Thursday, 24 September 2026
Bills
Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Bill 2026
-
Commencement
-
Business of the house
-
Documents
-
Motions
-
Business of the house
-
Members statements
-
Questions without notice and ministers statements
-
Constituency questions
-
Motions
-
Business of the house
-
Business of the house
-
Announcements
-
Business of the house
-
Adjournment
Bills
Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Bill 2026
Council’s amendments
Message from Council relating to following amendments considered:
1. Clause 1, after line 3 insert –
“(aa) to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026 and the Dangerous Goods Transport Act 2026 in relation to reckless endangerment offences; and”.
2. Clause 1, page 2, after line 8 insert –
“(iii) to make further provision for the award of provisional and subsequent damages to injured workers with certain dust-related conditions; and”.
3. Clause 1, page 2, before line 9 insert –
“(iv) in relation to commencing certain proceedings related to serious dust-related conditions without complying with certain requirements; and”.
4. Clause 1, page 2, line 11, after “accommodation” insert “and in relation to commencing certain proceedings related to serious dust-related conditions without complying with certain requirements”.
5. Clause 1, page 2, after line 11 insert –
“(ba) to amend the Accident Compensation Act 1985 to provide for claims for damages related to employment between 12 November 1997 and 20 October 1999; and”.
6. Clause 1, page 2, before line 12 insert –
“(bb) to amend the Accident Compensation Act 1985 to make further provision for the award of provisional and subsequent damages to injured workers with certain dust-related conditions; and”.
7. Clause 1, page 2, after line 18 insert –
“(iii) to provide for health and safety orders and related matters; and”.
8. Clause 1, page 2, before line 19 insert –
“(iv) to provide for the use of impact statements in certain proceedings; and”.
9. Clause 1, page 2, line 20, after “accommodation” insert “and certain benefits for children”.
10. Clause 1, page 2, line 21, after “consequential” insert “and related”.
11. Clause 1, page 2, after line 23 insert –
“(ea) to amend the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to remove the limitation period for certain causes of action for dust-related conditions; and”.
12. Clause 2, line 27, after “other than” insert “Part 1A,”.
13. Clause 2, line 27, after “Part 2” insert “, Division 2 of Part 4”.
14. Clause 2, lines 27 and 28, omit “and Part 5” and insert “, Part 5 and Part 5A”.
15. Clause 2, line 28, before “) comes” insert “and Part 5B”.
16. Clause 2, after line 29 insert –
“(1A) Division 2 of Part 4 comes into operation on 1 November 2026.”.
17. Insert the following New Part after Part 1 –
‘Part 1A – Amendments related to reckless endangerment
Division 1 – Amendment of Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004
2A Section 32 substituted
For section 32 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 substitute –
“32 Conduct that endangers persons at workplaces etc.
(1) A person must not, without lawful excuse, recklessly engage in conduct that places, or may place, another person who is at a workplace in danger of serious injury, serious illness or death.
Penalty: 10 000 penalty units or 10 years imprisonment or both for a natural person;
50 000 penalty units for a body corporate.
(2) A person must not, without lawful excuse, recklessly engage in conduct that –
(a) constitutes a contravention of a provision of –
(i) Division 2, 3 or 4; or
(ii) this Division (other than subsection (1)); and
(b) places, or may place, another person in danger of serious injury, serious illness or death.
Penalty: 10 000 penalty units or 10 years imprisonment or both for a natural person;
50 000 penalty units for a body corporate.
(3) An offence against subsection (1) or (2) is an indictable offence.
Note
However, the offence may be heard and determined summarily (see section 28 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009).”.
Division 2 – Amendment of Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026
2B Conduct in respect of handling of dangerous goods that endangers persons
(1) In section 55 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026, in proposed section 35D(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, after “serious injury” insert “, serious illness”.
(2) In section 55 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026, for the penalty at the foot of proposed section 35D(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 substitute –
“Penalty: 10 000 penalty units or 10 years imprisonment or both for a natural person;
50 000 penalty units for a body corporate.”.
Division 3 – Amendment of Dangerous Goods Transport Act 2026
2C Conduct in respect of transport of dangerous goods that endangers persons
(1) In section 20(1) of the Dangerous Goods Transport Act 2026, after “serious injury” insert “, serious illness”.
(2) For the penalty at the foot of section 20(1) of the Dangerous Goods Transport Act 2026 substitute –
“Penalty: 10 000 penalty units or 10 years imprisonment or both for a natural person;
50 000 penalty units for a body corporate.”.’.
18. Insert the following New Part heading to follow clause 13 –
“Part 2A – Further amendment of Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013”.
19. Insert the following New Division before Part 3 –
‘Division 1 – Amendments relating to actions for damages
13A Definitions
In section 356A of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 –
(a) insert the following definition –
“serious dust-related condition means a condition that is –
(a) a dust-related condition within the meaning of the Administration and Probate Act 1958; or
(b) an eligible progressive disease attributable or related to exposure to occupational dust;”;
(b) the definition of serious silica-related condition is repealed;
(c) in the definition of subsequent action, for “silica-related” substitute “dust-related”.
13B Section 356B amended
(1) In the heading to section 356B of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “silica-related” substitute “dust-related”.
(2) In section 356B of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “silica-related” (wherever occurring) substitute “dust-related”.
13C Only one subsequent award of damages permitted
In section 356C of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “silica-related” (where twice occurring) substitute “dust-related”.
13D Regard must be had to initial award of damages
In section 356D of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “silica-related” (where twice occurring) substitute “dust-related”.
13E Regard must be had to legal costs incurred in initial action
(1) In section 356E(1) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “silica-related” (where twice occurring) substitute “dust-related”.
(2) In section 356E(3)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “silica” substitute “occupational dust”.
13F New section 356G inserted
After section 356F of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 insert –
“356G Interaction with Asbestos Diseases Compensation Act 2008
(1) Despite anything to the contrary in the Asbestos Diseases Compensation Act 2008, that Act does not apply to an asbestos-related cause of action that has not been commenced before the commencement of Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an asbestos-related cause of action is a cause of action for damages in respect of an asbestos-related condition (within the meaning Asbestos Diseases Compensation Act 2008) that is also a serious dust-related condition.”.
13G New section 631 inserted
At the end of Part 13 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 insert –
“631 Transitional provisions – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 – Actions for damages
(1) Subdivision 3 of Division 2 of Part 7 as amended by Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 applies to a cause of action for damages in relation to a serious dust-related condition to which that Subdivision applies commenced on or after the commencement of Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026.
(2) Subdivision 3 of Division 2 of Part 7 as amended by Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 applies to a cause of action for damages in relation to a serious dust-related condition commenced before the commencement of Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 but only if –
(a) the hearing of the action has not commenced before the commencement of Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026; or
(b) damages have not been awarded or a settlement has not been reached in that action before the commencement of that Part.
(3) Subdivision 3 of Division 2 of Part 7 as amended by Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 does not apply to a cause of action for damages in relation to a serious dust-related condition commenced before the commencement of Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 if –
(a) the hearing of the action has commenced before the commencement of Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026; or
(b) damages have been awarded or a settlement has been reached in that action before the commencement of that Part.”.’.
20. Insert the following New Division before Part 3 –
‘Division 2 – Commencing proceedings without complying with certain requirements
13H Heading to Division 3 of Part 7 amended
In the heading to Division 3 of Part 7 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “asbestos-related conditions” substitute “serious dust-related conditions”.
13I Section 357 amended
(1) In the heading to section 357 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “asbestos-related conditions” substitute “serious dust-related conditions”.
(2) In section 357(1)(a) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “death; or” substitute “death.”.
(3) Section 357(1)(b) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 is repealed.
(4) After section 357(1) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 insert –
“(1A) This section also applies if a worker may have an entitlement to recover damages in accordance with Division 2 in respect of an injury that is a serious dust-related condition arising out of, or in the course of, or due to the nature of, employment.”.
(5) In section 357(4) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 –
(a) in paragraph (a), for “subsection (1)(a)” substitute “subsection (1)”;
(b) in paragraph (b) –
(i) for “subsection (1)(b)” substitute “subsection (1A)”;
(ii) for “an asbestos-related condition” substitute “a serious dust-related condition”.
(6) In section 357(7) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “the asbestos-related condition” substitute “the serious dust-related condition”.
(7) For section 357(8) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 substitute –
“(8) In this section –
serious dust-related condition means a condition that is –
(a) a dust-related condition within the meaning of the Administration and Probate Act 1958; or
(b) an eligible progressive disease attributable or related to exposure to occupational dust.”.
13J New section 632 inserted
At the end of Part 13 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 insert –
“632 Transitional provision – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 – commencing proceedings without complying with certain requirements
Section 357 as amended by the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 applies in relation to the commencement of proceedings in accordance with Division 2 of Part 7 on or after the day on which Division 2 of Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 comes into operation regardless of whether the injury in respect of which those proceedings are to be commenced occurred before that day.”.’.
21. Insert the following New Division before Part 3 –
‘Division 3 – Review of certain amendments
13K New section 620C inserted
After section 620B of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 insert –
“620C Review of amendments made by Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026
(1) The Minister must cause –
(a) a review to be conducted of the operation and effect, during the review period, of the amendments made to this Act or any other Act by Parts 2A, 3A, 4A and 4B of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026; and
(b) a report of that review to be prepared.
(2) The review is to be undertaken, and the report prepared, by a person chosen by the Minister for that purpose.
(3) In choosing the person to conduct the review and prepare the report, the Minister must consult with each Minister who administers any part of either of the following Acts –
(a) the Administration and Probate Act 1958; and
(b) the Limitation of Actions Act 1958.
(4) The person chosen to conduct the review must do so in consultation with –
(a) the Minister; and
(b) each Minister who administers any part of an Act referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b).
(5) The review must examine whether an amendment referred to in subsection (1)(a) has resulted in a provision of an enactment either applying, or not applying, in relation to a person when that ought not to have occurred.
(6) The review must be completed, and the report given to the Minister, within six months after the end of the review period.
(7) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament no later than 14 sitting days after receiving it.
(8) In this section –
review period means the period –
(a) beginning on the day after the day on which the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 receives the Royal Assent; and
(b) ending on the first anniversary of that day.”.’.
22. Insert the following New Part heading to follow clause 15 –
“Part 3A – Further amendment of Accident Compensation Act 1985”.
23. Insert the following New Division before Part 4 –
‘Division 1 – Claims for damages related to employment between 12 November 1997 and 20 October 1999
15A Heading to Division 8A of Part IV substituted
For the heading to Division 8A of Part IV of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 substitute –
“Division 8A – Actions in respect of certain injuries arising from certain periods of employment”.
15B Actions for damages
After section 134AB(2) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 insert –
“(2A) A worker or the dependants of a worker may recover damages in a proceeding in respect of an injury arising out of or in the course of, or due to the nature of, employment on or after 12 November 1997 but before 20 October 1999 if –
(a) the injury is a condition that is –
(i) a dust-related condition within the meaning of the Administration and Probate Act 1958; or
(ii) an eligible progressive disease attributable or related to exposure to occupational dust; and
(b) the injury is a serious injury; and
(c) the employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury of the worker.”.
15C Actions for damages only in accordance with this Act
After section 134A(2) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 insert –
“(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent the recovery of damages in a proceeding under this Act or the Wrongs Act 1958, subject to and in accordance with Division 8A of this Part, in respect of injury to a worker arising out of or in the course of, or due to the nature of, employment on or after 12 November 1997 but before 20 October 1999 if –
(a) the injury is a condition that is –
(i) a dust-related condition within the meaning of the Administration and Probate Act 1958; or
(ii) an eligible progressive disease attributable or related to exposure to occupational dust; and
(b) the employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury of the worker.
Note
See section 134AB(2A).
(4) Subsection (3) applies despite any time limit applying to proceedings under Part III of the Wrongs Act 1958.”.
15D Heading to Division 9B of Part IV amended
In the heading to Division 9B of Part IV of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “asbestos-related” substitute “certain”.
15E Section 135BB amended
(1) For the heading to section 135BB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 substitute –
“Actions by workers with certain conditions”.
(2) After section 135BB(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 insert –
“(1A) This section also applies to a worker who may have an entitlement to recover damages in accordance with section 134AB(2A) in respect of injury arising out of, or in the course of, or due to the nature of, any employment on or after 12 November 1997 but before 20 October 1999.”.
15F New section 402 inserted
At the end of Division 20 of Part IX of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 insert –
“402 Transitional provision – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 – employment on or after 12 November 1997 but before 20 October 1999
Section 134A(3) and (4) as inserted by Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 does not apply in relation to a cause of action for damages in relation to a dust-related condition arising out of, or in the course of, or due to the nature of any employment on or after 12 November 1997 but before 20 October 1999 if that cause of action has been finalised and fully determined before the commencement of Part 3A of that Act.”.
15G New Division 21 of Part IX inserted
After Division 20 of Part IX of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 insert –
“Division 21 – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 – Transitional matters
405 Regulations dealing with transitional matters – Part 3A of Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026
(1) The Governor in Council may make regulations containing provisions of a transitional nature, including matters of an application or savings nature, arising as a result of the enactment of Division 1 of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026, including any repeals and amendments made by or as a result of the enactment of that Part of that Act.
(2) Regulations made under this section may –
(a) have a retrospective effect to a day on or after a date not earlier than the day on which the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 receives the Royal Assent; and
(b) be of limited or general application; and
(c) differ according to time, place or circumstances; and
(d) leave any matter or thing to be decided by a specified person or class of person.
(3) Regulations under this section have effect despite anything to the contrary in –
(a) this Act or any other Act (other than Division 1 of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 or the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006); or
(b) any subordinate instrument.
(4) This section is repealed on the second anniversary of the day on which it comes into operation.”.’.
24. Insert the following New Division before Part 4 –
‘Division 2 – Amendments relating to actions for damages
15H Definitions
In section 135BC of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 –
(a) insert the following definition –
“serious dust-related condition means a condition that is –
(a) a dust-related condition within the meaning of the Administration and Probate Act 1958; or
(b) an eligible progressive disease attributable or related to exposure to occupational dust;”;
(b) the definition of serious silica-related condition is repealed;
(c) in the definition of subsequent action, for “silica-related” substitute “dust-related”.
15I Section 135BD amended
(1) In the heading to section 135BD of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “silica-related” substitute “dust-related”.
(2) In section 135BD of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “silica- related” (wherever occurring) substitute “dust-related”.
15J Only one subsequent award of damages permitted
In section 135BE of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “silica-related” (where twice occurring) substitute “dust-related”.
15K Regard must be had to initial award of damages
In section 135BF of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “silica-related” (where twice occurring) substitute “dust-related”.
15L Regard must be had to legal costs incurred in initial action
(1) In section 135BG(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “silica-related” (where twice occurring) substitute “dust-related”.
(2) In section 135BG(3)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “silica” substitute “occupational dust”.
15M New section 135BI inserted
After section 135BH of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 insert –
“135BI Interaction with Asbestos Diseases Compensation Act 2008
(1) Despite anything to the contrary in the Asbestos Diseases Compensation Act 2008, that Act does not apply to an asbestos-related cause of action that has not been commenced before the commencement of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an asbestos-related cause of action is a cause of action for damages in respect of an asbestos-related condition (within the meaning Asbestos Diseases Compensation Act 2008) that is also a serious dust-related condition.”.
15N New section 403 inserted
At the end of Division 20 of Part IX of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 insert –
“403 Transitional provisions – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 – Actions for damages
(1) Division 9C of Part IV as amended by Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 applies to a cause of action for damages in relation to a serious dust-related condition to which that Division applies commenced on or after the commencement of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026.
(2) Division 9C of Part IV as amended by Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 applies to a cause of action for damages in relation to a serious dust-related condition commenced before the commencement of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 but only if –
(a) the hearing of the action has not commenced before the commencement of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026; or
(b) damages have not been awarded or a settlement has not been reached in that action before the commencement of that Part.
(3) Division 9C of Part IV as amended by Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 does not apply to a cause of action for damages in relation to a serious dust-related condition commenced before the commencement of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 if –
(a) the hearing of the action has commenced before the commencement of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026; or
(b) damages have been awarded or a settlement has been reached in that action before the commencement of that Part.”.’.
25. Insert the following New Division before Part 4 –
‘Division 3 – Commencing proceedings without complying with certain requirements
15O Heading to Division 9B of Part IV substituted
For the heading to Division 9B of Part IV of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 substitute –
“Division 9B – Actions by workers with certain conditions”.
15P Section 135BB amended
(1) For the heading to section 135BB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 substitute –
“Actions by workers with certain conditions”.
(2) In section 135BB(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “an asbestos-related condition” substitute “a serious dust-related condition”.
(3) In section 135BB(3)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “asbestos-related condition” substitute “serious dust-related condition”.
(4) In section 135BB(4) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “an asbestos-related condition” substitute “a serious dust-related condition”.
(5) For section 135BB(8) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 substitute –
“(8) In this section –
serious dust-related condition means a condition that is –
(a) a dust-related condition within the meaning of the Administration and Probate Act 1958; or
(b) an eligible progressive disease attributable or related to exposure to occupational dust.”.
15Q New section 404 inserted
At the end of Division 20 of Part IX of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 insert –
“404 Transitional provision – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 – commencing proceedings without complying with certain requirements
The amendments made to section 135BB by Division 3 of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 apply in relation to the commencement of proceedings under section 134AB or 135A on or after the day on which Division 3 of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 comes into operation regardless of whether the injury in respect of which those proceedings are to be commenced occurred before that day.”.’.
26. Insert the following New Division heading before clause 16 –
“Division 1 – Supported accommodation”.
27. Insert the following New Division to follow clause 18 –
‘Division 2 – Benefits for children
18A Surviving children
(1) For section 59(1) of the Transport Accident Act 1986 substitute –
“(1) The Commission is liable to pay weekly payments, a death benefit and an education allowance in accordance with this section in respect of a dependent child of a person if –
(a) the person dies as a result of a transport accident; and
(b) any of the following apply –
(i) the child has another parent who is not a dependent partner of the person;
(ii) the child has another parent who does not wholly, mainly or in part provide economic support for the child;
(iii) the child does not have another parent.”.
(2) After section 59(3) of the Transport Accident Act 1986 insert –
“(3A) Despite subsection (3), on or after 1 November 2026, the sum of a weekly payment for which the Commission is liable under subsection (1) or (2) is double the amount that would otherwise be payable under subsection (3)(a).”.
18B New section 59A inserted
After section 59 of the Transport Accident Act 1986 insert –
“59A Surviving children – education allowance
(1) The Commission is liable to pay an education allowance in accordance with this section in respect of a dependent child of a person who dies in a transport accident if the child is not entitled to an education allowance under section 59.
(2) The education allowance payable under subsection (1) in respect of a dependent child is –
(a) the same as the amount that is payable in respect of a child under section 59(6)(a); and
(b) payable to the responsible person for the child for the benefit of the child until the child attains the age of 18 years.
(3) In this section –
responsible person has the same meaning as in section 59.”.
18C New section 132AA inserted
After section 132 of the Transport Accident Act 1986 insert –
“132AA Regulations dealing with transitional matters – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026
(1) The Governor in Council may make regulations containing provisions of a transitional nature, including matters of an application or savings nature, arising as a result of the enactment of Division 2 of Part 4 of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026, including any repeals and amendments made by or as a result of the enactment of that Division.
(2) Regulations made under this section may –
(a) have a retrospective effect to a day on or after a date not earlier than the day on which Division 2 of Part 4 of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 receives the Royal Assent; and
(b) be of limited or general application; and
(c) differ according to time, place or circumstances; and
(d) leave any matter or thing to be decided by a specified person or class of person.
(3) Regulations under this section have effect despite anything to the contrary in –
(a) this Act or any other Act (other than Division 2 of Part 4 of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 or the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006); or
(b) any subordinate instrument.
(4) This section is repealed on the second anniversary of the day on which it comes into operation.”.
18D New section 236 inserted
After section 235 to the Transport Accident Act 1986 insert –
“236 Surviving children
(1) Sections 59(3A) and 59A apply in respect of a dependent child of a person who dies in a transport accident, regardless of when the transport accident occurred.
(2) Despite subsection (1), if the transport accident occurred before the commencement day, the Commission is not liable to pay any amount under section 59(3A) or 59A in respect of any period occurring before the commencement day.
(3) In this section –
commencement day means the day on which Division 2 of Part 4 of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 comes into operation.”.’.
28. Insert the following New Part after Part 4 –
‘Part 4A – Amendment of Limitation of Actions Act 1958
18E New section 23AB inserted
After section 23A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 insert –
“23AB No limitation period for certain dust-related conditions
(1) No limitation period applies in relation to a cause of action for damages for injury to a worker, whether the cause of action is brought by the worker or the dependants of a deceased worker if –
(a) the action for damages is an action to which –
(i) Part IV of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 applies; or
(ii) Part 7 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 applies; or
(iii) Part III or VB of the Wrongs Act 1958 applies; and
(b) the injury to the worker is a dust-related condition within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Administration and Probate Act 1958.
(2) This section applies despite anything to the contrary in section 5 or section 40(a) and (b).”.
18F Saving
In section 40 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 for “Despite” substitute “Subject to section 23AB, despite”.’.
29. Insert the following New Part after Part 5 –
‘Part 5A – Further amendment of Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 – health and safety orders
Division 1 – Amendment of Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004
37A New definition inserted
In section 5(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 insert the following definition –
“health and safety order means an order under section 137(1);”.
37B Section 136 repealed
Section 136 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 is repealed.
37C Health and safety order
(1) In the heading to section 137 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, for “Release on the giving of a health and safety undertaking” substitute “Health and safety order”.
(2) In section 137(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 for “up to 2 years and make an order for the release of the offender giving an undertaking with specified conditions” substitute “up to 5 years and order that the offender is subject to the conditions included in the order”.
(3) In section 137(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 –
(a) for “An undertaking must specify the following conditions – ” substitute “A health and safety order must include the following conditions – ”.
(b) in paragraph (a) omit “during the period of the adjournment”;
(c) in paragraph (b), for “adjournment” substitute “health and safety order”.
(4) In section 137(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 –
(a) for “the court may impose on an offender who is an employer special conditions that the offender” substitute “the court may specify in a health and safety order one or more special conditions that the offender”;
(b) in paragraph (c), for “Authority.” substitute “Authority; and”;
(c) after paragraph (c) insert –
“(d) undertake a specified project for the general improvement of occupational health, safety and welfare within the period specified in the health and safety order.”.
(5) At the foot of section 137(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 insert –
“Note
In relation to the undertaking of an offender see also Part 3.”.
(6) Section 137(4) and (5) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 are repealed.
(7) In section 137(6) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, for “undertaking” substitute “health and safety order”.
(8) In section 137(7) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, for “an order under this section” substitute “a health and safety order”.
37D Section 138 substituted and new section 138A inserted
For section 138 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 substitute –
“138 Variation or contravention of health and safety order
(1) The following persons at any time while a health and safety order is in force may apply to a court for variation or cancellation of the health and safety order –
(a) the offender;
(b) the Authority;
(c) the Director of Public Prosecutions.
(2) On application under subsection (1), the court –
(a) may vary or cancel a health and safety order if satisfied –
(i) that the circumstances of the offender have materially altered since the health and safety order was made and as a result the offender will not be able to comply with any condition of the health and safety order; or
(ii) that the circumstances of the offender were wrongly stated or were not accurately presented to the court or the author of a pre-sentence report before the health and safety order was made; or
(iii) that the offender is no longer willing to comply with the conditions of the health and safety order; and
(b) may deal with the offender for the offence or offences with respect to which the health and safety order was made in any manner in which the court could deal with the offender if the court had just found the offender guilty of that offence or those offences, having regard to the extent to which the offender has complied with the health and safety order.
(3) Notice of an application under subsection (1) must be given –
(a) to the offender; and
(b) to the Authority, if the sentencing court was the Magistrates’ Court;
(c) to the Director of Public Prosecutions, if the sentencing court was the Supreme Court or the County Court.
(4) The court may order that a warrant to arrest be issued against the offender if the offender does not attend before the court on the hearing of the application.
138A Contravention of a health and safety order
An offender subject to a health and safety order must not contravene the health and safety order unless the offender has a reasonable excuse.
Penalty: 500 penalty units for a natural person;
2 500 penalty units for a body corporate.”.
Division 2 – Consequential amendments to Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026
37E Section 198 amended
In section 198 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026, for “Before section 136” substitute “Before section 137”.
37F Section 199 amended
In section 199 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026, for “before section 136” substitute “before section 137”.
37G Section 200 repealed
Section 200 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026 is repealed.
37H Heading to section 201 amended
For the heading to section 201 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026 substitute –
“Health and safety order”.’.
30. Insert the following New Part before Part 6 –
‘Part 5B – Further amendment of Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 – impact statements
Division 1 – Amendment of Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004
37I Definitions
In section 5(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 insert the following definitions –
“impact statement means a statement referred to in section 134A;
medical report means a report referred to in section 134D;”.
37J New Division 1A of Part 11 inserted
After Division 1 of Part 11 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 insert –
“Division 1A – Impact statements
134A What is an impact statement?
(1) An impact statement is a statement that –
(a) is in respect of an offence against this Act or the regulations; and
(b) contains any information described in subsection (2); and
(c) is in the form of –
(i) a statutory declaration; or
(ii) an affidavit; or
(iii) sworn or affirmed oral evidence.
(2) The information that may be contained in the statement is the following –
(a) information relating to a risk –
(i) that is to the health, safety or welfare of any person; and
(ii) to which the offence relates;
(b) information relating to the eventuation of a risk described in paragraph (a);
(c) information relating to how any person was impacted, directly or indirectly, by –
(i) a risk described in paragraph (a); or
(ii) the eventuation of a risk described in paragraph (a); or
(iii) the offence.
(3) A reference in subsection (2)(c) to how any person was impacted refers to –
(a) how the health, safety or welfare of any person was impacted (including by the person suffering injury, loss or damage); and
(b) any other way in which any person was impacted.
(4) An impact statement that is in the form of a statutory declaration or an affidavit may include photographs, drawings or poems or other material that relates to any of the matters set out in subsection (2).
Note
Under section 134D, a medical report may be given with an impact statement.
134B When court may allow person to give impact statement
(1) A court that finds a person guilty of an offence against this Act or the regulations may allow a person to give an impact statement to the court in respect of the offence for the purpose of assisting the court to determine –
(a) what sentence to impose for the offence; or
(b) whether to make an order under Division 2 in respect of the offence (and if so, the content of that order) –
if the court is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) limits or otherwise affects the ability of a person to make a victim impact statement under the Sentencing Act 1991.
(3) An impact statement given in accordance with subsection (1) may be given on behalf of another person if –
(a) that other person is under the age of 18 years; or
(b) the court is satisfied that the other person is incapable of making the statement because of mental illness or for any other reason.
134C Admissibility
(1) A court that receives an impact statement may rule as inadmissible –
(a) the whole or any part of the statement; or
(b) the whole or any part of a medical report attached to the statement.
(2) It is the intention of Parliament that in interpreting and applying this section, courts have regard to the following –
(a) an impact statement allows a person to give information described in section 134A(2);
(b) an impact statement is not inadmissible merely because it contains subjective or emotive material.
(3) A court may receive the whole of an impact statement, or an attached medical report, despite –
(a) an objection being taken to the statement or report (or to part of the statement or report); or
(b) the statement or report containing inadmissible material.
(4) If the court receives an impact statement, or an attached medical report, that contains inadmissible material, the court, in sentencing the offender –
(a) is not to rely on the material that the court considers to be inadmissible; and
(b) need not specify which of the material is not being relied on.
134D Medical report
(1) A person who gives an impact statement to a court may also give to the court, along with that statement, a report on medical matters concerning that person (or, if the statement is given on behalf of another natural person, that other person).
(2) The report –
(a) must be –
(i) in writing; and
(ii) made and signed by a medical expert; and
(b) may include a document that the medical expert intends should be read with the statement.
(3) A document may be included under subsection (2)(b) regardless of whether –
(a) it was in existence at the time the report was made; or
(b) the medical expert obtained it, or caused it to be brought into existence, at a later time.
(4) In this section –
medical expert has the same meaning as in Division 1C of Part 3 of the Sentencing Act 1991;
medical matters has the same meaning as in Division 1C of Part 3 of the Sentencing Act 1991.
134E Distribution of written materials
(1) A person who is to give an impact statement to a court in the form of a statutory declaration or an affidavit must give a copy of the statement to the prosecutor a reasonable time before sentencing is to take place.
(2) A person who is to give a medical report to a court along with an impact statement must give a copy of the report to the prosecutor a reasonable time before sentencing is to take place.
(3) As soon as practicable after a prosecutor receives a document under subsection (1) or (2), the prosecutor must –
(a) file a copy of the document with the court; and
(b) give a copy of the document to –
(i) the offender; or
(ii) the legal practitioner representing the offender.
134F Examination of person who gives impact statement
(1) If a person gives an impact statement to a court, the court may call the person to give evidence.
(2) If a person gives a medical report to a court, the court may call the medical expert who made the report to give evidence.
(3) The court may call a person to give evidence under subsection (1) or (2) at the request of –
(a) the offender; or
(b) the prosecutor.
(4) A person called to give evidence under subsection (1) or (2) may be cross-examined and re-examined.
134G Witnesses
(1) A person who gives an impact statement to a court may call a witness to give evidence in support of any matter contained in the statement or a medical report given along with the statement.
(2) A witness called to give evidence under subsection (1) may be cross-examined and re-examined.
(3) Any party to the proceeding may lead evidence on any matter contained in the impact statement or medical report.
134H Reading aloud of impact statement
(1) A person who is to give an impact statement in the form of a statutory declaration or affidavit may request that the court provide for a specified part of the statement to be –
(a) read aloud or displayed in open court in the course of the sentencing hearing by –
(i) the person making the request; or
(ii) a person chosen by the person making the request who consents and who is approved by the court for that purpose; or
(b) read aloud in open court in the course of the sentencing hearing by the prosecutor.
(2) If a request is made under subsection (1), the court must grant the request with respect to each part of the impact statement that –
(a) is specified in the request; and
(b) is admissible; and
(c) is appropriate and relevant to the determination of what sentence to impose (or whether to make an order under Division 2, and if so, what the contents of that order are to be).
(3) The court may direct the person who made the request, or the person who is to read aloud or display the specified parts of the impact statement, as to the parts of the statement in respect of which the request is granted in accordance with subsection (2).
(4) Nothing in this section prevents the presiding judge or magistrate from reading aloud any admissible part of an impact statement in the course of a proceeding.
134I Alternative arrangements for reading aloud of impact statement
(1) If a court grants a request under section 134H for the reading aloud of any part of an impact statement, the court may direct that alternative arrangements be made for that reading aloud.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the court may direct that arrangements be made –
(a) permitting the impact statement to be read aloud from a place other than the court room by means of an audio visual link that enables communication between that place and the court room;
(b) using screens to remove the person reading the impact statement from the direct line of vision of the offender;
(c) permitting a person who is –
(i) chosen by the person reading the impact statement; and
(ii) approved by the court for this purpose –
to be beside the person reading the statement while it is read aloud for the purpose of providing emotional support to the person reading the statement;
(d) permitting only persons specified by the court to be present while the impact statement is read aloud;
(e) requiring legal practitioners not to robe.
(3) A direction under subsection (1) may be given, varied or revoked –
(a) on the application of –
(i) the person who is to read the impact statement aloud; or
(ii) the prosecutor; or
(b) on the court’s own motion.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the reading aloud of an impact statement includes the display of material included in it.
Note
See section 134H(1)(a).
134J Alternative arrangements for witnesses
(1) If a person is called to give evidence under section 134F or 134G, the court may direct that alternative arrangements be made for the examination, cross-examination and re-examination of that person.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the court may direct that arrangements be made –
(a) permitting the person to be examined, cross-examined and re-examined from a place other than the court room by means of an audio visual link that enables communication between that place and the court room;
(b) using screens to remove the person from the direct line of vision of the offender;
(c) permitting a person who is –
(i) chosen by the person being examined, cross-examined or re-examined; and
(ii) approved by the court for this purpose –
to be beside the person referred to in subparagraph (i) for the purpose of providing emotional support to that person;
(d) permitting only persons specified by the court to be present while the person is being examined, cross-examined or re-examined;
(e) requiring legal practitioners not to robe;
(f) requiring legal practitioners to be seated while examining or cross-examining the person.
(3) A direction under subsection (1) may be given, varied or revoked –
(a) on the application of –
(i) the person called to give evidence; or
(ii) the prosecutor; or
(b) on the court’s own motion.”.
37K Heading to Division 2 of Part 11 amended
In the heading to Division 2 of Part 11 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, for “Sentencing for offences” substitute “Additional sentencing orders”.
37L New Division 3A of Part 15 inserted
After Division 3 of Part 15 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 insert –
“Division 3A – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026
188A Impact statements
Division 1A of Part 11 does not apply for the purposes of sentencing an offender for an offence of which they were found guilty before the day on which Division 1 of Part 5B of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 comes into operation.”.
Division 2 – Related amendments to Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026
37M New sections 194A to 194K inserted
After section 194 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026 insert –
‘194A Heading to Division 1A of Part 11 repealed
The heading to Division 1A of Part 11 of the Principal Act is repealed.
194B New Part 13.1A heading inserted
Insert the following heading before section 134A of the Principal Act –
“Part 13.1A – Impact statements”.
194C What is an impact statement?
(1) For section 134A(1)(a) of the Principal Act substitute –
“(a) is in respect of –
(i) an offence against this Act or the regulations; or
(ii) a contravention of a civil penalty provision; and”.
(2) For section 134A(2)(a)(i) of the Principal Act substitute –
“(i) that is to –
(A) the health, safety or welfare of any person; or
(B) property involved with the handling of dangerous goods; and”.
(3) In section 134A(2)(a)(ii) and (c)(iii) of the Principal Act, after “the offence” insert “or contravention”.
194D When court may allow person to give impact statement
(1) In section 134B(1)(b) of the Principal Act, for “Division 2” substitute “Part 13.2”.
(2) After section 134B(2) of the Principal Act insert –
“(2A) A court that is considering whether to make a civil penalty order in respect of a contravention of a civil penalty provision may allow a person to give an impact statement to the court in respect of the contravention for the purpose of assisting the court to determine whether to make the civil penalty order (and if so, the content of that order) if the court is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.”.
(3) In section 134B(3) of the Principal Act, after “subsection (1)” insert “or (2A)”.
194E Admissibility
In section 134C(4) of the Principal Act, after “in sentencing the offender” insert “or determining whether to make a civil penalty order (and if so, the content of that order)”.
194F Section 134E amended
(1) In the heading to section 134E of the Principal Act after “materials” insert “ – sentencing”.
(2) In section 134E(1) of the Principal Act, for “court” substitute “court, in accordance with section 134B(1),”.
(3) In section 134E(2) of the Principal Act, after “impact statement” insert “given in accordance with section 134B(1)”.
194G New section 134EA inserted
After section 134E of the Principal Act insert –
“134EA Distribution of written materials – civil penalties
(1) A person who is to give an impact statement to a court, in accordance with section 134B(2A), in the form of a statutory declaration or an affidavit must give a copy of the statement to the Authority a reasonable time before sentencing is to take place.
(2) A person who is to give a medical report to a court along with an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(2A) must give a copy of the report to the Authority a reasonable time before sentencing is to take place.
(3) As soon as practicable after the Authority receives a document under subsection (1) or (2), the Authority must –
(a) file a copy of the document with the court; and
(b) give a copy of the document to –
(i) the person in respect of whom the Authority seeks that the court is to make a civil penalty order; or
(ii) the legal practitioner representing that person.”.
194H Examination of person who gives impact statement
For section 134F(3) of the Principal Act substitute –
“(3) The court may call a person to give evidence under subsection (1) or (2) at the request of –
(a) if the impact statement is given in accordance with section 134B(1), or the medical report is given along with a statement given that way –
(i) the offender; or
(ii) the prosecutor; or
(b) if the impact statement is given in accordance with section 134B(2A), or the medical report is given along with a statement given that way –
(i) the person in respect of whom the Authority seeks that the court is to make a civil penalty order; or
(ii) the Authority.”.
194I Reading aloud of impact statement
(1) In section 134H(1)(a) of the Principal Act, for “sentencing hearing” substitute “relevant hearing”.
(2) For section 134H(1)(b) of the Principal Act substitute –
“(b) read aloud in open court in the course of the relevant hearing by whichever of the following applies –
(i) the prosecutor; or
(ii) a legal practitioner representing the Authority.”.
(3) For section 134H(2)(c) of the Principal Act substitute –
“(c) is appropriate and relevant to whichever of the following applies –
(i) the determination of what sentence to impose (or whether to make an order under Part 13.2, and if so, what the contents of that order are to be); or
(ii) the determination of whether to make a civil penalty order (and if so, what the contents of that order are to be).”.
(4) After section 134H(4) of the Principal Act insert –
“(5) In this section –
relevant hearing means –
(a) in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(1), the sentencing hearing; or
(b) in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(2A), a hearing in the proceeding in which it is given.”.
194J Alternative arrangements for reading aloud of impact statement
(1) In section 134I(2)(b) of the Principal Act, for “vision of the offender;” substitute “vision of –
(i) in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(1), the offender; or
(ii) in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(2A), the person in respect of whom the Authority seeks that the court is to make a civil penalty order;”.
(2) For section 134I(3)(a) of the Principal Act substitute –
“(a) on the application of the person who is to read the impact statement aloud; or
(ab) on the application of –
(i) in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(1), the prosecutor; or
(ii) in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(2A), the Authority; or”.
194K Alternative arrangements for witnesses
(1) In section 134J(2)(b) of the Principal Act, for “vision of the offender;” substitute “vision of –
(i) in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(1), the offender; or
(ii) in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(2A), the person in respect of whom the Authority seeks that the court is to make a civil penalty order;”.
(2) For section 134J(3)(a) of the Principal Act substitute –
“(a) on the application of the person called to give evidence; or
(ab) on the application of –
(i) in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(1), the prosecutor; or
(ii) in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(2A), the Authority; or”.’.
37N New sections 242A and 242B inserted
After section 242 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026 insert –
‘242A Heading to Division 3A of Part 15 repealed
The heading to Division 3A of Part 15 of the Principal Act is repealed.
242B New Part 17.3A heading inserted
Insert the following heading before section 188A of the Principal Act –
“Part 17.3A – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026”.’.
37O New Part 17.4 inserted
In section 243 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026, for “Division 3” substitute “Division 3A”.’.
31. Long title, after “to amend the” insert “Dangerous Goods Transport Act 2026 in relation to reckless endangerment offences, the”.
32. Long title, omit “in relation to guarantees and supported accommodation”.
33. Long title, omit “Accident Compensation Act 1985 in relation to supported accommodation” and insert “Accident Compensation Act 1985”.
34. Long title, after “the Transport Accident Act 1986 in relation to supported accommodation” insert “and certain benefits for children”.
35. Long title, omit “in relation to the powers of representatives and coercive conduct”.
36. Long title, after “consequential” insert “and related”.
37. Long title, before “and to make” insert “, the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to remove a limitation period for certain actions”.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (10:12): Before the house considers these amendments, I direct the attention of the house to amendments 19, 23 and 24 made by the Legislative Council. Following examination, the Speaker is of the opinion that the amendments are a direct infringement of the privileges of the house, as they seek to force an appropriation from the Consolidated Fund. Under the Constitution Act 1975, an appropriating clause can only be initiated by the Assembly.
That:
(1) the Legislative Assembly endorses the Speaker’s statement regarding the constitutional questions raised by the message from the Legislative Council in relation to the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Bill 2026;
(2) the Assembly, having regard to the fact that the public interest demands the early enactment of the legislation, refrains from the determinations of its constitutional right in relation to the Council message; and
(3) the amendments be agreed to.
I could not be prouder of the work of this government, this Parliament and the community on this, and I say all three purposefully. This is a very good bill that will help thousands and thousands of workers that we will never meet. It will also help thousands of families impacted and devastated by traffic accidents and trauma.
This bill has been amended in a positive fashion in the Legislative Council. There were several amendments made. One is to increase the financial support for children, as I said devastated by fatal road trauma, by allowing those children to access better income and educational benefits when their guardians are not their biological parents. There are many different types of families in Victoria. They all suffer and grieve in the same way after a trauma on the roads of Victoria, and they should be treated as equally as possible. This is what this amendment seeks to do.
It also restores and expands compensation and common-law rights for workers with dust-related conditions. It improves sentencing outcomes for occupational health and safety offences. These amendments on dust-related conditions make really meaningful impacts to workers’ lives. These reforms ensure workers with dust-related conditions are treated more fairly and consistently in a way that reflects the nature of these insidious diseases. Dust-related conditions – as we know, because we have debated these types of bills over the last 11 years, including when we banned the cutting of stone – develop over long periods, and they worsen over time. A worker may first be diagnosed before later developing other separate conditions arising from the same occupational exposure. The common-law rights extended by the amendments to this bill, allowing other sufferers of dust-related diseases beyond silicosis and asbestosis sufferers to access common-law rights a second time as a disease progresses, are fundamentally decent and fair. The law should recognise the nature of these diseases, and now it will.
On the TAC changes, I have just got to say I have an enormous debt of gratitude to the brave families that came and presented their story to the Parliament of Victoria in the Legislative Council inquiry that was held. I want to thank specifically Bernard and Michelle Robertson from Geelong, who presented a very heartfelt, personal, deeply tragic story, and I want to thank their local MP Chris Couzens, the member for Geelong, for her advocacy both publicly and privately to me in relation to these changes. I would like to also thank Mr Galea and Mr Limbrick from the Legislative Council, the other place, for their strong advocacy, and I want to thank Mr Limbrick for saying in his contribution in the Council the other day that the government has acted really swiftly on this report. We have, because it is meaningful and it matters. It takes a lot of people to produce a good outcome. I am not saying it is perfect, but it is, by a long way, better than it was before.
I want to turn to the house amendments on the sentencing offences. They are also incredibly impactful. The house amendments will create a framework for courts to consider impact statements from affected persons, such as bereaved family members and others, in occupational health and safety sentencing outcomes. That is important because the existing framework that applies in courts around victim impact statements sits clumsily with occupational health and safety tragedies because they do not fit in the same mould. This framework will allow affected families, who are often suffering grief, to express that grief in the presentencing process. It will also repeal improvement project orders, rename and expand health and safety undertakings and increase maximum penalties. This comes out of really good work by the Sentencing Advisory Council, which found that, in my words – I do not want to verbal that esteemed body – the existing frameworks in terms of the orders that could be imposed on an offender or an employer were not useful. They relied on the employer agreeing to the undertaking, so to speak. This will now be called a ‘project order’ rather than an ‘undertaking’. It will have more meaningful impact. We expect to see more of them in workplaces, and that matters because the more of them you have in workplaces, the more people are likely to be protected from injury and harm.
The third amendment that affects sentencing outcomes is to significantly increase maximum penalties for reckless endangerment – also recommended by the SAC, the Sentencing Advisory Council – and will introduce a new offence within section 32 which applies to contraventions of a health and safety duty, not to be limited by the ‘at the workplace’ element. These amendments will improve workplaces across Victoria. They will raise visibility of occupational health and safety matters. They will improve safety so that we have less Victorians not coming home at night after going to work in the morning. No-one should die because they had held a job that day. No-one should be grieving someone who died because they had gone to work that day. That is what these laws and these amendments try and prevent.
I want to also thank the Premier, who held the position that I now hold, which is Minister for WorkSafe and the TAC, for his leadership, because he did a fair bit of this work before I got here. I also want to thank Luke Hilakari and his team at the Victorian Trades Hall Council for their advocacy and leadership. I have met with them and others a few times over this, including, to be honest with you, the leadership of employer groups like Tim Piper and the Australian Industry Group. This is very good legislation. This is legislation that I could not be prouder of as a member of a Labor government in Victoria which every single year we have been in office can account for improving the safety of Victorian workplaces so that less people have to suffer the grief, the distress and the devastation of losing someone they love. This is a very fitting way to finish the last day of the parliamentary sitting calendar in this term of the Victorian Parliament and this term of the Victorian Labor government.
Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (10:21): ’Twas an hour before midnight on the Monday before the last sitting week, very late in the day, when the opposition were advised that amendments to the substantive bill, the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Bill 2026, were before us. They were longer than the bill. The amendments that we were given were longer than the bill. I was offered a briefing, and I must thank Rumaan out of the minister’s office, who has been at every turn helpful and easy to deal with despite what bombs he was thrown and had to deal with, because that is exactly what happened. We had the briefing at 9:15 on Tuesday, and the amendments were longer than the bill, which makes me think: how organised were the government to actually bring the bill forward in the first place and get these amendments through?
I was rushing around – I had been busy on Monday night at an event and was up quite late reading through the amendments to understand what they were about – but it was clear that the majority of the amendments were related to dust-related conditions. I was quite interested in that. I have a bit of an understanding of those conditions and their impacts and causes. We had the briefing and then it was coming into the upper house. Five minutes before midnight there I heard that the Greens also had amendments, and they were circulated to me quite late. As I read through those amendments, it was hard to work out what the difference was between the Greens amendments and the government amendments. In fact they were almost the same. As it happens, as I was having an informal briefing with the Greens in Queens Hall, Trades Hall were there. I must thank Ted from Trades Hall, who was able then to put both of them side by side, and he said, ‘I’ll walk you through what is different between the Greens amendments and the Labor amendments.’ There was not much of a difference at all.
Mathew Hilakari interjected.
Cindy McLEISH: Good old Ted. He put it in plain English, and it was very simple to see. He could point out quite easily what the changes were. Some of the differences – and I want to put this on record – were that the government’s amendments specified dust-related conditions. There are several lots of amendments, but I am starting with the dust-related conditions. The government’s amendments listed asbestosis, asbestos-induced carcinoma, asbestos-related pleural diseases, mesothelioma, silicosis and silicotuberculosis. They listed those six conditions, and I was quite happy with those six conditions. They had specified them. The Greens, on the other hand, had wanted to just include serious illness and not have that list. I understand that this list of six is probably expanded from what we always just looked at: silicosis, mesothelioma and asbestosis. There are complications and other things that come up, so it is possible that over the course there may be another compensable dust-related condition that would be picked up through the Greens amendments.
As it happens, the government decided to adopt the Greens amendments ahead of their own. I thought that was interesting. That apparently caused a whole lot of complications, because in the other place where drafted changes were going to take 15 minutes, they ended up taking just about 24 hours, because it was not simple and it was quite complicated, and coming back to this place it was equally complex. Deputy Speaker, you made some comments about the Council amendments, which I think is indicative that the process here has been quite challenging. The minister spoke about how great their changes are, and I will note that they have adopted the Greens changes. I am not sure if the Greens are going to speak on this. I thought they were doing a bit of horsetrading, but when I was briefed with the Greens on this, the Greens said the government really did not know what they were doing in this space and were trying desperately to get themselves sorted out. Because of the process that happened, that is very clearly what happened in the other place. On top of that, there were some amendments put forward, which were not adopted, by the Legalise Cannabis Party.
So we have these changes relating to dust-related conditions, and these issues are terribly important. I have known too many people that have suffered as young people or as older people from exposure a very long time ago or exposure not so long ago. I met with a young constituent down in my electorate who was an office worker at Boral. They tested everybody at Boral, and she was just going along to have more and more tests because she thought that was part of the process without realising that she was being diagnosed with one of the serious conditions. I have had a bit to do with her. It has been a very challenging situation for her, being of a young age, a young mother and a single mother, and being tired constantly through her conditions and her ability to work. She is bright and bubbly and really quite gorgeous and being hit like this as a young person. Equally I know people who in their more twilight years, possibly over 50, have suffered from these conditions. So we were fine, absolutely fine with these changes being made and even the amendments being put forward by the Greens.
There were other amendments made, and the minister talked about those, to the Transport Accident Act 1986 with regard to having a look at payments that are made to legal guardians. The inquiry by the Legislative Council into claims made through the TAC was reasonably short and was handed down in August. Miraculously – and someone would think there could be an election around the corner – the government responded very quickly, at 5 minutes to midnight this time, not an hour to midnight, on 22 August. While they normally take six months to respond, they managed to turn this around very quickly. I contrast that to the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s inquiry into stalking, handed down on 22 October, which still has not been responded to and still has outstanding recommendations. So we have had a very miraculous and fast turnaround.
The changes that are made in this area are absolutely worthwhile. There is a section in chapter 2, ‘The TAC’s compensation scheme: meeting the needs of clients and medical service providers’. Chapter 2.3.2 is ‘How the burden of care and advocacy can fall on families’, and we hear the story of the Robertsons and their daughter. I will read findings 23 and 24, because I do want to put them on the record in this place. Finding 23 is:
Whilst all legal guardians receive the same financial support from the TAC, this amount is different to the amount paid to surviving spouses.
So a surviving spouse, being the parent of children, is treated differently to a guardian or a grandparent who is looking after the child. Finding 24 is:
The current wording of the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic) does not provide for fair and equitable treatment of all family types, including where grandparents –
as is the case with the Robertsons –
become legal guardians of children following a transport‑related death of the parent.
Recommendation 6 – and this is why these amendments have been included – is:
That the Victorian Government review surviving spouse and legal guardian payments in the situation where a child is orphaned and a new guardian is appointed.
I think that is particularly important, and I understand that there are probably 55 children in this case at the moment for whom the guardian will be compensated more fairly. On top of that, they have extended some of the support in education and the allowances to educate those children, because again in the case of the Robertsons, they talked about how they had to dip into their superannuation and things to make the payments and look after their grandchild adequately. I think there are about another 900 children who will be impacted positively by this change.
We have dealt with two of the amendments – certainly the dust-related conditions and the TAC changes. The third lot is around the Sentencing Advisory Council changes and impact statements. The government response, when I was briefed, had not been finalised on the report that was done in February 2025, in stark contrast to the turnaround on the response to the TAC. For the Sentencing Advisory Council there were 12 recommendations that were made, and three of those are being dealt with through these amendments. The amendments are around impact statements. There are limits on victims, there are health and safety orders and there is reckless endangerment.
I want to comment briefly on reckless endangerment, because some of the questions that I asked in the bill briefing were not able to be answered. I refer to section 2A in the amendments. There are a new lot of amendments that have just been handed to me today, which are different from the amendments that I was briefed on the other day because they have pretty well just been completed. They are still related to section 2A and conduct that endangers persons at workplaces:
A person must not, without lawful excuse, recklessly engage in conduct that places, or may place, another person who is at a workplace in danger of serious injury, serious illness or death.
There are quite substantial penalties here, and so I asked what a lawful excuse was – it is mentioned a couple of times. I was not able to get an answer. I was able to get an example that in emergency services sometimes possibly a police officer or a paramedic might need to take action in a particular area. Again, they were very, very vague. I could see that these amendments were put together very quickly – with haste. I also asked during the bill briefing about section 357, which is being amended in the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013. A section is being repealed. I asked what section was being repealed, and I was not given an answer. They could not tell me, so to think that these amendments have had due consideration by the government is a bit of a tall order. I know that is not the case. They have had a long time, looking at the Sentencing Advisory Council, to put some of these through, and they have not done so.
With some of the changes around common law, there was a gap between when common law was abolished in November 1997 and when it was reintroduced in October 1999 – I think it was – where there were no common-law claims. Now this has been changed for dust-related conditions, and there is a second award possible if conditions worsen – or so I understand these changes. I asked what was driving it, and it was the plaintiff law firms, so my antennae just went up a little bit about what was happening in that space.
Also there were some changes which enabled workers to bypass prelitigation processes, and I asked, ‘What does that look like? How long is that going to be?’ Obviously it is different in different scenarios, but it could be something from months to years. Bypassing prelitigation means that they can go directly to the Supreme Court in these instances. So there is a bit of a mixture with these amendments, and the process through Parliament in dealing with them has been nothing short of a dog’s breakfast.
The timeframe that we were given – as I said at the outset, the amendments are longer than the bill that we were debating in the first place, where we did have that customary 14 days – meant we had no time to go out and consult more widely on these. I felt pleased, actually, that I had a background in some of this – and certainly with dust-related conditions – and could understand the WorkSafe scheme and these areas. Equally with the common-law entitlements, I had a background in that and could understand the changes that were being made.
The inquiry into claims made through the TAC was brought about by Mr Limbrick in the other place with our support. It was not something that the government brought on themselves. Again, I think that the government might be thinking this is some of their work. They did respond very promptly, and the changes that have been made to the guardianship entitlements and education entitlements for students are fine – we have no problem with those amendments.
As I said previously, the substantive bill – the unamended bill – had sections on surety bonds for self-insurers that we were pleased about. It had some changes around supported accommodation that were fine. And it had an overreach on what the authorised representatives of registered employee associations or health and safety representatives could do in terms of accessing a workplace and documents. The minister in the other place during the committee stage earlier had said she did not know anything about the bill, but then seemed to miraculously say all of these things are happening already. If they are happening already, I am not sure why we are making the changes. They are not happening already. The bill clearly says that health and safety reps or ARREOs can get in there and copy any document. That remains scary to us on this side of the house.
Chris COUZENS (Geelong) (10:38): I am very pleased to rise to contribute on this bill, and I do want to particularly focus on the Transport Accident Commission amendment, because we do have Bernard Robertson in the gallery today to hear this and it is there because of them.I know I am not supposed to refer to the gallery – my apologies, Deputy Speaker – but this is something that is really close to me and to a number of families across Victoria, and I do want to really focus on that amendment. The minister has gone through the content of the bill, which obviously we support. I do want to make my comments around this particular amendment, which came out of the TAC inquiry – it was recommendation 6 – as a result of the evidence given by Bernard and Michelle Robertson, which really highlighted the gap that was there that had impacted their family. I will come back to that in a moment.
I do want to acknowledge the committee chair Michael Galea in the other place for the work that he has done, the Minister for WorkSafe and the TAC, who we have just heard from, and their officers, who have worked tirelessly to get this amendment through the chamber in this final sitting day of this Parliament. For those families that have been impacted, this has been a very long journey. I know the committee’s work is so important.
Having listened to the member for Eildon’s allegations about how it is an election time and we are pushing it through, that is just not true. We have both been on committees together for a very long time, and I have every respect for the member. We both know how making those recommendations is so important to our communities, and to have an outcome where those recommendations are accepted by government and you see them roll out is really, really important. But I will say, in the almost 12 years that I have been in this place doing committee work, this is the first time I have ever seen such a speedy passing. That is because of the impact it is having on a small group of Victorians and the ridiculous gap that has impacted their lives.
In saying that, I also want to acknowledge the former minister for the TAC, who is now the Premier, and his office for their strong advocacy when I went to them with the issue, which has led to the outcome today. It was only recently that I joined the minister for the TAC on a visit to the TAC offices in Geelong to meet the staff there and talk to them about the work that they do, the importance of their work and their incredible work supporting TAC clients and their families. They know best what to fix. I want to pay tribute to the work that they have done at the TAC. I have the greatest respect for them and their work.
Going back to the Robertson family and their experience, I want to read the email that I got from the Robertson family back in August 2025. It starts with:
My name is Bernard Robertson, and my wife is Michelle Robertson.
They are from Geelong West.
Last year, on October 16, we tragically lost our daughter, Thalia Robertson, in a motor vehicle accident on Forrest Road, near Winchelsea, Victoria. Thalia was 31 years old at the time of her passing. She was a single mum by choice and did not have a partner.
Thalia had a beautiful daughter named Alice Rose Robertson, who was five years old at the time of the accident. Alice was conceived through IVF sperm donation.
Thalia lived with Michelle and myself in our house in Geelong West from the time she was born. As part of the journey of bringing Alice into the world, Michelle and I agreed to financially and emotionally support Thalia. As Thalia was already living with us, and was continuing to live with us after Alice was born, we renovated our home to accommodate them. We played an active role in raising Alice alongside her mother, which allowed Thalia to return to work and we would care for Alice. For all intents and purposes, we were her other partner. Thalia was contributing to household costs after the renovation and therefore this was a co-dependant situation.
Since Thalia’s passing, Michelle and I have gone to the Family Court of Australia to become Alice’s Legal Guardians, honouring our promise to Thalia that if anything were to happen to her, we would raise Alice.
Thalia was employed as a nurse at the time of the accident.
This has been a very hard time for our family both emotionally but also financially.
Regrettably TAC does not recognise Michelle and I as being a legal partner which means we miss out on significant financial support to raise Alice. This we feel discriminates against Alice and places her at a disadvantage. This could also be a disincentive to other people who may be placed in the same situation but could not afford to take on the financial responsibility, even though they would be the best suited person/people.
Under the current legislation we receive a weekly payment of $225 for Alice. An additional $225,000 was put in Trust for Alice to receive when she is 18.
If we were to be recognised as the other partner, we could receive up to $1620 per week as well as the lump sum from TAC, which is currently in trust, and it would be paid to us instead, which we could use in raising Alice …
As it is now, we are needing to change our work hours and sell our house to financially help with supporting Alice, as our plans were to be both retiring in the next 2–3 years.
We feel the legislation has not kept up with the modern-day society where more women are choosing to be single mothers by choice, where there is not the same level of support from TAC. We feel they are treated financially different if something were to happen, because these women consciously choose not to have a partner in their life.
We believe there should be a provision made that in the situation of these women not having a legal partner, there should be a nominated or legally appointed person/people through the Family Court who would receive the same provision as a partner would receive.
Michelle and I feel passionate about this and we want to bring it before the current Government to try to make the changes needed. We are very keen to advocate this.
This is something that the Robertson family have advocated for. They have played a huge role and are a huge part of this change. They should be so proud of what they have achieved in a short space of time. I have no doubt that Thalia would be very proud of her parents. Alice was always going to be well cared for by Bernard and Michelle. However, this important change will make life for the Robertson family that bit easier.
This amendment is life-changing for those families, for those impacted who have experienced that significant trauma. As MPs we play a significant role in changing what is not working in the best interests of Victorians. As a member of the Labor government I am so pleased and so proud that we have worked hard, and it has not been just in the last couple of weeks. It has been just over 12 months that we have been working on this, advocating and looking at how we could make this change. The opportunity to have this amendment put into this bill is something that I never thought would happen, but it has happened. I am so delighted for those families that will be impacted, because it is so important for them to be able to provide a good life for those children that they are now taking care of. I commend this amendment to the house.
Motion agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: A message will now be sent to the Legislative Council informing them of the house’s decision.