for the member’s knowledge, the then Andrews Labor government introduced those 13 weeks of provisional payments to provide those early treatments and supports for work-related mental injuries while that work is being assessed. Now, as the member would be aware from the briefings that we provided, all workers who make a mental injury claim, including stress and burnout, will continue to have access to provisional payments to support their treatment for 13 weeks regardless of whether the claim is ultimately eligible to enter the scheme.

Now, to give you an example in relation to some of these provisional payments for mental injuries, they will cover the cost of GPs to develop an action plan to support recovery and include payments to psychologists, counsellors and psychiatrists, cost of medication and travel to treatment and services – and that includes workers having facilitated discussions conducted by occupational rehabilitation providers to help workers and employers to identify and address barriers to returning to work. I think it is also important to note that this work really complements the work of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, and to date this government has invested over $6 billion, which is the largest investment in Australia’s history into mental health.

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, my question was specific to workers who have stress and burnout claims that persist beyond the 13 weeks. What supports will be provided to them, or alternatively, will they be forced to go back to the work environment that caused them harm?

Colin Brooks: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Lowan in her two questions that she framed to the minister specifically mentioned and referenced the broader mental health support sector, and I think the minister was answering the first part of her question and then obviously answering and responding to the particular matter that she raised about broader mental health supports in the community.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will rule on the point of order. The minister was being relevant to the clause – which, as the purpose of the bill, is relatively broad – and so also relevant to the question.

Danny PEARSON: As I indicated, Return to Work Victoria will be set up as a business unit within WorkSafe, and I think there is an opportunity to have more of those targeted interventions within that first 100 days of the claim experienced, because all too often small problems become larger problems. People get disconnected from their workplace, from their colleagues, from their job, and so this is about making sure that we provide those targeted interventions through Return to Work Victoria so that they are able to get the support that they need and so that we can try to address these issues head-on. The point to make here is that what is currently occurring is not fit for purpose. This scheme has served our community well for decades, and this is about making sure that we can have a scheme that is modern, fit for purpose and meets the needs of 2023 Victoria as opposed to 1986 Victoria.

Bridget VALLENCE: My question is: why is Return to Work not mentioned in the bill, how much funding will be allocated to stand up and operate Return to Work, will it be required to report annually on Return to Work outcomes for public sector and private sector separately and have you consulted with GPs about objectives of Return to Work?

Danny PEARSON: Well, as I have indicated, Return to Work Victoria will be a business unit within WorkSafe. The work that it will do will be reported through the usual ways, through the usual channels, and this is about making sure that we build on the work that has already been done to date, be it through WorkSafe’s new employment services, which is, again, an existing program to help injured workers find new employment, or the WorkSafe incentive scheme for employers. On the WISE program, this is a really good example where incentives are provided to employers to take on injured workers who have been injured for an extended period of time, and so what I want to do is to build on this and to expand on this further. We have got different industries that should be able to pilot and trial a number of different interventions to get the very best outcomes for those injured workers.

It is important to recognise that this will sit within WorkSafe. We need to make sure that we divert more of these 8000 workers that are approaching the long tail away from the long tail, because it is better for them. If they end up in the long tail, they are four times more likely to have a poor mental health outcome than if they are working, and that is what we will continue to do.

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, I do not think the minister has gone anywhere near to answering the question that I asked, which was about how much funding will be allocated to Return to Work Victoria to operate and whether there will be reporting annually on outcomes for the public and private sectors separately in particular, and a number of other bits and pieces in that question. I do not think the minister has come anywhere near to answering that question at all, and I would ask you to bring him back.

Colin Brooks: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Evelyn asked four specific questions, and the first of those was very broad: why is Return to Work not mentioned in the bill? Then she then went through the two questions that she mentioned and also asked about whether it would be required to report annually. The minister in his answer is trying to cover the four questions that the member for Evelyn had asked in a genuine way. Potentially if members were to ask a single question each time, the minister might be able to succinctly answer each question. So I think the point of order should be ruled out of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, as again the minister was speaking relative to the clause. Clause 1 is very broad, as it is the purpose of the whole bill.

Danny PEARSON: Again, I just want to make the point that this will be a business unit within WorkSafe. What it does is its actions and its operations will be reflected in the WorkSafe report. It will discharge its duties as part of that. It will be reported through the usual way, and it will build on the work that we are already doing. We have to recognise that we have to do things differently. We have to have a much more targeted intervention in relation to injured workers. I think that waiting for six months or 12 months before you start doing interventions when a person has been locked away and disconnected from the workplace does not do them any good at all, and they are four times more likely to end up with a worse mental health outcome.

Brad ROWSWELL: A very simple question which I suggest requires a simple answer, again in relation to clause 1: should this bill pass the Parliament, will the minister guarantee that for at least 24 months following the introduction of the bill premiums will not be raised by the government?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before the minister responds, we are a lot closer together here, so I can hear a lot more than usual when in the chair – and I can usually hear you in the chair. If we are going to get this done – and I will try and get the answers and hear what we want to hear – I would appreciate it if we all think a little more and say a little less when we do not have the call.

Danny PEARSON: What I would say to the member for Sandringham – and I appreciate the question – is this partly goes to my offer to the member for Eildon that I am happy to negotiate on the member for Eildon’s reasoned amendment to get this bill passed this year. Again, I made the offer earlier; it stands now. I will work every day between now and when this bill goes to the other place to get this sorted.

In relation to the average premium rate, the average premium rate had not increased for around about 20 years before we had the increase this year. The average premium rate was 1.2707 per cent on average, and we increased premiums to 1.8 per cent, which brought it broadly in line with New South Wales. What I can guarantee the member for Sandringham is if this bill does not pass or it is watered down so much that these 8000 workers who are approaching the long tail – the premium order next year will start with 2. That means it will not be a 42 per cent increase, it will be 67 per cent based on where we were prior to this premium order. That is what I can say.

The problem we have got – again, if you look at the numbers, and you would have seen this in the briefing – is there is a tsunami of claims coming towards this scheme. This scheme is just simply not working. It makes injured workers sicker, and business are paying so much more. It just does not work. And this is why I am so passionate and so committed to this piece of legislation, because of the fact that I recognise that if we do not fix this now –

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I understand the minister’s enthusiasm and passion for the topic he is currently speaking about. But the specific question has as yet not been answered, and that is: should the bill pass, will the minister guarantee that premiums will not increase? The reason I am asking that question is to give Victorian businesses at this particular time in our state’s history a guarantee that they require and the certainty that they require.

Vicki Ward: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the minister is answering the question, the minister is covering aspects of the question and he is talking to the clause as asked in the question. So if those opposite, instead of muttering away, would actually allow us all to hear the response of the minister –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I can rule on the point of order. There is no point of order. The minister was being relevant to the question asked. I cannot dictate to the minister what to say. The answer was being relevant to the question asked.

Danny PEARSON: As I said, I can guarantee that if this bill does not pass or if this bill is delayed and the next decision point for me is the premium order, the premium will have a 2 in front of it. Again, it comes back to the earlier commentary in relation to return to work. We have had to increase premiums. We also have to have a focus on Return to Work Victoria to try and divert people away from the long tail.

The other point to make – and I think this is an important one – is we have made it clear that we are not taking any capital repatriations out of this scheme. The money that is in the scheme stays in the scheme, because we want to stabilise the scheme. The other point I would make to the member for Sandringham – and I appreciate the sincerity of the member’s question – is we have what is called the BEP, the break-even premium. The break-even premium works out what you have to charge in order to cover your costs. Because of where we are now and because we are looking at 8000 workers approaching the long tail, that is why we are going to hit 2 per cent; right? In the medium term, if Return to Work Victoria does all the things that I sincerely hope it does do, then you can start to turn around and say ‘Okay, the claims and the costs and the liabilities start to decrease’. Liabilities go down, then premiums go down. That is the thing I think is really important to note, so that is our focus.

James NEWBURY: Further to the minister’s previous responses in relation to a number of matters, firstly in relation to premiums, the minister just confirmed a minimum 25 per cent increase next year if the bill does not pass. Was that a minimum of 25 per cent? And the minister earlier stated that if this bill does not pass, Victoria’s WorkCover system will collapse. On what date will Victoria’s WorkCover system no longer exist?

Danny PEARSON: I just want to be clear on this. Premiums are a function of actuarial advice each year. It is dependent upon the success of Return to Work Victoria to divert people away from the long tail and find ways back to work. Clearly if you have got a mental health injury and there is capacity where you get the early intervention and the support and the help that you need and then you can go back to work, the value of that liability on the books of the WorkCover scheme is less than if you find yourself in the long tail for life. The notion that you can turn around and be prescriptive about this as to what day and what hour – it runs a risk of collapse, absolutely. When you look at the fact that –

Vicki Ward: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I am trying to listen very carefully to the response that the minister is giving. Your instruction that you can hear everything that we are saying and that you would ask us to think more and speak less is clearly being ignored by the Leader of the Opposition.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is, Minister?

Vicki Ward: I would really like to hear what the minister is saying.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but yes, I would appreciate it –

John Pesutto interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is not helping.

Danny PEARSON: As I indicated earlier, every year it is based upon actuarial advice. What I am advising here is that in the event that these matters are not resolved, then a premium order needs to be made next year to kick into place for 1 July. And if there is no certainty in relation to modernisation of the scheme, there will be no alternative other than to increase premiums next year, and that figure will have a 2 in front of it.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, in the minister’s previous answer he said 25 per cent. In this answer he said that he was not able to give a number. I am just asking which of the two answers is correct.

Danny PEARSON: I made it clear that the figure would have a 2 in front of it. I did not say –

James Newbury interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You asked the question.

Danny PEARSON: What I said was that it would have a figure of 2 in front of it. Two minus 1.2707 per cent roughly equates to a 67 per cent increase. That was the basis of what I said. If the bill does not pass, that is what we are potentially looking at.

Cindy McLEISH: I note that the minister is passionate about and committed to getting these changes through very quickly, and I equally note that it was in December 2020, three years ago almost, that he had the report handed down, and he has had plenty of time to work on this rather than turning his mind to it just this year.

Focusing again on Return to Work Victoria, return to work is a core role of WorkCover. The objectives of the WorkCover scheme are outlined in the principal act; two of the first three are about return to work. We have seen the system slide, so I want to know: how is it that performance is sliding? What is happening? He talks about the scheme WISE, which has been in existence for a long time. Is the minister telling us that that has failed and now they are going to try and revamp it to try and turn it around? Is that what you are saying?

Danny PEARSON: It has been my great honour and privilege to be the Minister for WorkSafe and the TAC since December of last year. That is the first thing I would say. The second thing I would say is that in relation to this report that the member refers to – I think that was December 2020’s report – I just want to take the member back to what December 2020 was looking like. We were confronting the worst economic crisis in the state’s history since the Great Depression, and at that point in time we had to put in $11 billion worth of business support. I am not quite sure if the member for Eildon is seriously contemplating or suggesting that what should have happened is my predecessor in early 2021 should have issued a premium order to increase premiums at the same point in time when we were giving $11 billion worth of business support.

Emma KEALY: The minister has referred to the escalating number of claims particularly related to stress and burnout, so I would ask for some further information in regard to that, particularly with his further comments that the number of claims escalating would lead to future WorkCover premium increases. So I ask the minister: could he please provide the number of stress and burnout claims for the past five years and, further, the number of mental health injuries and physical injuries that are arising from the private sector and then separately from the public sector, including government-related entities, and if that information is not available at his fingertips today, can he provide that information and that data on notice?

Danny PEARSON: I thank the member for her question. What I can say on this point is as of November 2023 around about 82 per cent of total injuries were in the private sector. There is some rounding up of figures here, but 72 per cent of those are physical injuries and 9 per cent are mental. Approximately 18 per cent are in the public sector, around 12 per cent are physical and 5 per cent are mental. I think it is important to note that there is a difference between the public and the private sectors – absolutely – because of the fact that our frontline workers do such an amazing job. When I have spoken to people who have suffered from PTSD, or people who have treated people who have suffered from PTSD, they described their lived experience as like a bucket, and every traumatic incident is like adding to that bucket. It gets to the point where the person simply can no longer go on. These reforms ensure that our hardworking frontline police officers, our nurses, our firefighters and our corrections officers will have a scheme that is right for them and can service them now and into the future. That is just the simple reality.

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, this is a very narrow question about data covering the past five years of claims. I realise this information may not be available to the minister today. If it is unavailable, could he make it available to the house before this bill comes before, we expect, the Legislative Council in two weeks?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order, again, I cannot dictate to the minister how to respond, but it was relevant to the question asked.

Danny PEARSON: The member will be able to look at Hansard. I have quoted to the member in relation to the current status as of November this year.

Gary MAAS: Thank you to the minister for considering this bill in detail. Minister, as you would be aware, there are many workers who will be affected by the changes in this scheme. Could you please outline what the challenges are that are being faced in the WorkCover scheme?

Danny PEARSON: Look, what we have seen is a rise in mental health claims, which is driving the deterioration of the scheme. Back in 1986, around about 2 per cent of all claims were mental health injury claims. That is now around 16 or 17 per cent. The cost of these claims represents about 50 per cent of the scheme’s cost, and the challenge we have got is that unless we try and have more targeted interventions, the very real risk is that you will start to see that figure increase far beyond 17 per cent. It could be as high as 30 per cent by the end of this decade. The challenges that we are confronting are no different to what schemes are confronting in other jurisdictions. New South Wales has put in $4.2 billion to stabilise their iCare scheme. Now, I appreciate that that scheme is not identical to ours, but I think it speaks to the fact that there are real challenges here.

The other point to make, and it is important that the member for Prahran hears this, is that in terms of Queensland you have got a situation where there are no benefits after five years. You hit five years and you are out. You then go on a federal government transfer payment; it might be a disability pension or it might be in relation to unemployment benefits. That is why it is so very important that we keep this scheme viable, because we have to make sure this scheme can pay its way and continue to support injured workers.

Again, I think the point – and the member for Narre Warren South knows this very well from his past life and his outstanding work as co-chair of the Workplace Incidents Consultative Committee – is that the problem we have and the challenge we have got for injured workers is that the scheme is just not fit for purpose, and we need to do so much better. All of us in this place are familiar with 100-day plans. That is what we kind of do; we are kind of used to 100-day plans. We need to get to the position where we have a 100-day plan in relation to supporting injured workers when they get injured and having a much more hands-on approach to make sure that they get addressed and dealt with in relation to these matters, because we have just got to do much better.

I say this to the member for Prahran in relation to some of his earlier comments: if you are in your 20s and you have got stress and burnout and you lose connection to your colleagues, you lose connection to your workplace, you lose your connection to your job and you are isolated, if you spend the next 40-odd years of your life on benefits before you retire, that is not good. That is just a terrible outcome. I would not wish that on my worst enemy. I would not do that. That is why I think it is about making sure that we are providing those targeted interventions and support, because it is the right thing to do.

Sam HIBBINS: On clause 1, people with stress and burnout would get zero weeks of WorkCover compensation under this bill. It is clear from the debate the minister is claiming to be very passionate about wanting to see this through. I did not realise insulting members who are asking questions was the best pathway to getting this bill passed, but obviously he is looking to do a deal with the Liberal Party to get this bill through. He mentions –

Members interjecting.

Sam HIBBINS: Were you complaining about interjections before? Was that the minister?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair.

Sam HIBBINS: The minister was mentioning the hard work of reform and in running things. This government has been running WorkCover for its entire term of office, this minister has been on WorkCover for the best part of this year, and the government has known about the financial issues for WorkCover for many, many years. The question goes to the sequencing of reform. The minister talks about getting workers assistance earlier. Why hasn’t the government done the work of reforming to improve the WorkCover system for people with a mental injury and for people with a long-term physical injury – like prevention, like making our workplaces safer, particularly the public sector workplaces that are so impacted by this bill, and getting those early interventions? Why wasn’t the work of reform done before you introduced this legislation, which is going to deny people access to WorkCover and throw them off the scheme?

Danny PEARSON: There is a bit in that. What I would say is that we have targeted some interventions to date through things like the new employer services and the WISE, and I want to accelerate that and do more of that. I note the member’s comments about me trying to reach out to the Liberal Party or the opposition. Notwithstanding my disagreement with the tactics that the opposition are deploying, they at least are prepared to continue the conversation ongoing, and I have had a good dialogue today with the member for Eildon. Your political party made it very clear very early on that you would not vote for this bill. If the member for Prahran is saying that he wants to have a conversation about getting the bill passed, my door is always open. I am very happy to have that conversation.

What I would say to you from a sequencing point of view is that what we are bringing forward here is, I suppose for want of a term, a grand compact. We looked at increasing premiums earlier this year because we recognised the fact that premiums had not increased for 20 years, and we needed to try and ensure that the scheme was on a stronger financial footing. That is the first point. Earlier this year I also advised the community that the scheme is fundamentally broken, it is no longer fit for purpose. So earlier this year I said, ‘It is not fit for purpose, it is fundamentally broken.’ We had the premium order where we increased payments. We then turned around in May of this year, when the former Premier and I indicated that these were the reforms that we were going to try and do. The bill that is before the house absolutely reflects the work that was done with Trades Hall, with VCCI and with AIG to come up with a sensible compromise. That is what has been done, and that has been the sequencing.

If you think about this for a moment – I am passionate about this bill because I think that this gets the balance right – you could have a whole-person impairment (WPI) test, and that would mean you would be diverting more people away from the compensation scheme and you would reduce your liabilities. You could have also looked at significantly increasing premiums beyond what we did earlier this year. It is my earnest hope, that in terms of trying to find a balance between an increase in premiums and these reforms, which are modest and sensible and will be sustainable, that we have got the balance right.

James NEWBURY: Just one question. The minister referred to December 2020 a couple of answers ago and the government becoming aware at that time of serious issues. Why has it taken three years to introduce a bill?

Danny PEARSON: The member referred to the Finity report, which was I think dated December 2020, which the opposition have got through a freedom of information request. I was not the minister at that time.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Danny PEARSON: I was not the minister at that time. I have made it really clear. I was commissioned as the minister for WorkSafe in December of last year. We started consulting with the unions and with business in February of this year. In May we announced that we were going to have a series of reforms and we were going to modernise this scheme. We have introduced this bill, which reflects all of that.

Bridget VALLENCE: You mentioned it earlier, Minister, and it has been detailed in media releases, Return to Work Victoria will pilot supports for injured workers related to mental stress. How long will this pilot run for? Can you outline details of the supports for the public sector? When will you transition from a pilot to active return to work?

Danny PEARSON: What I would say is that Return to Work will build on the work of my predecessor, Minister Stitt from the other place, and it will look at the new employment service and WISE. What I would say is that when you are looking at a large and diverse economy like Victoria’s economy is and you are looking at a diverse workforce, it is not going to be a case of one size fits all. I think that what you will start to see is you will need to trial a series of different initiatives with different industries. Rather than having a sort of command-and-control approach from WorkSafe dictating what is going to be done or what is not going to be done, there is an opportunity for us to work constructively and collaboratively with business to trial different interventions. If you think about it, if you are working in manufacturing in a large manufacturer or you are working in a school, the interventions may not necessarily be transferable. I think this is about making sure that we pilot, trial and work together constructively and collaboratively. On these sorts of questions too it is about making sure that if things do not work then we try something else. We have to keep on innovating and doing better. Again, I just make the comment I made earlier, the challenges –

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, just on relevance, it was about the pilot supports and also detailing these pilot supports in relation to the public sector.

Colin Brooks: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member’s question may be a very important question, but it bears no relevance to the clause, which does not mention return to work or the pilot –

Cindy McLeish: The whole point!

Colin Brooks: Maybe. It does not mention the pilot that the member has referred to. So the minister is entitled to answer in a broad way. It was a broad question that did not really seem to have any relevance to clause 1.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister was being relevant to the question asked and can continue.

Danny PEARSON: Look, I appreciate the genuine nature of the question from the member for Evelyn, and in our briefing the member for Evelyn talked about this at length, so I appreciate the motivations and the intentions of the member. That is why, though, I want to try and look at doing a number of different interventions. It is not clear to me at this stage that what, for example, might work in a public sector agency would work necessarily in a private sector business. We need to trial and do different things.

But I want to be clear, we absolutely have to recognise that things are not working, that things need to improve and do better, because if we do not then premiums will rise. Again, I make my plea to the opposition. There is an opportunity for us to work in good faith, to work through the member for Eildon’s reasoned amendment, to try and have a discussion about this, to try and reach an agreement before the bill goes to the other place and to have this bill passed by Christmas because that is our best chance to ensure that the scheme is in operation on 31 March and that we reduce the risk that premiums are going to have to go up. If this bill is locked away in the other place at the time when a premium order has to be made, the premium order will have a 2 in front of it, and it will be on you.

John PESUTTO: That is patently ridiculous. I will begin with that. But I have a question for the minister on clause 1(a)(iv) – the review of the act. I ask this question in light of the fact that the minister was a member of cabinet prior to the last state election and as the relevant minister since the last state election where the government sat on the Finity report, which we learned today has foreshadowed scenarios, including a scenario that sees the scheme owing $53 billion in unfunded liabilities. We have a minister, with all due respect, who speaks earnestly of the need for urgent reform but only brought this bill in two weeks ago. We have a minister who freely admits, and has done so repeatedly, that the system is broken. He has said repeatedly, including now, that the system is on –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right!

John PESUTTO: The minister in his remarks only moments ago – the first time I think he has said this word – has told Victorians that the system –

Dylan Wight interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Tarneit can leave the chamber for half an hour.

Member for Tarneit withdrew from the chamber.

John PESUTTO: He has told Victorians in this Parliament that the system will collapse. So with that preamble, I draw the minister to the sections on reviewing the bill and I ask, with no disrespect: how can the Victorian people have any confidence that the powers placed in the minister to review a system that he broke is the appropriate way to frame this bill? How can the minister –

Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, it may be that the Leader of the Opposition has not sat through a consideration-in-detail stage of a bill, but this is not –

Members interjecting.

Colin Brooks: Well, he must have forgotten how it works, because this is not how a question is framed in a consideration-in-detail stage. This is a process for the house to ask information of the minister, not for someone on the other side of the house to sledge the minister and grandstand. There is a semblance of a question there in the Leader of the Opposition’s framing. I think he needs to come back to answering the question that fits within the standing orders, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In short, I am not dictating to the minister or the questioner what to ask. It is withing the standing orders; it is not a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition to continue in silence, please.

John PESUTTO: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. In light of the history I outlined, is the bill right in giving this minister power to review the operation of the amendments in this bill when, for the reasons I explained, he is patently not the person who should be doing it?

Danny PEARSON: There is a bit in that – I do not know what you call it – stream of consciousness, I suppose. What I would say is that this bill is incredibly technical and detailed. I think you would find that the number of people who actually know this bill inside out, back to front and can understand it in a really, really detailed way – not in a superficial way but in a really detailed way – are very few in the state of Victoria. What I would say on this point is that you do not know what you do not know. We are making these bills, and there might be unintended consequences. When you are dealing with a really complicated piece of legislation, you may well find that with all the best intentions that we as a Parliament have in terms of passing bills, there are times when bills need to be amended and reformed. It might be that circumstances change. It might be the fact that a problem which was not evident in 2023 may well be in 2026.

The other point to make is that by having a three-year time period you are able therefore to have a situation where you have got three years worth of data. Again, this is one of the biggest changes to the scheme in a very long time, and it is important that it takes time to wash through the system. If you think about it in terms of these changes, you are going to have to put people through a different form of assessment; there will be different processes. That is going to take time. It will work its way through. That is why it is so very important that we have the review.

The other point to make – and again, the Leader of the Opposition questions about its collapse – is I am being absolutely honest and up-front with the house. There are 9000 people in the scheme already. There are another 8000 approaching the long tail. Just try to conceptualise that for a moment: in terms of the liabilities of the scheme, it is going to increase exponentially unless we do something. The issue here is that I have held the portfolio since December. I know the Leader of the Opposition may not have heard it earlier but I was appointed the minister in December. We started in February. We outlined to the Victorian community that the system was broken. In May we outlined the series of reforms that we were proposing. This bill reflects each and every one of those reforms.

I personally briefed the opposition, because I wanted the opposition to be afforded the opportunity, on the magnitude of the challenges that confront us. The notion that this is just going to be punted off to some committee in the other place and that it is going to take months – it is literally going to take months. I am not quite sure what those opposite think is going to happen, but it is going to take months. More and more of these injured workers are going to enter the long tail. The scheme will deteriorate further. I will have no other choice: premiums will have to rise as a consequence of their inaction.

John Pesutto interjected.

Danny PEARSON: The reality is that leadership is not kicking a problem down the road, Leader of the Opposition; leadership is tackling it head-on, and that is exactly what I am doing. I will not take a backward step. I want to be clear: I want you all to know I briefed you personally because I take this seriously and I know this is the right thing to do. I am here right now answering your questions because I passionately believe that this is the right thing to do, and I will not take a backward step. I just want to be clear that in the event that this goes off to the other place –

John Pesutto: This is on you, Danny. Don’t blame anybody else for your mess. Don’t go there. It’s on you – just like the residential construction sector –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question.

Danny PEARSON: What I would say is the Leader of the Opposition has a very, very clear choice.

Cindy McLeish interjected.

Danny PEARSON: Again, this is the third time I have extended this offer to the member for Eildon: I will work with you every day for the next 12 days to come up with and to carefully consider any amendments you wish to make in order to maximise the chances that this bill passes at the end of this year so we start on 31 March. If this bill does not come into operation on 31 March, it will only be the fault of the Leader of the Opposition and the coalition. Premiums will increase, and it will be on you.

Iwan WALTERS: I am interested more in the impact of this bill on businesses in my electorate and across Victoria than in ad hominem attacks on the minister. The Greens have already indicated that they are not interested. They are a party of stunts and protests, as we have seen this week. But if others in this place join them and if this bill does not pass, Minister, what is the impact going to be for Victorian businesses?

Danny PEARSON: The premium order will be issued to commence in the 2024–25 financial year. The number of the premium is yet to be determined. We will need to get closer. But the premium order will have a two in front of it, and that will come into place as of 1 July next year.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (16:39)

Cindy McLEISH: Clause 4 is about the definitions in relation to section 3(b). Under the DSM, diagnostic and statistical manual, who is entitled as a medical practitioner to make a DSM determination, and has the government assessed whether there are enough psychiatrists to undertake expected work?

Danny PEARSON: Just in relation to this clause, this will provide more fairness and consistency in diagnosing mental injuries and that is as a consequence of introducing a new definition of ‘mental injury’. As the member for Eildon indicated, in practical terms most mental injuries are already diagnosed in accordance with the DSM. This reform will mean doctors must all apply the same criteria so that no worker is disadvantaged. We want to have a more consistent approach to these matters, and this will ensure workers can get the appropriate care and treatment as soon as possible.

Sam HIBBINS: In relation to clause 4 and also in relation to the changed definition of ‘mental injury’, which is much narrower than the current definition of ‘injury’ in the act, this change will also impact workers claiming mental injury, even those who have been subject to traumatic events, which is further outlined in the bill. Does the minister have information on just how many mental injury claimants, including workers subject to traumatic events, will be excluded from receiving compensation as they will not meet this new criteria for a defined mental injury as per the proposed section?

Danny PEARSON: I thank the member for his question. At the outset I want to say that this reform will ensure that our hardworking frontline workers, be they nurses, paramedics, police officers, firefighters or other workers who routinely experience traumatic events in their work, will continue to be eligible under the scheme. As a government, we will always be there to support our frontline workers.

The scheme’s current eligibility arrangements were designed when a small proportion of reported workplace injuries related to mental injuries. Again, I indicated earlier that when the scheme first started it was around 2 per cent. It is now in the order of 16 or 17 per cent, and that represents around 50 per cent of the cost of the scheme. That was never envisaged when this scheme was contemplated; it just was not the case. Again, as I have indicated, what we are experiencing here in Victoria is what has been experienced in other jurisdictions, particularly those who have a long tail, unlike Queensland, who remove people after five years.

Workers are best off when injuries at work are prevented or, in this case, they are injured and they return to productive work in a supportive environment. Again this comes back to the issue of: we want to try and divert people away from the long tail because they are four times worse off than if they are working. That is why we will be establishing Return to Work Victoria. Again, I talked earlier in relation to some of these initiatives. The real point here I think it is important to note is what we are trying to do, and I really just want to make this point clearly: small problems become bigger problems if they are not addressed, and that is why with Return to Work Victoria we want to divert people away from ending up in the long tail for the rest of their working lives. It is about thinking about trying to find opportunities to continue working.

I will give you an example. The Department of Education has been doing some very good work. For example, if you have got a situation where a teacher might have been traumatised at work and you say, ‘Well, you either go on benefits for the rest of your life or go back to that classroom’ – I think we can do better than that. We should be providing people with more options. I met with an agent earlier this year who talked about how, for example, teachers make really good workers in organisational development. Again, it is trying to find those opportunities for retraining or reskilling, and having a real focus on these timely interventions will make a profound difference to the lives of injured workers.

Emma KEALY: On clause 4, related to the definition of ‘mental injury’, this week we had a report tabled from the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office regarding employee health and wellbeing in Victorian public hospitals. It does provide a compelling snapshot of what is happening in our public sector. It concludes:

The department and the audited hospitals do not effectively support hospital workers’ mental health and wellbeing.

It further states:

There are gaps in hospitals’ processes to identify and control psychosocial hazards. And the department does not effectively oversee hospitals to make sure they protect staff.

One in four hospital workers who did the 2022 People Matter survey reported experiencing high to severe stress at work, and I note now stress and burnout claims will no longer be covered for any period longer than 13 weeks under the government’s new plan. The average cost per psychological injury claim to the workers compensation scheme has increased by 45 per cent to nearly $190,000 in 2022, and in 2020 the healthcare and social assistance sector – the public sector – accounted for 29 per cent of all psychological injury workers compensation claims but only 15 per cent of all hours worked in Victoria. Today we have heard the minister threaten that it is Victorian businesses who will pay for any increases that come through. He has also stated that WorkCover should pay its own way. Minister, I ask you: why should private businesses in Victoria have to pick up the tab for the government’s mismanagement and failure to provide a mentally healthy workplace for all government employees and all government entities?

Danny PEARSON: There is a lot in that. There really is a lot in that. What I would say is that employers with a payroll of under $200,000 have a flat premium. So if you are a cafe and you have got a payroll of less than $200,000, your premium is standard. I think that the base premium for business is around about $330 per annum. Once you look at a workplace with a payroll of over $200,000 there are a number of classifications that are brought to bear, including not just the industry you are operating under but also in relation to your claims experience. For example, if you are an employer with a really bad claims record, that will see your premiums increase quite significantly. I indicated to the member earlier that as of November 2023, 82 per cent of total injuries are in the private sector; 18 per cent are in the public sector. So that is the split. It is important that that is again reflected.

In relation to one of the important issues in this bill, one of the issues in relation to this –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Danny PEARSON: I am mindful that the hour is getting late. There are 12 minutes to go. I am attempting –

Vicki Ward: Let’s just keep interjecting so we can’t hear.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I am not going to define irony.

James Newbury interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You will have your chance.

Danny PEARSON: I think this goes to one of the really important elements of the bill which no-one has really touched on today, and that is the information-sharing element in relation to the bill.

Mathew HILAKARI: I would like to ask the minister what the government and what this bill seek to do around mental injury.

Danny PEARSON: Again, on this point, this work builds on the work of my predecessors when back in 2021 the then Andrews Labor government introduced the 13 weeks of provisional payments. It builds on the work of the royal commission into mental health, where we have invested $6 billion. We just have to recognise that society now, in 2023, is radically different to what it was in 1993. That is reflected in the fact that mental injury claims are increasing quite significantly, and that is why we need to make these reforms. Again, I just to make it abundantly clear that if you think that kicking this down the road for another 12 months is actually going to improve things, it just will not. There is an opportunity –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ministers at the table! Without assistance.

Danny PEARSON: There is an opportunity to get this sorted, to get this right and to be in a really strong position to make sure this scheme is sustainable and long-lasting now and into the future. There is a really good opportunity for this to be done, and from my perspective that is something that I am absolutely committed to doing. If we do not do this – again, the notion that this is going to just be sent off to a committee in the other place and roll around up there for God knows how long before it pops out – the scheme will deteriorate further. What is before the house is a sensible compromise. It is entirely consistent with what was outlined in May of this year. I have briefed the opposition personally to indicate to them the dire straits the scheme is in. We have come up with a series of sensible compromises that gets the balance right. We have to honour our liabilities. In the event that workers go into the long tail, we need to make sure that we honour those liabilities. If these liabilities keep increasing through the inaction and the inertia of those opposite, then there will be no choice but for premiums to go up. It is as simple as that. It is a really simple proposition.

There is a chance here. Again, for the fourth time, I say to the member for Eildon: you have raised a number of issues in your reasoned amendment. I am happy to work with you every day – I will work with you tomorrow, I will work with you over the weekend, I will work with you every day next week and the following week – to come up with a compromise to ensure that you agree to supporting this bill in the other place. I make that offer to the member for Prahran. If the member for Prahran is splitting from his caucus or is going to be a lone ranger on this, all power to you. All power to your arm. Let us have a chat. I will buy the chai latte and we can try and find a way through this.

Cindy McLEISH: Following on from clause 4(b) with regard to the DSM, what is the definition in the bill of ‘work-related stress and burnout’, because burnout is not recognised in the DSM?

Danny PEARSON: In relation to stress and burnout, it is what people understand it to be, which would be an infrequent or a temporary event. I think this is reflected in the clause of the bill talking about traumatic events and the definitions around that.

Wayne FARNHAM: Are you covered because you are a frontline worker? I will give you an example. I had a friend – I still have a friend. I have many friends, and I will not name names.

Members interjecting.

Wayne FARNHAM: Settle down, because you have got to listen to this, and the member for Melton will appreciate this story. This friend is an ambo, and she went through quite a few stages of horrific incidents. The last stage that finally broke her was a 16-year-old boy who had hanged himself – the same age as her son. What DSM diagnosis would help that person?

Danny PEARSON: At the outset I want to pass my condolences on to your friend. I cannot imagine how traumatic that is. I think this goes to the fact that we need to make sure we have got a compensation scheme that supports injured workers and frontline workers because of the nature of frontline work. You might not have been in the chamber earlier, but what I have been advised regarding frontline workers is that it is like they carry a bucket around. Every time there is a traumatic incident, it adds to that bucket, and it comes to a point where they cannot deal with it anymore and they go off with PTSD.

PTSD will be covered; it will continue to be covered. We also recognise the fact that PTSD may not have settled at 130 weeks, and similar to other degenerative diseases like silicosis there is a very real risk at 130 weeks that you might present and you might have a WPI below 20. But what we are doing with the legislation here is ensuring that there is the ability to make those provisional decisions, because we know that, for example, with an insidious disease like silicosis you are not going to get better. You are just going to get worse. To put people through that trauma is not appropriate. In relation to PTSD, again, this is making sure that we cover that, because we have got to make sure that we have got a really financially sustainable –

Vicki Ward: And robust.

Danny PEARSON: and robust – thank you, Minister – compensation scheme to support injured workers and our hardworking frontline workers now and into the future.

Emma KEALY: In relation to clause 4, lived-experience workers are intrinsically at higher risk of mental injury if not properly supported and accommodated in the workplace. Under these changes their access to WorkCover support would be curtailed, potentially risking the planned expansion of this critical workforce. How will the government support the expansion of the lived-experience workforce in mental health without full WorkCover protections for mental injury?

Danny PEARSON: What I would say is we voted for a mental health levy, which was opposed by those opposite. We have accepted each and every one of the recommendations of the royal commission into mental health. We have invested over $6 billion into our mental health system. We have introduced mental health and wellbeing hubs throughout Victoria to ensure Victorians have access to free mental health support when they need it most. The first six mental health and wellbeing locals opened last year, providing a free and easy way to get treatment and support in the community, without the need for any eligibility criteria and with no referral.

The member specifically raised a question in relation to what we are doing from a workforce growth perspective. We are investing in growing and supporting our skilled mental health workforce, creating more than 2500 new workers and roles in the system, such as mental health nurses and psychiatrists. The recent state budget invests $11.8 million in new workforce funding, which builds on over $600 million invested in workforce initiatives since 2020–21. Again I just want to make the point that there is an opportunity here for this bill to be passed to make sure that we have got a sustainable and viable workers compensation system now and into the future.

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, this question came from the mental health sector. They are very concerned that this truncation of WorkCover accessibility for people with lived experience may limit their ability to grow that workforce. While I understand there are a lot of things that are being done under the royal commission, I ask the minister to come back to that specific question of what supports will be in place given an aspect of being able to access WorkCover will be taken away from these vulnerable workers.

Danny PEARSON: Again, I want to be abundantly clear to the opposition: there will be no workers compensation scheme in the future unless we are able to make sure this scheme is financially viable and sustainable. We need to make sure that we have got a viable, sustainable workers compensation scheme to support our first responders, to support our paramedics, to support our nurses, to support our people in the mental health sector and to support our hospitals and our nurses. It is a very clear choice. This will not get better by kicking this down the road for however long the other place seeks to do it.

John Pesutto interjected.

Danny PEARSON: What I would say to the Leader of the Opposition is: the ball is in your court. You can fix this. We can pass this. We can modernise this scheme; we can get on with it. You will wear this, and you will regret this, I can assure you. We need to pass the bill. We need to modernise this scheme. We need to support workers. We need to make sure they get the support they need. Injured workers deserve better, and we need to make sure we have got a viable compensation scheme now and into the future. It is a really simple proposition. This bill is a consequence of thoughtful consideration through multiple stakeholders, and we have worked incredibly hard to be in this position, to get the balance right, to modernise this workers compensation scheme. I urge the opposition –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Minister. The time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business. The question is:

That clause 4 stand part of the bill.

Clause agreed to; clauses 5 to 32 agreed to.

The SPEAKER: The house will divide on the question that the house agrees to the bill without amendment.

Assembly divided on question:

Noes (27): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Question agreed to.

Bill agreed to without amendment.

Third reading

The SPEAKER: The question is:

That this bill now be read a third time.

I advise the house that as the required statement of intention has been made under section 85(5)(c)of the Constitution Act 1975, the third reading of the bill must be passed by an absolute majority. An absolute majority is present in the house.

Assembly divided on motion:

Noes (27): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Motion agreed to by absolute majority.

Read third time.

The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.

Back to the top

Latest

Latest

Thursday, 16 November 2023

Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (WorkCover Scheme Modernisation) Bill 2023