Wednesday, 15 November 2023

Bills

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

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (18:02): I am delighted to resume with the time I have left; I was interrupted by the matter of public importance. What I was talking about before I was rudely interrupted was the stress and burnout provisions that would be removed by this new bill. As we said, they would only be replaced with anxiety and depression claims. So I am not sure that the minister has really thought this through, because he cannot even quantify – it is a pleasure to have the Acting Speaker in the chair, the member for Narracan; what a pleasure it is – or really define how that looks, whether it is going to be an increase or a decrease in claims for WorkCover. The growing tail, which we have talked about and others have talked about in this place, in the system is hurting the bottom line. This bill’s solution is a 20 per cent whole-of-person impairment test, and this will occur when a claim goes above 130 weeks. This threshold must be met to go beyond those 130 weeks.

Another solution that this bill puts forward, which currently does not exist and which we have heard about, is Return to Work Victoria. When the minister was quizzed about it at the briefing recently, there was a lot of umming and ahhing. He said, ‘It could look like this. It might look like that, and it might have this result.’ But we do not know whether it is independent. We do not know whether it will have its own board or whether it even sits under WorkCover. So Return to Work Victoria is a bit of a mystery to us. Again we are being asked to support a bill that is not really finished, and we are being asked to support a bill that the same minister who created the mess is now bringing in to try and clean up the mess. That, to me, is a very high-risk policy. That is why I am concerned about that. We do know that they are going to make private business premiums higher, and we need guarantees that they are going to come down. That is not here in the bill. We need guarantees, not empty promises, not ‘I think we can bring them down’ and certainly not ‘Trust me after the bill goes through’. We are asking, as I say, the same minister who created the mess to try and fix it, which we are very concerned about.

I also mentioned that in some of my communities in Wangaratta, Yarrawonga, Myrtleford and Cobram the businesses are screaming, saying the premiums have gone up to 1.8 per cent and will be going higher. There is evidence to suggest they will go up to 2.2 per cent or even higher than that. What really needs to happen is the system needs to be split into the private sector and the public sector, because the private sector knows how to manage money. They know how to manage their business. And we know the public sector – well, they could not run a chook raffle.

This is where we have got to be really careful. If we could carve out the private sector, those premiums would be in the vicinity of 1.4 per cent, and that is what they deserve. They deserve the benefit of their good management rather than being dragged down by the public sector, a government who cannot manage its own staff and its own people – and frankly, as I say, they really are being dragged down by that public sector. The Nationals and Liberals will certainly fight to ensure fair premiums, and these changes are not fair. These changes just transfer the premiums, the costs, to the private sector, and the Victorian government need to learn that the private sector is not just a personal ATM or something for the government to tap on the shoulder when it suits them. The premiums are already split into industries, we know that, so we can split private and public out into the same system. Do not tell me it cannot be done, because it is already being done within industries within the premiums, so it could be done between public and private.

With the very limited time I have got left I was going to discuss the amendment that the member for Eildon moved. I will very quickly reflect on part of that. Part (1) was to agree 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 that certainty for business. I think I will leave the other members in this place to continue on and talk about the other points in that amendment, but that is the most important one that I see, that certainty for business. Everybody has done it tough over the last four or five years, and we need business to thrive, not just survive. By increasing premiums in every facet – and taxes – it is just not helping small business. This is an example of a government again just tapping small business on the shoulder and saying ‘You’ll pay more. We’ve botched this a bit and we’ve had to tip a bit more money in over the last three years. We’ve botched it. We’re going to put all the premiums up, and you’re going to pay as well’, even though it is reflective of their poor management. So I do hope that the government considers this amendment put forward by the member for Eildon, because it is important that the government realise that they do not have all the answers. They do not often get it right, and they have certainly not this time.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (18:07): I rise to contribute on the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (WorkCover Scheme Modernisation) Bill 2023. The bill makes amendments to the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 and the Accident Compensation Act 1985 to ensure that injured Victorian workers are adequately supported when they need it most.

There are a couple of things I want to raise firstly, in response to some of the contributions from the opposite side, and those are about consultation. There has been extensive consultation even as far back as February with the unions and certainly business groups and lawyers, but also throughout this year there has been regular consultation with Victorian Trades Hall, union affiliates, Australian Industry Group, the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Lawyers Alliance.

Also, I want to raise the issue of what the Andrews–Allan Labor government has done and what our priorities are, and those are clearly the mental health and wellbeing of all Victorians for our government. That is why we are implementing all of the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, and we have not wasted a day working to build our state’s new mental health system. We have invested over $6 billion to do so.

I just want to go back in history a little bit, and amongst many achievements like creating VicHealth and introducing nation-leading freedom of information laws, the Cain Labor government established WorkCare, the predecessor to the current WorkSafe scheme, in 1985. Of course the scheme was established to primarily support workers with physical injuries, and if people remember back 40 years ago there was very little reporting of mental health injuries within the workplace; it was all physical injuries. As I say, this was 40 years ago, so we have needed to amend this scheme over the years. Those opposite tried to amend the scheme in the 1990s – and did they amend the scheme. They seriously affected workers by removing common law under the Kennett government. It was only when the Bracks government was elected that it was reintroduced, and I thank the Bracks government for that because there were many, many paramedics that I represented that were affected by those changes in the 1990s – and seriously affected by those changes in the 1990s.

In the 2021–22 financial year there were almost 29,000 workers that had WorkCover claims, and 90,000 people currently receive some sort of benefit from the WorkCover scheme, whether that be a weekly compensation payment or whether that be for some ongoing medical expenses or medical and like expenses, like some home help or gardening or things like that within their home because they have an injury where they are unable to perform those duties or they have no-one to assist them with those duties. We know that workers with mental health claims are on WorkCover for much longer periods than someone that is getting over a physical injury, and we know that the health outcomes for workers on compensation schemes are four times worse than those with the same condition outside these schemes. So it probably indicates something within the scheme itself about how traumatic it is. I have had to say even to my past members that sometimes injuries are made worse by going through the scheme than the actual injuries are.

The WorkCover scheme has witnessed a notable rise in mental injuries, which now make up around 16 per cent of all new claims, and they contribute to around 50 per cent of the total cost of the scheme. Workers experiencing mental injuries tend to face longer periods, as I previously raised, away from work compared to those with physical injuries, and it is resulting in increased claim duration and cost. The other thing about mental health injuries is that when someone sustains a mental health injury from work, they are away from their workplace, they are away from their colleagues, they are potentially in isolation and that is more damaging to someone that has a mental health injury. Of course the bill introduces a specific definition of mental injury, characterising it as an injury that:

causes significant behavioural, cognitive or psychological dysfunction …

It must be diagnosed by a medical practitioner in accordance with the most recent version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Consequently the injuries that do not substantially impair a worker’s function or lack a DSM-compliant diagnosis will not qualify for compensation. The bill also mandates that compensable mental injuries must be predominantly caused by work. The proposed legislation will incorporate an additional provision excluding compensation for mental injuries predominantly caused by work-related stress or burnout arising from events deemed typical or expected during a worker’s duties. Of course in this context ‘predominantly caused’ retains its ordinary meaning in referring to the most substantial contributing factor in comparison to all others.

Events considered reasonably expected or typical include typical work-related stresses commonly encountered by most workers during employment such as reasonable additional hours. I think the important thing there is about whether it is reasonable. We have seen in some workforces there are many, many stresses and strains on employees that are unreasonable. I can go to the industry that I represented where ambulance paramedics have no choice but to have an extension of their shift on overtime because they respond to emergency cases. Even though they might have worked a 10-, 12- or 14-hour shift, they sometimes continue to work – and regularly continue to work – well past the end of their shift, causing much stress and strain. I know that first responders may be exempt under the provisions of this legislation, but it is an example of how someone in their role could do unreasonable overtime or unreasonable duties. The most important thing that I am trying to stress here is that these exemptions can only be provided if it is in a reasonable manner. There are many, many workers that are put in an unreasonable situation, and that is very unfortunate. I will go on from that by saying I call on the employers. I would love to say to you that we do not have to change WorkCover legislation because our claims were kept low, but no, in some cases the workplace is just not a nice place to work at. There are many, many things that go on in a workplace amongst employees, amongst managers to employees, and I call on the employers to make sure that they manage the stress, the strains, the bullying and the harassment, and reduce the pressures on people, which can reduce the mental health claims.

I think that is an important thing, and that is about OH&S around the workplace. Of course there are exemptions to this new exclusion for workers who are consistently exposed to traumatic events in the regular course of their duties and whose injuries are primarily a result of those traumatic experiences. If a worker’s mental injuries are mainly attributed to traumatic events considered customary or expected in the course of their duties, such as with frontline workers, the worker will remain eligible for compensation. Again I make reference to some of our frontline professions such as paramedics, police, firefighters, nurses, doctors and health professionals that should all be exempt through these changes. But I assume each case will be judged on its merits.

Then there is the vicarious trauma that falls under the umbrella of post-traumatic stress disorder. Again I go to the vicarious trauma which might affect people such as our 000 heroes, our call takers and dispatchers. They are taking many, many emergency calls per day, hearing traumatic situations and then dealing with those over the telephone and taking that home with them. There is no question that there have been a number of people that work in that industry that have sustained mental health injuries.

In the little time that I have left, I know that there is a process of conciliation when one puts in for a claim under this new legislation. Sometimes if there is not a decision made on that, the matter will then be resolved by the courts. The only thing I say about that is that I just hope the courts will be able to deal with these matters in an expeditious way and that there are not delays that hold up the outcomes of these claims that might affect those individuals, both from a compensation point of view but also from a medical and life expense point of view. So I hope that the courts do not get clogged with these sorts of claims trying to get approved by the courts. This is a really important bill. We have to do it because of the current WorkCover scheme, and we will support injured workers all the way. I commend the bill to the house.

Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (18:17): I also rise to speak on the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (WorkCover Scheme Modernisation) Bill 2023. WorkCover is broken; WorkCover is broken because Labor broke it. When we were in government between 2010–14, the last administration of a coalition government in this state, the WorkCover scheme was a viable scheme. The WorkCover scheme was returning a profit. It did not need to be topped up, it did not need to go cap in hand to the Treasurer of the day and seek for them to dip into consolidated revenue to prop up a failing, broken scheme. No, in fact on two occasions that I am aware of during the last coalition government the government of the day was actually able to go to WorkCover and seek a return from WorkCover, which then was injected back into consolidated revenue to assist it to build schools and hospitals, to pay for nurses, teachers, firies and ambos and to provide the services that every Victorian relies upon. In fact during the last coalition government WorkCover premiums were cut not once but twice: a better deal for Victorian employers, a better deal for Victorian employees, a better deal for all Victorians.

Nine years on, after nine years under Labor, the WorkCover scheme in this state again is broken, and the blame for that circumstance must be squarely laid at the feet of the current administration. They have proposed through the introduction of this bill the panacea to the current troubles of WorkCover. They say – or they claim, in a bill ranging just 36 pages – that this will fix the broken WorkCover system. What they do not say, however, is the following: they do not guarantee, having raised WorkCover premiums this year already, they say at an average of 42 per cent – can I tell you I am yet to meet a business that has had their WorkCover premium increase by just 42 per cent. More often than not for the many, many businesses around Victoria – and I have been contacted by businesses not just within my own constituency but around the state – their WorkCover premiums have increased by more like 60 per cent, 70 per cent, 80 per cent, 90 per cent, 100 per cent. So for the government to say that they have increased by an average of 42 per cent is, frankly, a furphy.

There are two reasons why we will oppose this bill in its current form. Firstly, there is no guarantee for Victorian businesses, who are already under pressure because of a skills shortage and because of the increasing cost of amenities, including a 26 per cent power increase in the commercial world in the last 12 months – 25 per cent in the domestic market, 26 per cent in business; the cost of employing people; and the cost of supplies. All of these are existing cost pressures. Add on top of that the 53 new or increased taxes, many of which affect businesses directly, and add on top of that an increased premium for WorkCover. There is no guarantee in this bill that WorkCover premiums will not continue to rise.

Let me share for the house’s information and for yours as well, Acting Speaker – truer words have never been spoken – ‘No boss, no job’. Now, I know that those opposite, members of the Allan Labor government, will seek to categorise employers in this state as the ‘big baddies’, as the people who do not act in the interests of the people that they employ, but that is not true. Employers in this state – let us be frank – need to take care of their employees and need to take care of their customers, because if they do not, they do not have a business. They do not have an opportunity to earn a wage, to reinvest in their business, to employ more people and to give people the opportunities that we in this place should want those people, our fellow Victorians, to have.

The second reason why we oppose this bill in its current form is because of the government’s claim that there is going to be a focus on return to work. Now, at a principles level we agree. We think there should be a focus on return to work. I have been to a number of bill briefings offered by the government in my coming up to five years in this place, and never once before has a government bill briefing been offered by the minister themselves – an extraordinary move. So I am grateful to Minister Pearson for his particular interest in this bill and his particular vested interest in the success of this bill. But during the course of that briefing we asked the minister any number of times to define and to give us some further details on what Return to Work Victoria would look like.

If you were not there, you should have been – it was almost like the minister through the course of the briefing had further expanded ideas about what it could be. This is completely unacceptable. You do not bring a bill to this place and say that a key feature of this is a focus on return to work and not have an idea – a defined, clarified, finalised idea – about what Return to Work Victoria looks like. Is it going to sit independent of WorkCover? Is it going to sit within WorkCover? Is it going to sit within the department? Is it not? Is it going to be its own statutory agency sitting aside WorkCover? The other thing is that, as it currently stands, there have been no dollars allocated to Return to Work Victoria. So how are they going to pay for it? On that basis, as I have said, because there is no guarantee that premiums will not rise and there is no detail on the government’s focus on Return to Work Victoria, that is why we oppose the bill in its current form.

I would like to draw the house’s attention to comments made by the Victorian head of the Australian Industry Group Tim Piper, who said:

The premiums are increasing at a time when virtually every other cost is increasing and causing Victorian businesses considerable headaches …

Victorian businesses need a WorkSafe system that supports them and supports employees. But in recent times the costs to businesses have blown out, mainly as the result of increased mental health injury claims within the public service.

That is another very interesting point, which I will come back to if I have the time to do so. The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Paul Guerra said earlier in the year:

Today’s 42 per cent increase has contributed to Victoria having the highest WorkCover rates in the country and will impact our reputation as the best place to do business.

As the state’s Shadow Treasurer, the state’s alternative Treasurer, and being part of the state’s alternative government that fully intends, with everything we have, to become the government following the November 2026 election in just three short years time, I do not want businesses to leave this state. We do not need more businesses to leave this state. We need, given our debt position and given the daily interest repayments that we are paying because of the debt position that this government has got us into over the last nine years, greater economic activity in this state. We need more businesses to make this state their home. We need existing businesses to expand within this state. We need existing businesses to employ more people. We need government to get out of the way of businesses to enable them to do what they do best – to help Victorians and to give Victorians the opportunity that they need in their time so in turn those Victorians can pay their bills, pay their school fees, pay their mortgages, pay their increased power prices and pay their increased grocery bills and live a fulsome, a wholesome and a fruitful life that every member of this chamber should want for our fellow Victorians.

I support the reasoned amendment moved by my colleague the shadow minister, the member for Eildon, who I might say has done a power of work in this space. She is a leader in her own right, and on behalf of the coalition she has engaged fully and wholesomely with the government on this matter, and I trust she will continue to do so in the future. I fully support the member for Eildon’s reasoned amendment, and again I say: we do not want the WorkCover scheme to fall over. We do not want premiums to rise. We do need more detail about Return to Work Victoria because Victorians deserve nothing less.

Meng Heang TAK (Clarinda) (18:27): I rise today to speak today on the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (WorkCover Scheme Modernisation) Bill 2023. It is such a great honour to be able to speak following the member for Melton, who did a powerful job before in his past career before coming to this Parliament. In doing so I would like to also commend the Minister for WorkSafe and the TAC for bringing this amendment bill to the house today. This is another important bill, and one that will ensure the sustainability of our workers compensation scheme to make sure that WorkCover can continue to support injured workers when they need it most. This government has a proud legacy in occupational health and safety here. One of the first bills that I had the privilege of speaking on here in this place was the workplace manslaughter legislation, a historic change making workplace manslaughter a criminal offence. There have been many other changes since, a host of amendments and improvements to our workplace safety legislation, occupational health and safety legislation and others to continue our commitment that each and every worker has a safe workplace and comes home to their family at the end of the day. Safe work and decent work are right at the core of what the government stands for. There have been many others since, bringing a host of amendments and improvements in workplaces. Occupational health and safety is at the core of this amendment. We have seen it in our work around silicosis, wage theft law, labour hire licensing and the secure workplace pilot scheme, and the list continues.

WorkCover is right at the centre of all of these conversations. Victorian workers deserve a workers compensation scheme that is there to support them when they need it most following a workplace injury, and this government will not accept anything less than that. That is why we need to make these important changes to the WorkCover scheme to ensure that it remains financially sustainable and can continue to support injured workers into the future.

We heard from this side of the house the member for South Barwon mention about this scheme the related work in 1914, and then the scheme was introduced in 1985 – that is a long time ago, and a lot has changed. The nature of work has changed. Workplaces have changed and so have the needs of workers and the needs of those accessing the workers compensation scheme. Unfortunately this means the scheme is no longer meeting the needs of the Victorian workers. As we have heard, in the last 13 years the scheme’s claims liabilities have tripled, driven by the increased costs of weekly income support, many workers staying on the scheme long term and the rise of mental injury claims, now representing 16 per cent of new claims, which was never envisaged when the scheme was initially designed. The return-to-work rate is also declining.

The decision was made earlier in the year to increase the premium, bringing us in line with the average premium rate in other states and territories, but raising the premium alone does not address the pressure compensation schemes around the world are experiencing. The government’s priority now is to make certain reforms to the scheme so it is contemporary and fit for purpose and can continue to support Victorian workers into the future, and that is what is most important here – the longevity and the effectiveness of this vital system.

As such the bill will make amendments to the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 for several purposes: firstly, to introduce a new eligibility requirement for mental injury claims; and secondly, to introduce a whole-person impairment – WPI – threshold of more than 20 per cent, in addition to the capacity test, for injured workers to remain entitled to weekly payments beyond the 130-week second entitlement period.

Just in terms of mental injury and mental health, we know how much of a priority these are for this government, and we have heard many contributions from this side of the house. We spoke earlier this week on the Crimes Amendment (Non-fatal Strangulation) Bill 2023 and the desperate need to eliminate family violence in our community – the epidemic of family violence that is pervasive in all areas of our society. That is a major priority of this government. Mental health is right there beside family violence, affecting so many Victorians and so many families. That is why we are implementing all the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System.

Apart from this work to transform the mental health system, we have introduced mental health and wellbeing hubs throughout Victoria to ensure that Victorians have access to free mental health support when they need it most. The first six mental health and wellbeing locals opened last year to provide free and easy ways to get treatment and support in the community without the need to meet any eligibility criteria and with no need for a referral, as we know. There are a further nine locals which will be opened by the end of 2023, and it is great for our community that one of those centres will be in Dandenong.

WorkSafe Victoria also has a significant role to play in responding to the royal commission’s recommendations, in particular recommendation 16 in relation to a mentally healthy workplace. WorkSafe’s mental health strategy provides an evidence-based framework for WorkSafe to support employers by establishing a mentally healthy workplace and assisting workers with mental health injuries to recover and to return to work. WorkSafe has also established WorkWell to support businesses of all sizes with the toolkit to create mentally healthy workplaces and prevent mental health injury. These are all positive steps that contribute to delivering all the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. We have invested more than $600 million since the release of the royal commission’s interim and final reports to grow the mental health workforce, creating more than 2500 new jobs. I would like to say thank you again to everyone working in mental health in our community, particularly all those at Monash Health delivering so many vital services. I look forward to working with and supporting this important work.

In the remaining time I should also note that the bill will mandate a statutory review of the workplace scheme and finally introduce changes to allow for the internal sharing of collected information between WorkSafe Victoria business units. These amendments address the significant financial risk to the scheme, where we see a widening gap between the premiums collected and the annual cost of the claims. Every day Victorians deserve to be safe at work, to have a decent workplace, to have safe and secure working conditions and to have access to support for workplace injuries. These changes are central to making sure all of that continues. I commend the Minister for WorkSafe and the TAC for bringing this bill here, and I commend the bill to the house.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (18:37): Acting Speaker Farnham, from the outset I think this is the first time I have spoken while you have been in the Chair, and it is a pleasure to see you there. I rise to speak on the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (WorkCover Scheme Modernisation) Bill 2023. From the outset can I say that WorkCover is such an important scheme for Victoria and for workers in Victoria, and we cannot afford for it to fall over. Unfortunately the bill that the government has put before us today does not guarantee that it will survive in the long term but also that businesses will not continue to be punished under the scheme through higher premiums. I thank the member for Eildon and Shadow Minister for WorkCover and the TAC in this place, and can I concur with the member for Sandringham and say all credit to the shadow minister, who has put a huge amount of work into this piece of legislation trying to find opportunities to work with the government and to put forward amendments that will strengthen this piece of legislation.

WorkCover in reality has been in decline for many years now, since 2018, and there has been no action from the Labor government until last week, when this bill was introduced with the chance to try and rush it through before Christmas this year. Contrary to the goal of the legislation to ensure that WorkCover can be a self-funded scheme, over the past few years it has needed an injection of over $1 billion by this government to keep it sustainable. We have seen over the past few months the impact of the rise in premiums. Those opposite will say that it is not true that premiums have hit businesses hard. I heard one member say today it is just simply not true that they have increased by over 60, 70 or 80 per cent. But I have seen the bills from small businesses. I have seen the impact that it is going to have on their operations and their ability to keep people employed and, more importantly, to actually be able to grow their business and create new jobs and be able to employ new people.

In fact the average increase of 42 per cent is an average, but what we have seen in reality is 60, 70, 80 per cent for some businesses. When I was visiting a small business in Ballarat, a glass manufacturer, they had an increase of over 60 per cent. For them – they are trying to grow their business, looking to have more export opportunities – it meant that they were not going to be able to meet the demands on growing their workforce if they were going to be able to pay that WorkCover bill. So the premium increases have a real impact on small businesses in particular. We have heard from the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and we have heard from the Australian Industry Group that what this really means is that businesses lose out every time they are hit with a premium increase. As the member for Sandringham mentioned earlier, when the coalition were last in government we were able to reduce WorkCover premiums twice, allowing businesses to invest more in their employees and allowing businesses to invest more in their operations to grow their operations, grow their footprint in Victoria, create new jobs and employ more Victorians in their businesses.

When you look to the reports into WorkCover – and there have been a number of reports looking at the financial sustainability of WorkCover over recent years – what is very clear is that it is at a tipping point, facing both internal and external threats to its financial position, and it is on an unsustainable financial trajectory. This was released, conveniently, after last year’s election, but the report confirmed that premiums had been insufficient to fund the scheme for a five-year period. So we had the decision to increase premiums. Now we have a bill before us that has been rushed, that does not guarantee that premiums will not be increased again in the coming years and that does nothing to actually guarantee the long-term financial sustainability of the scheme. What Victorian businesses are facing at the moment is increased costs when it comes to electricity bills and increased taxes and charges – particularly property taxes – and the WorkCover premiums have just hit them at a time that they can least afford it. We have seen from an independent analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Office that the government’s mismanagement of the scheme will see Victorian businesses slugged almost $18 billion over the next decade as a result of these premium increases.

I turn to the key purpose and the features of the bill before us today, which is looking at the changes to mental injury amendments, introducing new eligibility requirements and clarifying that work-related stress burnout will not be compensable and also looking at ongoing eligibility for compensation – so looking at introducing a whole person impairment threshold of greater than 20 per cent, in conjunction with the existing capacity test to be entitled to the payment beyond the 130-week second entitlement period. Of course it is also looking at greater information sharing for the purpose of the act and requiring a review of the amendments in 2027.

One of the big features of this bill and something that the government and the minister himself have spoken about at length is the Return to Work Victoria aspect. We have significant concerns about the lack of information with regard to Return to Work Victoria. I noted, when looking at this bill and doing some background research, the government put out a press release, as they like to do – a fancy press release – in May this year, talking about Return to Work Victoria:

… creating Return to Work Victoria, to help people get back into the workforce as part of new reforms to ensure Victoria’s WorkCover scheme is sustainable and fit-for-purpose.

But that was in May this year. We are now in November. We are in the second-last sitting week of the year and we have only just had this legislation come before us, and there is no detail about what Return to Work Victoria actually means, how it will be structured, how it will be funded and where it will sit. Will it be an independent body? Will it sit within the scheme itself? When we asked the minister in the briefing for details on this, it was very, very clear that it had not been thought through, that there was no detail.

That is why I support the reasoned amendment that was moved by the member for Eildon that calls on the government to provide details of the commencement date, the structure, the objectives, the function and the funding of Return to Work Victoria. Until we understand how Return to Work Victoria is actually going to work, the coalition cannot support –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): I remind members of the gallery to turn their phones off, please. Thank you.

Jess WILSON: Return to Work Victoria needs to be properly understood and funded, and employer groups and small businesses also need to understand the operation of this new part of WorkSafe Victoria that the Minister for WorkSafe and the TAC has said is so, so important – but we have a lack of detail.

The other key part to our amendment to this bill is to call on the government to freeze premium increases for two years and then limit those increases to be in line with CPI for a further 24 months to ensure that there is certainty for business, so that businesses understand what their obligations are going to be under the scheme in the coming years. Businesses cannot cop another increase to premiums. An average of 42 per cent is something I have not heard. I have not heard of a business that has actually had a 42 per cent increase or less than a 42 per cent increase – it has been 60, 70, 80 per cent. We cannot take the risk that businesses over coming years feel the pain once again of the government’s mismanagement of this scheme and have to feel another premium increase.

The other key part of our amendment is to actually ensure that the Parliament is kept up to date on how this change in legislation is affecting the scheme. We need to actually understand what the progress is of these new arrangements and what that means for the scheme and for Victorian businesses. The coalition wants to see this scheme be financially sustainable and be a scheme that not only supports employers but works for businesses across this state. That is why we have put forward some very, very clear amendments that will seek to strengthen the legislation before us, provide greater clarity on the legislation before us and ensure that businesses in Victoria do not pay higher premiums.

Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (18:47): I too rise to speak this afternoon on the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (WorkCover Scheme Modernisation) Bill 2023. This bill seeks to make a number of really important changes to our WorkCover scheme in order to make sure that it remains financially sustainable, something that is really, really important, particularly in the times that we find ourselves in at the moment. It is also important that it continues to do what it was set up to do, which is support Victorian workers.

I want to start by acknowledging the importance of Victoria’s WorkCover scheme. It is a support that helps thousands upon thousands of Victorians each and every year when they are injured at work. Now, a lot has been said about this bill and about the changes that it is introducing, but I want to make it crystal clear that as a Labor government we will always back WorkCover. Because – and I hate giving history lessons this late in the day, because it is almost 7 o’clock –

Members interjecting.

Sarah CONNOLLY: It is never too late. It was a Labor government, the Cain government, that set up WorkCover back in 1985. Remember, without WorkCover, workers who are injured at work would most likely be dumped by their employer simply because they would not be able to support their recovery long term – not to mention larger businesses that, let us be frank, would replace them without a second thought. Very tragically here in Australia we still have big businesses who are more than happy to replace workers without a second thought. I do not like to mention names, but Qantas is one that comes to mind quite frequently and that we tend to read a lot about the moment, and it is most certainly a topic we have talked about in my house for not just many years but decades now. So indeed WorkCover is a fantastic legacy of what Labor governments can achieve for working Victorians. A lot has changed since the scheme was introduced in 1985, and I always say: really good governance is about being able to enact change as times change around us. Post COVID and for years before, a lot has changed since 1985. In fact I have changed a lot since 1985. I was born in 1981 – there is a real history lesson. You can start calculating how old I will be on 29 December this year.

Steve Dimopoulos: Thirty.

Sarah CONNOLLY: You’re just always my favourite minister there at the table.

Fortunately our workplaces here in Victoria are for the most part a lot safer now. OH&S is the absolute cornerstone of workplace safety. Of course we have made even more inroads into protecting workers over the past few years with the Andrews government introducing industrial manslaughter laws last term, making employers criminally liable for the first time for the deaths of workers caused by workplace hazards. That was such an important piece of legislation that came through this place that I had the absolute privilege to go ahead and speak on, particularly because I have a brother who is a FIFO – not here in this state, in the state of WA. I know the fear that comes with having family members that work in workplaces that may not always be safe, and those sorts of industrial manslaughter laws that we put through this place last term were so very important to going towards making employers accountable for the safety of their workers. Everyone deserves to go home to the family that they love, and families deserve to have their loved ones come home to them safely.

Another big thing which in truth is a cause of this bill today is the growing importance of mental health. In spite of these workplace safety improvements, the number of claims liabilities received by WorkCover has more than tripled since 2010. So a lot has changed since we introduced this scheme in 1985. More and more workers are staying on WorkCover schemes for the long term, and that is not something to feel incredibly proud of. Each and every single one of those workers has a family, and we know that there is dignity in work. There is a great amount of benefit that comes from being able to return to work, but we know that there are more and more that are unable to. We have seen a steady rise in the number of mental injury claims, which now currently represent 16 per cent of all new claims. They are on the rise. If this trend continues, the reality is that WorkCover will not be able to sustain itself going forward, and this is something that no-one in this place should want to happen.

This is of course not the only measure we have undertaken to ensure the scheme remains viable. Earlier this year WorkCover premium rates were increased to bring Victoria into line with other states and territories, but what we know is that this alone is not going to solve the issues we are seeing when it comes to WorkCover. We want people to be able to return to work, and they need to be able to return to work when it is safe to do so. We do not want to see them languishing on WorkCover for years. In my electorate of Laverton I have come across many folks that have had physical injuries, and they have been on WorkCover for great periods of time in their lives. They do still talk about work, and they do still talk about how they would like to go back to work. Indeed I know that my father-in-law Jim Connolly had a workplace incident and was on WorkCover for many years. He had to then retrain as a financial counsellor. But before that he was a diesel mechanic. He had a crane actually drive into the area that he was working in and hit him, and he broke his back. It was a very, very painful and very, very long return to work, which he was able to do, but it did come at a lot of cost to his family.

What we know is that the longer a person stays away from work, the less likely it is they will actually be able to return to work. Mental health outcomes are also four times worse for people who are stuck on the scheme long term. That is why the focus of this bill is not only on ensuring that WorkCover can continue to work as intended but most importantly it is also to help injured Victorians get back to work and get on with their life when and how they want to. To do so, this bill is going to make a number of changes. The first is in relation to mental injury claims, which the bill deals with by providing a new definition of ‘mental injury’ that specifies that this injury must predominantly arise from a worker’s employment in order to be considered for compensation. This is of course a reasonable measure, I think. This scheme is designed to support workers who are injured at work, and this should be fairly applied to all WorkCover claims.

Now, for external mental health issues there remain important levers that workers can go ahead and access to take time off from work, including annual and sick leave entitlements. In addition to this, workers who make a claim based on mental health issues like burnout and stress – and as someone who, as I said before, yes, was born in 1981, I have spent quite a long period of time in the workforce, and I have seen people burn out and take periods of leave for stress – are still going to be able to access the 13 weeks of provisional payments that our government introduced back in 2021, which will provide workers with early access to treatment and support while their claims are being assessed. The bill clarifies that these people can continue to do so regardless of whether their claim is ultimately successful. More importantly, frontline workers and workers who are regularly exposed to traumatic events in the course of their work will still be able to claim compensation, and that is an important point to make here in this place when talking about the bill.

There is a lot more that can be said about this bill. There have been a lot of speakers from both sides of the house, and it is always really good to see those opposite make a contribution in this place to legislative reform and legislation that is put before the house. I do not thank them often, but I do thank them for their contribution and for being engaged in this bill, because quite often that is not something that we see. In summarising, in the last 20 seconds that I have, I will revert to the fact that Labor built WorkCover all those years ago. We will always back it in. We have workers’ backs. We know that the modern workplace looks a lot different to when the scheme came in. It was introduced in 1985. These changes will make sure that the scheme can meet the modern challenges, and that is why I commend the bill to the house.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I seek to have a matter referred to the Speaker. The Council was recently shut down following another protest. It has been put to me that a member of this place was involved in that protest. Though the Council of course is able to manage itself – as it should – it would deeply concern me if a member of this place had been involved in a process that caused the Council to shut down, and I seek for that matter to be referred to the Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member. I will refer your point of order to the Speaker.

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (18:58): It is a pleasure to rise and make what will be a relatively short contribution on the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (WorkCover Scheme Modernisation) Bill 2023. Given that I am not sure we will be coming back to this bill tomorrow, I will try and make my contribution relatively brief. I do note that we are opposing this bill, and I will say up-front that we are not opposed to some of the elements of this bill, but for a system that is so broken under a government that has been in power for nine years, we do need some, I guess, confidence that the proposed remedies in this bill will work.

There is no doubt that Victoria’s workplace insurance scheme is in desperate need of reform. That has been very well publicised. We have had skyrocketing WorkCover premiums coupled with more claims, particularly over the COVID lockdowns, and that does mean that serious reform must indeed take place. Hence we support an inquiry that will look into such matters as how this government got into this predicament but also want to obtain some assurances on how it will resolve the problems that we are facing.

Over the past nine years this government has seen the collapse of the WorkCover system, as the scheme has in some cases no doubt been taken advantage of. We certainly do recognise that to be the case. I understand that this bill is to tackle some of those issues around this scheme having been taken advantage of, but it really does need a deep dive to ensure that the remedies that are being proposed in this bill will actually rectify the problems. My understanding is that there is great concern that the public sector is the major driver of this. We need to look into that and find out whether it is the public sector or the private sector – and I will limit my comments to that contribution.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.