Wednesday, 12 August 2026

 Steve DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh – Minister for WorkSafe and the TAC, Minister for Sport, Minister for Equality) (11:35): Under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Bill 2026 (the Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

The Bill makes various amendments to the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (WIRC Act), the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (AC Act), the Transport Accident Act 1986 (TA Act), the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (OHS Act) and the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026 (OHS (DG) Act) to:

• expand the forms of security self-insurers and non-WorkCover employers under the WIRC Act may use to fulfill their financial guarantee requirements;

• enhance the ability of Health and Safety Representatives (HSRs) and Authorised Representatives of Registered Employee Organisations (ARREOs) to identify and resolve occupational health and safety (OHS) issues;

• safeguard against conduct that undermines the effectiveness and integrity of the OHS representation framework;

• make administrative improvements to the OHS representation framework;

• enable the OHS Act amendments to survive the later commencement of the OHS (DG) Act and ensure amendments made to the same sections are not in conflict;

• clarify that the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) and WorkSafe Victoria (WorkSafe) are not liable to fund accommodation costs associated with specialist disability accommodation (SDA);

• align approval of the terms and conditions of the Chair of WorkSafe Board with that of the Board Directors; and

• clarify how Medical Panels fees are set.

Human Rights Issues

The following rights are relevant to the Bill:

• the right to recognition and equality before the law (section 8);

• the right to privacy and reputation (section 13);

• the right to freedom of expression (section 15); and

• the right to property (section 20).

For the reasons detailed below, I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the Charter and, if any of the abovementioned rights are limited, those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified having regard to the factors within section 7(2) of the Charter.

Right to recognition and equality before the law – section8

Section 8(1) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to recognition as a person before the law. Section 8(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to enjoy their human rights without discrimination. Section 8(3) of the Charter provides that every person is entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination. The purpose of the right in section 8(3) is to ensure that all laws and policies are applied equally, and do not discriminate against a person or class of persons.

‘Discrimination’ under the Charter is defined by reference to the definition in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 and refers to discrimination based on an attribute in section 6 of that Act, which includes age, race, sex, disability and parental status amongst many others. Direct discrimination occurs where a person treats, or proposes to treat, a person with an attribute unfavourably because of that attribute. Indirect discrimination occurs where a person imposes a requirement, condition or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons with a protected attribute, but only where that requirement, condition or practice is not reasonable.

Ensuring the TAC is not liable to fund the accommodation costs associated with SDA

The TAC is a public-funded, no-fault compensation scheme designed to provide lifetime care for thousands of Victorians. To ensure the transport accident compensation scheme’s viability and prioritisation of funds for specialised treatments, the long-standing legislative intention underpinning the scheme is to fund accident-related treatment, disability services and loss of earning benefits, and not overall living expenses. Ordinary daily living costs, including accommodation-related costs, are generally excluded as they are needs common to all members of the public and would be incurred regardless of the accident.

Changes the Disability and Social Services Regulation Amendment Act 2023 (DSSRA Act) made to the definition of supported accommodation in the TA Act, to include SDA dwellings, unintentionally expanded this definition and could potentially result in the TAC being deemed liable to fund accommodation and other expenses related to SDA dwellings, in circumstances inconsistent with the long-held legislative intention.

Part 4 of the Bill proposes amendments to the TA Act, primarily to the definition of ‘supported accommodation’, that would return the transport accident compensation scheme to its previous statutory position. These amendments clarify that the TAC is not liable to compensate a person, whether or not they have the protected attribute of disability, for the accommodation component of SDA costs. As a preliminary point, it is arguable as to whether the winding back of a beneficial entitlement is capable of constituting a ‘disadvantage’ to enliven discrimination. If the concept of disadvantage is interpreted broadly to encompass the loss of a statutory entitlement to compensation on the basis of disability, I am satisfied that any limitation on the right is reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

It is anticipated that the cohort of affected persons, identified to be a small cohort currently in SDA, will not be materially impacted by this amendment, which reinstates the previous operation of the TA Act. All identified claimants are joint participants in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and their costs are currently funded by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). No claims have been made to the TAC pursuant to the expanded definition of ‘supported accommodation’ nor has additional funding been provided by the TAC.

Additionally, the proposed amendments to the TA Act in Part 4 of the Bill have been appropriately tailored to remedy this statutory misalignment with the legislative intention of the scheme, while preserving the additional protections and safeguards that residents in both state-funded and NDIS disability accommodation gained as a result of the major reforms effected by the DSSRA Act.

I am satisfied that the amendments are compatible with the right to recognition and equality.

Ensuring WorkSafe is not liable to fund the accommodation costs associated with SDA

WorkSafe administers Victoria’s statutory, compulsory, no-fault workers’ compensation scheme. The scheme has two core purposes: preventing workplace injuries and illnesses and supporting workers who experience work-related injury or illness through compensation, treatment, rehabilitation and return-to-work support.

To support the sustainability of the workers’ compensation scheme, the long standing legislative intent of the scheme is to fund reasonable and necessary treatment, rehabilitation, income support and other benefits arising from a work-related injury or illness. Consistent with this, WorkSafe does not generally cover ordinary living expenses, including accommodation and other day-to-day costs, as these are expenses a person would ordinarily incur regardless of a workplace injury or illness.

Changes the DSSRA Act made to the definition of supported accommodation in the AC Act and WIRC Act, which extended the definition to include SDA dwellings, could potentially result in WorkSafe being deemed liable to fund accommodation and other expenses related to SDA dwellings, in circumstances inconsistent with the long-held legislative intention.

As with the amendments to the TA Act, Division 2 of Part 2 and Part 3 of the Bill propose amendments to the WIRC Act and AC Act respectively, primarily to the definition of ‘supported accommodation’. The amendments return the WorkCover scheme to the previous statutory position, removing any potential obligation on WorkSafe to compensate a person for the accommodation component of their SDA costs. As a preliminary point, it is arguable as to whether the winding back of a potentially beneficial entitlement is capable of constituting a ‘disadvantage’ to enliven discrimination. If the concept of disadvantage is interpreted broadly to encompass the loss of a statutory entitlement to compensation on the basis of disability, I am satisfied that the amendment is reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

WorkSafe’s analysis indicates that the cohort of affected persons, identified to be a very small number of injured workers currently residing in SDA, will not be impacted by these amendments, which reinstates the previous operation of the WIRC Act and the AC Act.

All identified claimants are joint participants in the NDIS and their costs are currently funded by the NDIA. No claims have been made to WorkSafe pursuant to the expanded definition of ‘supported accommodation’ nor has additional funding been provided by WorkSafe.

Additionally, these amendments have been appropriately tailored to remedy this statutory misalignment with the legislative intention of the workers’ compensation scheme, while preserving the additional protections and safeguards that residents in both state-funded and NDIS disability accommodation gained as a result of the major reforms effected by the DSSRA Act.

I am satisfied that the amendments are compatible with the right to recognition and equality.

The right to privacy and reputation (section13)

Section 13 of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have that person’s privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with; and not to have that person’s reputation unlawfully attacked.

Interferences with privacy will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will not be ‘arbitrary’ if it is not capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable in the particular circumstances, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought.

Enhancing the ability of HSRs and ARREOs to identify and resolve OHS issues

Currently, ARREOs have the power to inspect ‘any plant, substance or other thing’ at the place during an entry to enquire into a suspected contravention. Employers also have obligations to provide HSRs access to OHS information.

Part 5 of the Bill amends section 58(1) of the OHS Act to provide that HSRs can access information and make copies of documents relevant to a suspected contravention. It also amends section 89 of the OHS Act to make an equivalent provision for ARREOs.

Providing HSRs and ARREOs with the right to copy documents will increase their capacity to identify OHS risks and participate in discussions with employers and WorkSafe to resolve OHS issues. However, there is a risk that copies of documents could be disclosed to parties that have no direct interest in an OHS issue – for example, publishing documents that disclose sensitive or private information about individuals or information that could harm a person’s reputation.

The power for HSRs and ARREOs to make copies of documents, and any subsequent use of those copies, will not displace existing privacy, secrecy or confidentiality provisions under other laws. Such provisions apply unless expressly displaced and the Bill does not expressly displace those laws. WorkSafe will also develop non-legislative guidance about the secure storage, handling and disposal of copied documents after an investigation has been completed. These measures further support the protection of privacy.

Part 5 of the Bill also includes additional safeguards against the misuse of information, including a prohibition on HSRs from intentionally using or disclosing information from an employer or employee for a purpose not reasonably connected with their statutory powers, and a prohibition on HSRs and ARREOs publishing online information obtained through the exercise of their powers under Parts 7 and 8 of the OHS Act.

These amendments build on existing provisions in the OHS Act. Currently, it is an offence for ARREOs to use or disclose information not reasonably connected with the exercise of their powers, and HSRs may be disqualified if they use information obtained from employers with intent to harm them. HSRs can also be subject to disciplinary action, as an employee.

In my view, HSRs and ARREOs having greater access to information and the ability to make copies of documents will support improved OHS outcomes in Victorian workplaces. The legislative safeguards in place to prevent that information being shared for purposes not connected to the exercise of their powers will limit the interference on a person’s right to privacy under the Charter.

Therefore, I consider that the amendments are proportionate and appropriately justified such that they are compatible with the right to privacy and reputation in section 13 of the Charter.

Safeguarding against conduct that undermines the effectiveness and integrity of the OHS representation framework

Part 5 of the Bill amends section 56(1) of the OHS Act to provide that an HSR may be disqualified for intentionally using or disclosing information obtained from an employer, or photographs, measurements, sketches or recordings, for a purpose not reasonably connected with the exercise of a power under Part 7 of the OHS Act. It also provides that an HSR may be disqualified for contravening new section 58A, which expressly prohibits an HSR from publishing online information obtained through the exercise of powers under Part 7 of the OHS Act. For the purposes of this prohibition, publishing online includes broadcasting on the internet or by other electronic communication, including on social media.

Part 5 of the Bill also imposes an equivalent prohibition on ARREOs publishing online information obtained through the exercise of powers under Part 8 of the OHS Act. It additionally provides that it is an offence for an ARREO to contravene the prohibition or to intentionally use or disclose copies of documents obtained through the exercise of statutory powers, as well as photographs, measurements, sketches and recordings, for a purpose not reasonably connected with the exercise of powers under Part 8 of the OHS Act.

The recording and information-gathering powers conferred on HSRs and ARREOs are intended to support the raising, investigation and resolution of occupational health and safety concerns, including by enabling possible contraventions to be reported to WorkSafe and discussed with employers. Those powers are not intended to facilitate the broader public dissemination of workplace information, including sensitive or identifying material, to persons with no direct connection to the OHS matter.

Although online publication of photographs, recordings or other material might in some cases draw attention to occupational health and safety risks, the Bill recognises that any such benefit is outweighed by the risk of serious and potentially irreversible harm to privacy and reputation arising from unauthorised online disclosure. Material obtained in the exercise of statutory powers may contain personal and other sensitive information. Once published online, that material may be difficult or impossible to remove and may be further disseminated beyond the control of the person who first published it.

The amendments are also appropriately confined. They do not prevent HSRs or ARREOs from obtaining information, making recordings, or raising health and safety concerns through lawful channels connected with the exercise of their statutory functions. Rather, they clarify that information and material obtained under Parts 7 and 8 of the OHS Act must only be used for purposes reasonably connected with those functions, and not for unrelated publication or disclosure to the public. In this way, the amendments support the proper operation of the OHS representation framework while preserving the integrity of investigations and informal workplace resolution processes.

Part 5 of the Bill amends the OHS Act to introduce new criminal offences prohibiting coercion in relation to matters under Part 7 and Part 8 of the OHS Act. This supports the integrity of the statutory framework by reducing the risk that HSRs and ARREOs are pressured or intimidated into improper or unlawful conduct, including conduct that may adversely affect the rights or reputations of others.

For these reasons, any limitation on the right to privacy and reputation is reasonable and justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter. I am therefore satisfied that the amendments are compatible with the right to privacy and reputation in section 13 of the Charter.

The right to freedom of expression (section15)

Section 15 of the Charter protects the right of every person to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression. This includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, whether within or outside Victoria and through any medium of communication. The right is not absolute and carries special duties and responsibilities. The right may therefore be subject to lawful restrictions that are reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of other persons or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

Safeguarding against conduct that undermines the effectiveness and integrity of the OHS representation framework

Part 5 of the Bill limits the right to freedom of expression by restricting the online publication, use and disclosure by HSRs and ARREOs of information and other material obtained through the exercise of statutory powers under Parts 7 and 8 of the OHS Act. For the reasons set out above in relation to section 13, these amendments pursue the legitimate purpose of protecting privacy and reputation and preserving the integrity of the OHS representation framework.

This limitation is targeted and proportionate. It does not prevent HSRs or ARREOs from raising health and safety concerns, consulting with employers or workers, or referring matters to WorkSafe. Rather, it ensures that information obtained through statutory powers is used only for purposes reasonably connected with the exercise of those powers, and not for unrelated online publication or disclosure.

Further, material obtained through the exercise of statutory powers may include sensitive personal, workplace or commercial information. Unauthorised online publication may cause substantial harm to privacy and reputation and may undermine confidence in the proper use of OHS powers. Although publication may in some circumstances draw attention to safety concerns, the Bill recognises that this potential benefit does not outweigh the risks of misuse, broader dissemination and harm to affected persons. Less restrictive means would not adequately address those risks, particularly given the ease and permanence of online publication and the availability of alternative lawful avenues for raising and pursuing OHS concerns.

Accordingly, to the extent that the amendments limit the right to freedom of expression, that limitation is compatible with section 15 of the Charter because it is lawful and reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of others, including the rights protected by section 13 of the Charter.

I am therefore satisfied that the Bill is therefore compatible with the right to freedom of expression in section ‍15 of the Charter.

The right to property (s 20)

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with the law. This right requires that powers that authorise the deprivation of property conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than unclear, and are accessible to the public. Existing authority also points to laws that arbitrarily permit or require a deprivation of property as limiting the property right under the Charter. While the Charter does not define ‘property’, it is understood to be interpreted liberally and beneficially to encompass economic interests.

It is arguable whether liability for compensation (including a legal right to bring an action) constitutes property under the Charter. However, I note that the Victorian Government has previously adopted the view in Parliament that an accrued right to bring a claim would constitute property under the Charter.

The effect of the amendments proposed in Division 2 of Part 2 and Parts 3 and 4 are to remove any liability on the TAC and WorkSafe to fund the accommodation costs associated with SDA under the TA Act, the AC Act, and the WIRC Act. Accordingly, it would appear open that the removal of a right to statutory compensation in part, such as accommodation costs in SDA, constitutes an economic interest that should be considered a property right under section 20 of the Charter, notwithstanding that such a right was previously excluded by legislation.

As to whether a person is deprived of property, I note that while the proposed amendment removes the TAC’s and WorkSafe’s potential liability to fund accommodation costs for their claimants in SDA, in practice these costs are currently being funded by the NDIA, and claimants themselves will not be out of pocket, deprived of funding or facing a loss of accommodation. I accept that, even if in practice these costs will be funded by another entity, the removal of the TAC’s and WorkSafe’s potential liability for those costs under the TA Act, AC Act and WIRC Act respectively, particularly in circumstances where those costs may have already been accrued, is likely to constitute a deprivation of property.

However, in my view, any deprivation of property will occur in accordance with law and not be arbitrary. The amendments to the TA Act, AC Act and WIRC Act are aimed at achieving a legitimate and important objective, namely restoring the transport accident compensation and the workers’ compensation schemes to their long-standing legislative purposes. In particular, the amendments would support the TAC and WorkSafe in administering those schemes as effectively, efficiently and economically as possible. Neither scheme is intended to operate as an all-encompassing welfare provider.

Integral to this objective is the principle that the TAC and WorkSafe should not be liable to pay for accommodation or general living costs that a claimant would have incurred regardless of whether they had experienced a transport accident or workplace injury or illness. Maintaining this principle is fundamental to the sustainability of both schemes and to the appropriate allocation of a limited pool of compensation to transport accident and workplace-related injuries and illnesses. To give effect to this principle, clear boundaries are needed to ensure that scheme funds are not used to subsidise general living expenses unrelated to a transport accident or workplace injury or illness, and which fall outside the purposes of the schemes. Such costs are more appropriately met through other parts of the social support system, including Centrelink or the NDIS, rather than by the TAC in its role as a statutory motor vehicle accident insurer, or WorkSafe in its role as a workplace injury insurer. Additionally, the TAC and WorkSafe already provide significant financial support to claimants, through income benefits and common law pecuniary loss damages payments, that may be applied towards daily living expenses, including accommodation costs. Funding accommodation in addition to these forms of support may result in claimants being compensated twice for the same or substantially similar expenses.

As the transport accident compensation scheme is self-funded through the transport accident charge component of vehicle registration fees, it is in the public interest that the transport accident charge paid by vehicle owners to fund the scheme remains affordable. Similarly, the workers’ compensation scheme is funded through employer premiums, and it is in the public interest that those premiums remain affordable. If employer premiums were to become unaffordable, this could adversely affect the financial sustainability and competitiveness of businesses.

In terms of the retrospective effect of these amendments, although I accept a theoretical limit on the right would arise in circumstances where an existing entitlement to compensation that has already accrued is removed – in these circumstances these amendments will not have a material effect on existing claimants, which constitute a small cohort of persons. Neither the TAC nor WorkSafe have received any claims to fund SDA costs for claimants with these costs currently funded by the NDIA.

I am satisfied that the amendments are compatible with the right to property.

Steve Dimopoulos MP

Minister for WorkSafe and the TAC

Minister for Sport

Minister for Equality

 Steve DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh – Minister for WorkSafe and the TAC, Minister for Sport, Minister for Equality) (11:35): Under the Statewide Treaty Act 2025, I table a statement of treaty compatibility:

1.   In accordance with section 66 of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025, I table a statement of Treaty compatibility for the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters Bill 2026 (the Bill).

2.   In my opinion, the Bill is compatible with the matters set out in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

3.   The Bill makes various amendments to the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act ‍2013, the Accident Compensation Act 1985, the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026 (OHS (DG) Act) and the Transport Accident Act 1986 to:

(a) expand the forms of security self-insurers and non-WorkCover employers under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 may use to fulfill their financial guarantee requirements;

(b) enhance the ability of Health and Safety Representatives (HSRs) and Authorised Representatives of Registered Employee Organisations (ARREOs) to identify and resolve occupational health and safety (OHS) issues;

(c) safeguard against conduct that undermines the effectiveness and integrity of the OHS representation framework;

(d) make administrative improvements to the OHS representation framework;

(e) enable the OHS Act amendments to survive the later commencement of the OHS (DG) Act and ensure amendments made to the same sections are not in conflict;

(f) clarify that the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) and WorkSafe Victoria (WorkSafe) are not liable to fund the accommodation costs associated with specialist disability accommodation;

(g) align approval of the terms and conditions of the Chair of the WorkSafe Board with that of Directors of WorkSafe; and

(h) clarify how Medical Panels fees are set.

Consultation with the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl

4.   Based on my understanding that the Bill is unlikely to have a significant effect on First Peoples or Statewide Treaty, the First Peoples’ Assembly of Gellung Warl was not given the opportunity to advise on, and did not make representations on, the Bill.

Compatibility of the Bill with each of the objects in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025

5.   I have considered whether the Bill is compatible with the objects at section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025:

a. advancing the inherent rights and self‑determination of First Peoples; and

b. addressing the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by the historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation; and

c. ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples.

6.   In my opinion, the Bill does not in its terms deal with First Peoples, nor is it expected that any aspects of the Bill will, in practice, have a differential effect on First Peoples.

Conclusion

7.   Accordingly, in my opinion, for the reasons stated above, the Bill is compatible with each of the objects in in section 66(3)(d)(i)–(iii) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025.

Steve Dimopoulos MP

Minister for WorkSafe and the TAC

Minister for Sport

Minister for Equality

 Steve DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh – Minister for WorkSafe and the TAC, Minister for Sport, Minister for Equality) (11:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Incorporated speech as follows:

The Bill makes several amendments to the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of Victoria’s workers’ compensation scheme, and to improve the experience of injured workers.

The Bill will reduce regulatory burden, and the cost of the financial guarantee requirements, for employers that self-insure workers’ compensation claims and non-WorkCover employers in Victoria.

The Bill also makes several amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to streamline and modernise health and safety representative and authorised representative powers as well as address coercion and misuse of information. This will deliver immediate health and safety improvements for workers, reduce red-tape and complement efforts of the Victorian Government to combat misconduct in the construction sector.

These changes deliver on the Victorian Government’s commitment to enhancing Victoria’s reputation as a business-friendly jurisdiction, while simultaneously ensuring that Victoria is one of the safest places in the world to work.

The Bill’s amendments to the OHS Act will commence upon proclamation, with a default commencement date of 10 September 2027 if not proclaimed earlier. The Bill therefore also requires consequential amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026, which commences in April 2028. These amendments are administrative in nature to update structure and will not impact the operation of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026.

The Bill also includes amendments to the Transport Accident Act 1986, the Accident Compensation Act ‍1985 and the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 to avoid the potential for unintended interpretations of the TAC’s and WorkSafe’s legislation that may result in the TAC and WorkSafe being required to fully fund specialist disability accommodation.

The Bill also includes some amendments to improve administrative efficiency.

I will now address the key amendments in more detail.

Surety bonds as an alternative option to fulfil self-insurers’ and non-WorkCover employers’ financial guarantee requirements

Self-insurers under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 are currently required to obtain a bank guarantee to ensure their claims obligations can be met if they experience financial difficulty or insolvency. This is designed to avoid self-insurers being subsidised by scheme-insured employers.

Further, when an employer ceases to be a self-insurer, and their workers’ compensation assets and liabilities are transferred to the WorkCover scheme, or an employer moves from the Victorian WorkCover scheme to the Commonwealth workers’ compensation scheme, Comcare, the employer must provide a bank guarantee. This requirement mitigates the risk to WorkSafe if the transferred assets are insufficient to meet the associated liabilities.

The Bill amends the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 to enable surety bonds to be accepted to meet a self-insurer’s and non-WorkCover employer’s financial guarantee requirements, in addition to the existing option of a bank guarantee.

In the context of self-insurers and non-WorkCover employers, surety bonds are a legally binding agreement under which the provider guarantees that the self-insurer (or non-WorkCover employer) will fulfil their obligations to WorkSafe. If the self-insurer (or non-WorkCover employer) defaults, the provider will compensate WorkSafe and recover costs from the self-insurer (or non-WorkCover employer).

Key advantages of surety bonds relative to bank guarantees include:

•   creating additional liquidity for self-insurers and non-WorkCover employers which can be deployed for business growth purposes; and

•   being more cost and time effective for self-insurers and non-WorkCover employers.

To reduce the risk associated with surety bonds, the Bill requires that the surety bond issuers are regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and meet any further requirements, including credit rating requirements, set out in a new Ministerial Direction.

Independent Review of Employee Representatives

In August 2025, the Government commissioned Mr Eugene White, a respected barrister, to conduct an independent review into the powers and supports for employee representatives, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004. Over the course of the Independent Review, the Independent Reviewer held over 30 meetings and received over 60 written submissions to help inform his findings.

Employer and employee representatives, as well as people with lived experience, individuals and government departments and agencies, all contributed to the Independent Review.

The Independent Review made 17 recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the employee representative frameworks. This Bill acquits four of them in full and three of them in part. The Government will consider the remaining recommendations once further policy analysis, consultation and an assessment of the regulatory impact have been conducted.

Enhancing the ability of health and safety representatives and authorised representatives to identify and resolve occupational health and safety issues

The Bill amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to enable health and safety representatives and authorised representatives to inspect and make copies of documents that are relevant to a suspected contravention. This will strengthen their ability to participate meaningfully in discussions with employers and WorkSafe and will better equip them to identify risks and support the timely resolution of occupational health and safety issues.

These amendments do not disturb the operation of existing privacy, secrecy or confidentiality provisions under other laws. Those provisions will continue to apply unless expressly displaced, and the Bill contains no such express displacement.

The Bill also removes an unnecessary inefficiency in the existing process. Currently, an authorised representative is limited to investigating the suspected contravention that they provided notice of prior to entering a workplace. Under the Bill, if a further suspected contravention is identified during the visit, the authorised representative may investigate that matter as well, provided a new Notice of Suspected Contravention is issued.

This change prioritises dealing with occupational health and safety issues sooner and removes an unnecessary administrative step for both authorised representatives and employers.

Safeguarding against conduct that undermines the effectiveness and integrity of the OHS representation framework

The Bill amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to prevent the misuse of health and safety representative and authorised representative powers and to prohibit coercion in relation to matters arising under Parts 7 and 8 of that Act.

The Bill makes several amendments to clarify that information, photographs and recordings obtained by health and safety representatives and authorised representatives must not be used for purposes not reasonably connected with the exercise of their statutory functions.

The Bill amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to provide that a health and safety representative may be disqualified for intentionally using, disclosing or providing material that has been obtained to another person for a purpose not reasonably connected with the exercise of a statutory power.

The Bill also amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to expressly prohibit health and safety representatives and authorised representatives from publishing online information obtained through the exercise of their statutory powers, including the live streaming and online publication of photographs and recordings. A contravention of this prohibition by a health and safety representative constitutes grounds for disqualification, while a contravention by an authorised representative is a criminal offence.

These amendments clarify the scope of existing powers relating to the use and dissemination of information. They make clear that the inappropriate use or disclosure of information obtained for occupational health and safety purposes is unacceptable. In doing so, they protect privacy, safeguard sensitive information, and support the integrity of the occupational health and safety representation framework.

The Bill further amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to introduce a new offence of coercion in relation to matters under Parts 7 and 8. This will extend protections to participants in the occupational health and safety representation framework and strengthen WorkSafe’s ability to address unlawful conduct. It will also expressly prohibit coercion in relation to the nomination and election of health and safety representatives, helping to prevent interference and maintain confidence in the integrity of elections.

Administrative improvements to the OHS representation framework

The Bill makes administrative improvements to the occupational health and safety representation framework to support more consistent and effective outcomes.

Currently, WorkSafe inspectors can make binding determinations for single-employer designated work group negotiations but can only provide advice and guidance in relation to multi-employer designated work groups. The Bill amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to enable WorkSafe inspectors to make binding determinations in relation to multi-employer designated work groups as well.

This will ensure that employees working at sites involving multiple employers or businesses, such as building sites, have the same access to binding determinations as other employees. It will support the prompt and effective resolution of occupational health and safety matters.

The Bill also amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to require health and safety representatives to issue Provisional Improvement Notices in a WorkSafe-approved format. This will help ensure that all parties are provided with the information necessary to support a timely and appropriate health and safety response. The amendment will also support the digitisation of the Provisional Improvement Notice process.

Clarifying that the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) is not liable to fund specialist disability accommodation (SDA)

The Bill also amends the Transport Accident Act 1986 to address an issue in the legislative drafting from 2024.

In 2024, this Government introduced reforms to strengthen tenancy rights and protections for people living in specialist disability accommodation. A key change was moving group homes regulated under the Disability Act 2006 into a broader definition of “SDA dwelling” in the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. This ensured residents in disability accommodation funded by both the State and the National Disability Insurance Scheme receive consistent tenancy protections. As part of this reform, references to group homes in other Victorian legislation were replaced with “SDA dwelling”.

This resulted in the definition of supported accommodation in the Transport Accident Act 1986 being amended to include “SDA dwellings”. However, this was not a like for like substitution and was not consistent with the policy intent of the legislative change.

Under the Transport Accident Act 1986, the TAC generally does not pay for accommodation, as these costs are part of daily living expenses, and would be incurred regardless of a transport accident. TAC’s severely injured clients, such as those requiring supported accommodation, are typically eligible to receive compensation for loss of earnings that they may use to fund these daily living expenses.

However, for people that cannot return home after an accident, the TAC funds supported accommodation for up to 18 months after hospital discharge. Traditionally, supported accommodation meant homes where accommodation and care costs are bundled together in a single fee. After 18 months, the TAC may continue to fund supported accommodation, but TAC clients are required to pay a daily living contribution which reflects the cost of daily living expenses.

By including “SDA dwellings”, the definition of supported accommodation unintentionally includes NDIS-funded housing. Unlike traditional supported accommodation, these dwellings have clearly identifiable accommodation costs that the TAC is generally unable to fund. For this reason, they were previously, and appropriately, excluded from the definition of supported accommodation.

To correct this drafting oversight, the Bill will remove the reference to “SDA dwelling” from the definition of supported accommodation, to avoid ambiguity regarding TAC’s liability to fund accommodation. These amendments will not affect any of TAC clients and are primarily designed to avoid the definition being interpreted in an unintended manner.

The Bill also makes a technical amendment to clarify that TAC clients are only required to commence paying a daily living contribution after 18 months of being discharged from hospital. This reflects operational practice and improves the drafting of the Transport Accident Act 1986.

Clarifying that WorkSafe is not liable to fund specialist disability accommodation (SDA)

Similar to the amendment to the Transport Accident Act 1986, the Bill will also amend the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 and the Accident Compensation Act 1985 to address the same drafting issue. This addresses amendments made to both Acts in 2024 which unintentionally expanded the definition of supported accommodation in those Acts and created ambiguity regarding the WorkCover scheme’s liability to fund accommodation costs associated with SDA dwellings.

Under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 and the Accident Compensation Act 1985, similar to TAC, WorkSafe does not generally pay for accommodation, as these are ordinary living costs that would be incurred regardless of injury.

However, like TAC, WorkSafe may fund supported accommodation for up to 18 months after hospital discharge, and in some cases beyond that where hospital services continue to be required.

By including “SDA dwelling”, which includes “SDA-enrolled dwelling”, the amended definition of supported accommodation was unintentionally expanded to include NDIS-funded housing. This change was not consistent with the intent of the reforms or WorkSafe’s longstanding position regarding the funding of accommodation costs. Unlike traditional supported accommodation, SDA dwellings have clearly identifiable accommodation costs that, like TAC, WorkSafe is generally unable to fund. For this reason, they were previously, and appropriately, excluded from the definition of supported accommodation.

Accordingly, the Bill will remove the reference to “SDA dwelling” from the definition of supported accommodation in the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 and the Accident Compensation Act 1985, to restore the previous statutory position and avoid unintended liability.

Improving administrative arrangements for WorkSafe

Lastly, the Bill also makes amendments to improve the administration of the Victorian workers’ compensation scheme and its operational effectiveness.

The Bill amends the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 to provide that the terms and conditions of the WorkSafe Board Chair, including remuneration, are set by the Minister, and that the WorkSafe Board Chairperson may resign by writing to the responsible Minister rather than to the Governor in Council. These amendments will improve and align the appointment, resignation and remuneration arrangements for the WorkSafe Board Chairperson with those of the WorkSafe Board Directors.

The Bill amends the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 to provide that the fees and costs payable to members of Medical Panels for Victorian workers’ compensation referrals are set by the responsible Minister and gazetted. This amendment will align this process with equivalent arrangements under the Wrongs Act 1958 and reduce administrative burden.

I commend the Bill to the house.

 Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (11:36): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday 26 August.