Tuesday, 8 March 2022

Bills

Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms PULFORD:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (14:59): I rise this afternoon to speak to the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021, an omnibus bill that seeks to amend a number of acts in relation to workplace safety; to improve compensation outcomes for injured workers and their families, especially for progressive illnesses such as silicosis; and to enhance WorkSafe Victoria operations to better prevent and respond to workplace safety incidents, including by amending the threshold for issuing prohibition notices and extending the range of matters deemed notifiable incidents. It also seeks to amend the acts associated with victims of crime by prohibiting alleged offenders from being notified of or attending any hearings relating to family violence or sexual offences in the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (VOCAT). It looks to amend acts relating to fire services by extending presumptive rights afforded to firefighters under the Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform) Act 2019 to vehicle and equipment maintenance employees who attend fires, so the mechanics. Those employees will now be provided, should this bill pass, a rebuttable presumption that if they are suffering from a specific form of cancer it will be presumed that this occurred due to their employment. This will consequently enhance their compensation entitlements under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013.

The bill looks to change the act in relation to the legal profession by imposing stricter requirements for the appointment of lawyer members to the Victorian Legal Services Board (VLSB), ensuring that appointees are not the subject of any actual or potential disciplinary action at the time of their appointment. Further, lawyer members will now be able to be removed from the Victorian Legal Services Board if they are subject to disciplinary action during their term of office. That is essentially what this omnibus bill seeks to do.

Part 2 amends the Accident Compensation Act 1985 to (1) improve compensation arrangements for workers with certain work-related injuries that are progressive in nature, (2) improve compensation entitlements for family members of deceased workers and (3) make minor and other technical amendments in division 2 of the bill. Part 3 amends the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 in relation to funds collected from infringement offences, clarifying that the funds must be paid into the WorkCover Authority Fund. Part 4 amends the Equipment (Public Safety) Act 1994 in relation to funds collected from infringement offences, clarifying that those funds must be paid into the WorkCover Authority Fund.

Part 5—and this is something that has been very much of interest to constituents and unions—amends the Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform) Act 2019 to (1) extend presumptive rights coverage under the FPRC act to vehicle and equipment maintenance employees—mechanics, as I mentioned—working for Fire Rescue Victoria or the Country Fire Authority, (2) change the method of calculating eligibility qualifying periods to count a part year of service as a full year of service and (3) allow periods of service as a career firefighter, a volunteer firefighter, a forest firefighter or a vehicle and equipment maintenance employee to be combined.

Part 6 amends the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 to replace the current processes for electing lawyer members to the VLSB, as I mentioned, with appointment processes similar to those for appointing non-lawyer members to that board. Part 7 amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to expand upon the types of matters that are considered notifiable incidents, which include incidents where a person is suffering from a type of incident or a type of illness prescribed in the regulations, and I refer to clause 47 specifically when I am talking about that.

Part 8 amends the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 to insert new definitions of ‘eligible progressive disease’, ‘lung transplant surgery’ and ‘serious lung injury’, as well as extending the compensation available to affected workers and their families. Part 9 amends the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 to prohibit the VOCAT from notifying alleged offenders of the time and place of family violence and sexual offences hearings.

There are some things that concern us here as the state opposition, and they are around workplace safety and prohibition notices. The expansion of circumstances in which prohibition notices can be issued may in some situations lead to overzealous applications. Without adequate guidance WorkSafe inspectors may impose prohibition notices and fines without first giving business owners the opportunity to rectify those errors. We are trying to avoid people just rushing in and issuing fines without providing a chance to collaborate and work these things out. Additionally it is important to distinguish between early mitigation of a problem and unnecessarily scrutinising an issue that is unlikely to ever eventuate. Although the distinction is largely discretionary, greater guidance could be provided in this bill on how inspectors can consistently identify risks that are likely to eventuate. We cannot have presumptions in this particular matter. The coalition advocates for a more collaborative approach between inspectors and businesses. Rather than immediately trying to issue a prohibition notice or a penalty, maybe inspectors could work with business owners to discuss potential issues and give business owners the opportunity to rectify notifiable incidents before a prohibition notice is issued. We will be looking for the minister, in summing up the second-reading debate, to address those very things. This approach favours assistance rather than admonishment. By involving business owners in the process inspectors can foster working relationships that may reduce hostility and improve a business owner’s skills in identifying mitigation risks early.

In a roundabout sense the proposed changes to workplace safety beneficially improve current entitlements for injured workers and their families. The expansion of presumptive rights to mechanics impacted by fires is broadly supported by the coalition. Improvements to VOCAT to provide further supports to victims of crime are very much supported by the Liberals-Nationals coalition. I pay tribute to former minister Edward O’Donohue, who did a lot of work in supporting victims of crime.

I think having stricter methodology around the appointments for lawyer members to the Victorian Legal Services Board can improve the integrity of that board and its regulations through the legal profession. Generally speaking when we have consulted with the key stakeholders about this omnibus bill they have been very supportive—or so I thought. Because what is interesting is that Daniel Andrews’s own mate, Peter Marshall from the United Firefighters Union (UFU), has some problems with this legislation—Daniel’s own mate. Now, in the past Daniel has sorted it out through—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Order! Mr Ondarchie, can I ask you to address the Premier, Mr Andrews, by his title—not Daniel. That goes for any other member of Parliament. I am sure you know that very well. So if you could do that, Mr Ondarchie, that would be great.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Thanks, Acting President. I thought everybody was supportive generally of this omnibus bill, but it appears that the buddy of the Premier—Daniel Andrews—is not that happy. Now, it seems that Peter Marshall has some issues with this particular bit of legislation, so much so the United Firefighters Union—I cannot believe for a moment I am speaking in support of the UFU, but nonetheless when it comes to presumptive rights I think there are some things to be said here—the Victorian firefighters, will request that IBAC investigate the background to the changes that are made in this bill because, according to Peter Marshall, it:

… will weaken protection for firefighters who contract occupational cancer from workplace exposure.

So the United Firefighters Union are not necessarily happy with this bill. They are worried that the legislation before the Parliament today would extend presumptive legislation from just firefighters to other persons—particularly mechanics, we are talking about today—and:

… are concerned this could make the current system unviable and lead to later government cuts.

Now, we do know that this government is running out of money. We do know they are in significant financial trouble in this state, hence the reason they tried to impose a new tax two weeks ago, which fell flat on its face. And who did they blame? They blamed the property market for that. They did not say, ‘Oh, we’ve mucked it up. We tried to impose a new tax’—that would have made it tax number 41—‘despite the fact we said we wouldn’t introduce any more taxes’.

Mr Finn: Out the front here, wasn’t it?

Mr ONDARCHIE: And then, as Mr Finn rightly says, out the front of this building then Leader of the Opposition—to use his correct title at the time—Daniel Andrews said to Peter Mitchell down the Channel 7 camera, on the nightly news, ‘I make this commitment to every Victorian. There will be no new or increased taxes under any government that I lead’.

Mr Finn: On election eve.

Mr ONDARCHIE: On election eve, Mr Finn. On election eve he said that, and we are up to 40 new taxes. Had it not been for the state opposition and others, including new homebuyers and potential new homebuyers arcing up about this, there would be another new tax from Tim Pallas in this state—another one. So who do they blame? They blame the market. They blame potential new homebuyers. They blame everybody else but themselves for their cost blowouts in this state—over $24.5 billion of cost blowouts.

I remind the chamber that the Treasurer came to this place last calendar year asking for a $24.5 billion extension on the state debt provision to fund COVID requirements. It just so happened cost budgets on major projects added up to $24.5 billion. You join the dots here. It was not about COVID, it is just they cannot manage money. And how do you create a big blowout in this state? You give Tim Pallas a small one, because everything he touches turns bad.

But coming back to United Firefighters Union secretary Peter Marshall, he said that the union wants to stop the proposed changes to the firefighters presumptive rights act because, he said, presumptive legislation for firefighters was supported by all federal political parties based on science. Mr Marshall said that he met with Victorian ministerial staff, who confirmed the extension of presumptive legislation to cover mechanics was a result of a previous commitment. Mr Marshall is saying he does not know where that previous commitment existed, and Mr Marshall, of all people, is saying that someone is doing someone a favour. Oh, the irony.

The Master Builders Association of Victoria have been pretty well supportive of this bill. They said that the changes would recognise the progressive nature of silica-related diseases and aim to improve access to support for injured workers and their families. So the MBAV have been pretty well supportive of this bill that talks about workplace safety.

It is probably an opportune time, then, to talk even further about workplace safety and what is important about safety in the workplace. One of the issues that we have seen over recent times, over the last few years indeed, when it comes to workplace safety is the issue of bullying. Bullying in the workplace is totally unacceptable, and we have seen a bit of that in Victoria over the last few years.

Mr Finn: In this building.

Mr ONDARCHIE: As Mr Finn rightly interjects, in this building. I remind this house of comments made by then Premier Daniel Andrews about a former colleague of mine, Donna Bauer, who was going through bowel cancer at the time. He made a really inappropriate comment about her condition and how she could treat that. So when it comes to workplace bullying—

Ms Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, if Mr Ondarchie wishes to put a substantive motion in relation to the Premier, then he should do so by way of a separate and substantive motion. He is making allegations, and if the Premier is not in a position to defend them and if on the public record they have been refuted, then he should actually go under another process in order to pursue that course of action.

Mr ONDARCHIE: On the point of order, Acting President, this is a bill about workplace safety. I am talking about bullying in the workplace. As the lead speaker for the opposition, as is typically the operation in this place, I have wideranging ability to speak to that. If people are sensitive about the bullying by the Premier, particularly of women, maybe they can deal with that in their party room. Maybe they can deal with it there.

Ms Shing: Further on the point of order, Acting President—Happy International Women’s Day, Mr Ondarchie—Mr Ondarchie has in fact failed to address the substantive point that I have raised whereby if he has an allegation of substance to put in relation to the Premier and comments which he attributes to the Premier which constitute a course of action and/or a pattern of behaviour, then he should do that by way of substantive motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Thank you both for the points of order. In relation to the first point, I think the legislation talks about workplace bullying. I understand that, Mr Ondarchie, you might want to get into that. But in relation to the second point, where you are raising a specific allegation in relation to the Premier and other members, I ask you to refrain from going further on that and to just go back to the bill and talk about it in generic terms and not go into a specific allegation. If you want to do that, I think that may be something to do by way of notice of motion. I uphold that part of Ms Shing’s point of order. You are entitled to talk broadly about other matters, but I ask you to refrain from specific allegations.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Thank you, Acting President, for your guidance. I will therefore follow your guidance, not ever wanting to dispute the guidance of the Chair. I will not name specific people, but I will talk in a general sense about workplace bullying to satisfy your request.

On International Women’s Day, as we look to break the bias, I remind the chamber of the former Minister for Health who was thrown under a bus here in this place when the pandemic was a major issue—a major issue for a former Minister for Health in this place. Can I remind the house of a former Minister for Emergency Services who chose not to do a special deal with the United Firefighters Union, argued against it—a former minister—

Ms Shing interjected.

Mr ONDARCHIE: I have not named anybody.

Ms Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, this is a slightly separate point of order to the one which I raised before. Mr Ondarchie is now pursuing a line of commentary which goes beyond the point—as wideranging as he may be entitled to be as the lead speaker for the opposition—of relevance to the bill at hand.

Mr Finn: On the point of order, Acting President, Mr Ondarchie has been discussing an extremely important matter, a very topical matter, and that is workplace bullying and workplace safety. Now, he has not accused anybody of anything. He has merely raised a number of examples of where people have suffered that bullying or may have suffered that bullying, and I think he is well within his rights, particularly as lead speaker for the opposition. But even if he was not, he would be well within his rights to discuss those particular issues, given that he has not accused anybody of anything.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Mr Ondarchie, I understand that you have not strayed too far from my ruling, but can I ask you basically not to go overboard. You are within your rights to discuss these matters, but I ask you to be very cautious in relation to drawing other matters into the debate.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Thank you very much, Acting President. As you have rightly noted, I have stayed within your directive. But I have to tell you, Acting President, the sensitivity meter is off the scale across the chamber today—off the scale on International Women’s Day and off the scale in terms of sensitivity—when they have been very quiet about women who have been bullied in the workplace, very, very quiet about it, not saying a word about it. I remind the chamber that it was a former minister who disagreed on issues associated with firefighting and firefighting arrangements who allegedly was bullied—was certainly bullied in the marketplace by the head of a union—and there was not a word issued by those opposite, not a word issued about bullying.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Mr Ondarchie, I gave you some leeway, and I think you need to go back to the bill. The bill only talks very narrowly about the issue of bullying. Can I ask you to go back to the bill and refrain from further commentary about alleged bullying when you are actually naming individuals. I ask you to go back to the bill and refrain from going any further on this matter.

Mr Finn: On a point of order, Acting President, I note your ruling on this. I do not believe that Mr Marshall has the protection of parliamentary privilege as you are apparently appearing to apply at the moment. I do not follow the logic of your ruling, given that he does not have that protection.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Thank you, Mr Finn. If you want to speak on the bill, I am sure I can put your name down on the list.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Thank you, Acting President. Workplace bullying is a very, very serious issue. It is unfortunate that those opposite are not taking it as seriously as I am today. Unfortunately they are not standing up in protection, particularly of women that are being bullied in the workplace. I suspect in tomorrow’s business day we will hear more about bullying in the workplace. But when there were allegations of bullying against women you could cue the sounds of crickets across the chamber. No-one was saying a word, and from those people who are so active on Twitter—bang, bang, bang, sending out messages about bullying—there was not a cracker about bullying of women in the Labor Party, not a cracker of those allegations, not a word. So it is no wonder the sensitivity meter is off the scale today, because we take workplace bullying as a coalition very, very seriously. The question is: why doesn’t the government? Why won’t the government deal with it?

Why aren’t the people in the government, those who were elected to lead, saying more about workplace bullying in this state? It is not acceptable. We will not stand for it. It comes to the very point today: why are the government standing for it? Why aren’t they speaking out against this? As part of workplace legislation today, on International Women’s Day, as we elect to break the bias, people are very, very quiet over there about this—very quiet. They can take all the points of order they want; they are entitled to do that under the standing orders. But it sounds more like defence than points of order.

There will be a committee stage for this bill, and we will be looking for the minister to address some of the issues I have talked about today, particularly around workplace inspectors, particularly around collaboration with business owners, particularly about a methodology to make sure we do not get some overzealous applications and businesses do not get hurt through this process. I will be looking for the minister, when she sums up, to talk more about what this government are going to do about workplace bullying, about bullying in all workplaces, including in this building, because the sad thing is there is a lot of talk over there and not much walk. We will see their commitment through the course of debate on this bill today.

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (15:21): In rising to speak on the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021 I would like to first and foremost note that this bill will improve outcomes for injured workers and their families, enhance scheme operations and increase WorkSafe Victoria’s ability to prevent and respond to workplace safety incidents. I am of course very proud to be part of the Andrews Labor government, which is protecting and supporting Victorian workers. We are a government that is committed to delivering key reforms to uphold workplace safety standards and ensure there is support for injured workers. This bill, like many that have come before this place, builds on the many reforms that continue to support workers at a time when workers need it most. I would like to firstly acknowledge our colleague in this place the Minister for Workplace Safety, Ingrid Stitt, for the important work she does ensuring the safety of Victorian workers.

Workplace safety is an issue I hold dear to my heart, and I have spoken about it a number of times. I began my professional working career in fact in workplace safety, both in the mighty trade union movement and also in a workplace health and safety centre for the government where I took calls each and every day from workers injured in the workplace or those that feared potential injuries, and, sadly, there were those that were right there on site, having just been injured. These are some of the true traumas of my life that I reflect on every now and again. When I read bills like this, I think about those workers and the lives and circumstances that brought them to that place. I do carry those stories with me in much that I do, and this, like many others, hits very close to home.

Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 employers must provide and maintain a work environment that is safe and without risk to the health of their employees—that is all workplaces right across our state. This bill will also amend the Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform) Act 2019, the FPRC act, to extend presumptive rights coverage to Fire Rescue Victoria, FRV, and Country Fire Authority, CFA, vehicle and equipment maintenance workers.

I would like to acknowledge the Australian Services Union and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union for their advocacy on this bill and for the work they do to fight for members’ rights and workplace safety. It was powerful to hear from ASU members employed as district mechanical officers who have been fighting for the extension of presumptive rights to vehicle and equipment maintenance employees. In the lead-up to this bill I had the distinct delight of meeting with ASU delegate and CFA district mechanical officer for 40 years Glenn Mumford, who works at the Cranbourne workshop, one of 13 across our state. In his role as a mechanical officer he is regularly called to firegrounds and major incidents, resulting in exposure to smoke and dangerous chemicals. Additionally, Glenn and his colleagues are required to handle foam and change over foam compounds. This has meant years of working with raw concentrate firefighting foams and other chemicals. They have also been exposed to heavy diesel exhaust gases, asbestos and various other chemicals in their line of work. These DMOs are also all qualified as general firefighters and not only support Victorians but also have been called on to assist in firefighting interstate fires. One of Glenn’s co-workers, I heard, has just returned from Western Australia where they assisted with the devastating fires which have destroyed 60 000 hectares of bushland across the south-west of that state. Folks like Glenn truly are the heroes in our community.

Glenn spent in fact 11 weeks at the Hazelwood mine fire—I think it was around that time—working in the pit beside firefighters and getting trucks going because they could not be pulled offline. He also worked in the Longford gas disaster. There is so much that resonated from my conversation with Glenn, but in reference to the amendments it is this quote that stands with me:

We hope that we never have to use it, but we should be protected nonetheless.

I would like to thank Glenn for the time he took in sharing his story and for being so very generous with me in telling me about the lives, livelihoods and circumstances of workers like him. That is why it is so important that we extend presumptive rights to compensation to vehicle and equipment maintenance employees (VEMs) of the CFA if they develop cancer linked to their exposure on the job.

As I have mentioned before, this bill will also amend the Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform) Act 2019 to extend presumptive rights coverage to FRV and CFA employees like Glenn. They really are an integral part of our Victorian firefighting service. They maintain and repair equipment, including at the fireground, where they are exposed to the same carcinogens that career and volunteer firefighters are exposed to. I am, as are so many here, incredibly proud of this historic scheme to protect firefighters, and we are always keen to work with our emergency services about how we can make them feel safer and more supported in the critical and vital work they do for our state. I want to keep talking a little bit more about this, but the truth is that over the last 10 years VEMs have attended fires an average of 25 times per annum and have often attended high-risk campaigns like the Hazelwood mine fire.

This bill also introduces amendments to enable claimants to combine their periods of service as a career firefighter, volunteer firefighter, forest firefighter and vehicle and equipment maintenance employee in order to demonstrate they have served the required qualifying period. The amendments will ensure that claimants are not disadvantaged if they have served across different fire agencies, which I think is really important, knowing of course that so many in this highly specialised field do in fact switch over between agencies from time to time.

Consultation in the development of these changes has been such an imperative part of the legislative process. I am happy to see that there was consultation on these amendments, and I give my thanks to the CFA, the FRV, the AMWU and of course the ASU for their work on this issue and their ongoing support. As of last year we had extended presumptive rights to forest firefighters, and with this we are extending them to vehicle and equipment maintenance mechanics that work for our fire agencies. This is indeed a really special amendment today before us. I would like to take a moment just to acknowledge the members of the CFA branches in the Northern Metropolitan Region, specifically in Epping, South Morang, Craigieburn, Greenvale, Wollert and Kalkallo. Thank you from me and everyone else in the Northern Metropolitan Region for all that you do for our local community.

There is so much more that I could say about that, but I have some other things to mention that are importantly captured in this bill, and they include the important work that the Andrews Labor government is doing to support injured Victorian workers and their families. There is so much that has been done, including the provisional payment reform, establishing an arbitration function at the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service and indeed establishing our nation-leading silica licensing scheme. We are of course delivering for Victorian workers and their families. This bill adds to all that important work by making a range of amendments to several workplace safety acts. We are delivering on important aspects of the Andrews Labor government’s silica action plan, a landmark plan announced in 2019. Silica-related illnesses have a debilitating impact on far too many workers who work with engineered stone commonly used for benchtops. By working with this material they are at risk of exposure to respirable crystalline silica dust, which can lead to deadly lung and respiratory diseases, including silicosis.

Tragically, since the beginning of last year four workers have died from silica-related illness and WorkSafe has accepted around 60 claims for silica-related diseases. Improving the compensation arrangements for workers with silicosis and other diseases is essential. That is what this bill does by amending the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 to provide more support to workers and families affected by the debilitating effects of silicosis and similar occupational diseases. Workers suffering from silicosis are currently not able to pursue common-law claims where they develop further silica-related diseases after an initial award; this will be rectified with these amendments before us today.

The amendments also improve the process of accessing impairment benefit compensation and seek to address the identified issues by allowing workers with certain occupational diseases which deteriorate over time and progress quickly to receive further compensation. It will also waive the current requirement to demonstrate the disease has stabilised for a period of 12 months for workers with specific diseases, to allow access to impairment benefit compensation. The bill provides greater support for workers who have received a lung transplant due to a work-related injury and importantly extends compensation for counselling services to families of workers diagnosed with an eligible disease. The Andrews Labor government is leading the nation in supporting workers who suffer the terrible consequences of working with silica.

This bill also ensures WorkSafe have all the tools they need to prevent serious injuries, by changing the threshold for issuing prohibition notices and directions. Through my time in this place I have really heard those opposite attack WorkSafe and its efforts that have been made during the global coronavirus pandemic to keep Victorians safe, and as someone who has witnessed firsthand the important work that WorkSafe undertakes to ensure the safety of workers is upheld I assure you they could not be more wrong. We are underscoring the seriousness of workplace incidents by including a broader range of matters to be notifiable incidents, including infectious diseases and illnesses as well as near misses, and we are importantly recognising how difficult a time it is for families of loved ones who have been killed at work, by improving compensation entitlements.

This bill will also improve access and deliver better support to families of deceased workers, with weekly pension payments for children with a disability to be extended from the age of 16 to the age of 25. Currently under workers compensation legislation a child with disability is not eligible to receive a child pension at the age of 16, whereas full-time students or apprentices are eligible for the pension until they reach the age of 25. This bill fixes that through amendments to the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 to provide for improved compensation entitlements for the families of deceased workers. Importantly this will be partially retrospective and allow for eligible dependents who are between the ages of 16 and 25 at commencement to receive back payment for the period they would have been entitled to. I know that my little cousin will be entirely happy about hearing this news as he probably grows up old enough to understand it, given that he was too young to speak actual words when he lost his dad.

The bill will also extend household help service payments which are already being received by a worker with an accepted claim where they die as a result of their work-related injury, for six months after their death. Losing a loved one is hard enough. Extending household help services will provide greater assistance with the family’s transition. The family support benefits changes also allow for the payment of overseas funeral costs following a work-related death. This is a recognition that many Victorian workers were not born in Australia and may be repatriated overseas following their death. These amendments are designed to improve outcomes for injured workers and their families, enhance scheme operations and increase WorkSafe’s ability to prevent and respond to workplace safety incidents.

Finally, the bill will amend the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 to strengthen the integrity of the Victorian Legal Services Board, and this bill makes a number of important changes to Victoria’s workplace safety and compensation framework that are entirely necessary for the improved compensation outcomes of families.

There is so much that I could continue to talk about, but I am just going to take a quick moment to speak about the changes in this bill that will ensure that survivors of family violence and sexual assault are not further subjected to trauma when seeking assistance. This bill will also expand the existing rights. I am probably going to have a lot more to say about family violence and sexual assault, but I know there are others that probably will speak to this important change in this bill before us today. I might leave it, knowing of course how very, very important it is and what a significant further step this is in improving the lives and circumstances of survivors of family violence and sexual assault.

Throughout our time in office the Andrews Labor government have demonstrated time and again that we are a government committed to delivering on our promises and delivering the important reforms to keep Victorians safe. It is true to say here with this bill, as with so many others that will be before us this week, that only a Labor government can deliver the crucial reforms in the bill. I am proud to support this bill, and I commend it to the house.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (15:35): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021. This is an omnibus bill that seeks to make a number of changes to various workplace safety and related laws. Most of the changes in the bill are uncontroversial and indeed welcome. In particular the additional mechanisms to support workers who contract silicosis are important reforms. Silicosis is an awful degenerative lung disease that has unfortunately re-emerged in recent years, particularly through the use of manufactured stone in kitchens and bathrooms. Workers and unions have campaigned for greater recognition of the dangers of silicosis in recent years, and the Victorian government has responded with an action plan, including a statewide ban on the uncontrolled dry cutting of materials that contain crystalline silica dust, free screening for stonemasons and an awareness campaign around the risks of working with engineered stone. Silicosis is also now a proclaimed disease, meaning workers or dependants of a worker with silicosis are entitled to compensation without having to prove that work contributed to the disease. The changes in this bill recognise the degenerative nature of silicosis and improve the compensation arrangements for workers with silicosis, including allowing greater flexibility for common-law applications and improving impairment benefit compensation. These are very welcome changes.

However, there is one part of this bill which is controversial, and it is poor form of the government to try and hide such a contentious reform in an omnibus bill like this. Part 5 of this bill seeks to expand the firefighters presumptive rights cancer scheme to workers other than firefighters. To be crystal clear, the Greens support presumptive workers compensation laws for other workers; however, a number of issues have been raised with us in relation to the specific provisions in this bill that we believe deserve more robust consideration, including the potential impacts of the expansion of the firefighters scheme and whether there are alternatives for providing other workers such important protections.

The Greens have a proud history when it comes to presumptive laws for firefighters. The first legislation in Australia was a bill at the federal level initiated by Greens MP Adam Bandt in 2011. It was subject to a robust Senate inquiry, which considered the overwhelming evidence of the higher rates of certain cancers in firefighters due to their exposure to thousands of toxins while fighting fires. The bill passed into law with multipartisan support. Other states soon followed with their own schemes. By 2019 only Victoria and New South Wales did not have such a scheme. My former Victorian Greens colleague in this place Colleen Hartland introduced the first bill for a presumptive scheme for Victorian firefighters back in 2013, and I was here six years later in 2019 very pleased to vote in favour of the firefighters presumptive cancer scheme finally becoming law here in Victoria. Presumptive workers compensation laws hold a special place for the Greens, and that is why we are listening when we hear concerns raised that the integrity of the existing scheme may be compromised by the changes proposed in this bill.

These presumptive laws came into operation after years of campaigning by firefighters and on the basis of a significant body of evidence linking the specific activities of fighting fires to the increased chance of contracting certain cancers. These presumptive laws acknowledge the specific and unavoidable risks firefighters face when they enter burning structures and have exposure to tens of thousands of toxins and carcinogens. They are an acknowledgement that firefighters do what the rest of us do not, which is run towards fires and willingly expose themselves to the risks as they seek to save lives and property. As I said before, we absolutely support vehicle and equipment maintenance workers in Fire Rescue Victoria and the Country Fire Authority having access to a presumptive scheme. We appreciate that these workers can find themselves at firegrounds and exposed to cancer-causing toxins.

I was very glad for the opportunity to speak to Glenn Mumford earlier today about his experiences as a fire services mechanic. However, we are concerned about the potential for the integrity of the existing firefighter scheme to be undermined by incorporating other workers that do not share the same evidence base, and we want to explore whether there are other ways of achieving the same outcome. For example, should workers other than firefighters have their own scheme or use the deeming provisions I mentioned earlier in relation to silicosis? The existing scheme is based on a significant evidence base that was explored in the 2011 Senate inquiry. Indeed the government admits there is no similar evidence base for workers other than firefighters.

In previous debates in respect of the firefighters presumptive scheme Ms Maxwell has raised the issue of female cancers being included in the scheme given women are also firefighters. The government’s response has been to indicate it will look at the issue but that it needs to consider the evidence base further before including other, female-specific cancers. Yet here we have the government rushing through laws expanding the existing presumptive scheme while acknowledging there is no actual substantive evidence base to support such an extension. I am not sure what that says about the government’s commitment to female workers on International Women’s Day. It was less than two years ago that this place legislated the scheme, and there was no intention indicated then concerning expanding the scheme to other workers. If these provisions pass, will there be other fire service workers seeking to be included further down the track, and what cumulative impacts will that have on the scheme?

I repeat that we are supportive of other workers having access to presumptive rights, but the question is: what is the most appropriate mechanism to achieve it? To my mind there are genuine questions to be asked about the way the government has gone about providing presumptive laws for other fire services workers in this bill, which it is now rushing through this Parliament. That is why I indicate that I intend to move a motion, after the second-reading debate, referring part 5 of this bill to a short committee inquiry. The inquiry would consider the potential impacts of the bill on the existing scheme and whether there are alternative ways to ensure other workers can have the protections of a presumptive scheme.

I will not be opposing the bill at the second reading given the majority of the bill provides for important and welcome reforms, but I do believe part 5 of the bill should be subject to greater scrutiny by this Parliament. Firefighters play a very important role in our society, putting themselves at risk every time they fight a fire. We owe it to them to get this right.

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:42): With great pleasure I rise and speak to and support the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021. Working is an essential part of one’s life and one’s wellbeing, and all workers do have the right to work in a safe and protected environment. But incidents happen, workers can be injured and, in some tragic incidents, death can be the result. Our government knows how important it is to support injured workers and their families, and in the case of tragic incidents to support the family left behind.

This bill makes a few amendments to several workplace safety acts to add to our important work in providing support for families and workers. There are several elements. I will mention some of them, but particularly I have some very strong understanding of and emotions about silicosis. It is very much a problem in our community, particularly the Vietnamese community. The first thing is the government’s silica action plan. We are delivering important aspects of it by improving compensation for workers with silicosis and other related or like diseases. We are also underscoring the seriousness of workplace incidents by including a broader range of matters to be notifiable incidents, including infectious diseases and illnesses as well as near misses. We are recognising how difficult a time it can be for families of loved ones who have been killed at work by improving compensation entitlements. Furthermore, the bill also makes changes to the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 to remove barriers to victims applying for assistance from the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, VOCAT. Also an important element of the bill is the extension of presumptive rights coverage to Fire Rescue Victoria and Country Fire Authority vehicle and equipment maintenance employees as well as United Firefighters Union members—professional firefighters—as already enacted. Finally, the bill will also amend the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 to strengthen and maintain the integrity of the Victorian Legal Services Board.

First let me speak briefly about the disease compensation arrangements for silicosis and related lung and respiratory diseases. Silica-related illnesses have a debilitating impact on far too many workers in the stonemasonry industry. As I mentioned, there are a few people that I know of already who have suffered from that dreadful disease, and some have lost their lives. In May 2019 the Andrews Labor government unveiled our nation-leading and comprehensive silica action plan. As you may know, with some of the work done in our kitchens, on our floors and in our bathrooms, those people who are working with engineered stone face the risk of exposure to respirable crystalline silica dust, which can lead and has led to deadly lung and respiratory diseases, including the dreadful silicosis. Since the beginning of last year—already more than a year now—already four workers have died from silica-related illness and WorkSafe Victoria has accepted around 60 claims for silica-related diseases. The workers and their families affected by the debilitating effects of silicosis and similar occupational diseases will be supported by this bill, which will strengthen our occupational health and safety laws to provide more support.

The bill also makes amendments to the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and to the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 to improve the compensation arrangements for workers with silicosis and similar occupational diseases. This is because those workers who are suffering from silicosis at the moment are not able to pursue common-law claims where they have developed further silica-related diseases after an initial award. The current claim process also poses difficulties for workers with progressive disease, including silicosis, in accessing impairment benefit compensation. Because of the nature of their disease, stabilisation normally cannot be demonstrated and they could be subject to rapid deterioration. The bill seeks to address the identified issues now by allowing workers with certain occupational diseases which deteriorate over time and can progress very quickly—in terms of months—to receive further compensation.

The changes in this bill provide for waiving of the current requirements to demonstrate that a disease has stabilised for a period of 12 months for workers with specific diseases in order for them to access impairment benefit compensation. I am proud that we are leading the nation in supporting Victorian workers affected by the terrible risks of crystalline silica.

The next element of the bill I would like to speak to is about the family support benefits. The bill will improve access for and deliver better support to families of deceased workers. It extends weekly pension payments for children from the age of 16 to the age of 25. At the moment under workers compensation legislation a child with a disability is not eligible to receive the child pension after the age of 16. This is very inconsistent, because if full-time students or apprentices are injured, they are eligible for the pension until they reach the age of 25. So the bill will fix that. It also will be partially retrospective in the sense that when the bill has passed and has become an act those people who are between the ages of 16 and 25 will also receive back payments for the period that they would have been entitled to.

The bill also continues household help service payments for a work-related injury for six months after a worker’s death to help the family. The family support benefit changes also allow for the payment of overseas funeral costs following a work-related death. This is because many Victorian workers who are not born in Australia or in Victoria may be repatriated overseas following their death on the wishes of their family.

The bill also makes amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to amend the threshold for the issuing of prohibition notices and directions by WorkSafe inspectors to better protect against and capture serious risk activities. These changes will allow WorkSafe inspectors to prohibit or issue directions related to certain activities which do not pose immediate risks, yet could still lead to serious health and safety consequences. These are ones considered to have cumulative risks, such as those activities which can cause serious exposure to crystalline silica and can lead to serious lifelong illnesses and even death. The changes align with the thresholds that are included in model work health and safety laws in other jurisdictions in Australia. This will help to better protect Victorians from the full range of risks that do exist in the modern workplace and make sure that employers are accountable for their workers’ health, safety and wellbeing.

The bill amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to include a broader range of matters considered to be notifiable incidents. This will allow for a broader range of serious risks to be brought to WorkSafe’s attention, including infectious diseases and illnesses as well as near misses.

In the last few minutes, another important element of the bill is about firefighter presumptive rights amendments. Those who maintain specialist vehicles and equipment for firefighters are an integral part of our fire services, including those on the fireground, where they are exposed to the same risks that career and volunteer firefighters are exposed to. That is why we are extending the compensation available under the Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform) Act 2019. This will apply to employees employed by Fire Rescue Victoria and the Country Fire Authority who have duties involving the mechanical, auto-electrical and fitting and turning maintenance and repair of firefighting vehicles and firefighting equipment.

Another element of the bill is to maintain the integrity of the Victorian Legal Services Board. The board, together with the legal services commissioner, are responsible for regulating and recommending appointment for the legal profession in Victoria, but there is a real risk that lawyers who are subject to integrity concerns or to disciplinary action may be elected to the board, so the bill will strengthen the board’s governance arrangements to ensure that lawyer members of the board are subject to the same robust probity checks as non-lawyer members and that they are not the subject of actual or potential disciplinary action. The board will have the capacity to remove members if they are subject to disciplinary action during their term of office. This is to preserve the legal profession’s interest in VLSB appointees. The Law Institute of Victoria and the Victorian Bar will be asked to nominate candidates for appointment by the Attorney-General.

In the bill there are a few other elements, but I have run out of time. I would like to summarise by saying that the amendments proposed by the bill are designed to improve outcomes for injured workers and their families, to enhance scheme operations and to increase WorkSafe’s ability to prevent and respond to workplace safety incidents. I commend the bill to the house.

Sitting suspended 3.58 pm until 4.18 pm.

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (16:18): I rise to speak on the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021. This bill is another omnibus bill. It makes changes to eight different acts, including extending compensation provisions to allow those with serious silicosis to make a subsequent claim and extending weekly pensions to dependent children of deceased workers until they are 25 years of age if they have a disability or are a full-time student or apprentice.

The bill extends the presumptive cancer rights for firefighters to vehicle and equipment maintenance employees. This is something that we consulted widely on and considered extremely carefully. We understand this will affect around 100 workers, predominantly diesel mechanics or district mechanical officers. I sought clarity on the circumstances in which vehicles are repaired on a fireground and the circumstances in which a worker may be exposed. There have been, and still are, situations where these workers were undoubtedly exposed to cancer-causing chemicals and particles. We recognise the quite unique exposure of firefighters to toxins that has elevated their risk of cancer and that these rights were long pursued and are very important to both career and volunteer firefighters. As I have mentioned before, I lost a dear friend before Christmas who was a longstanding member of the CFA and contracted cancer. He was very grateful for the presumptive rights that he was afforded.

There is some concern, particularly from the United Firefighters Union, that removing the term ‘firefighter’ and replacing it with ‘person’ broadens the scheme. They fear it will be diluted in the process, and I respect that concern. But we have considered that while diesel mechanics may not be in a consistent, active firefighting role, in attending a fireground they may experience exposure to a range of deadly chemicals and toxins. In how the presumptive rights are crafted there are requirements to qualify and rebuttal provisions. While we recognise that there may be very few mechanics that attend firegrounds, if they are exposed to fire and develop cancer they should have presumptive rights to compensation. Let us hope they never have to use them.

Women firefighters have to date been too low in numbers for research to determine the risk of developing female-specific cancers from exposure to fire. However, I am continuing to pursue this with the government, as I strongly feel we should be taking a precautionary approach, a preventative approach, in the interests of fairness and equality and extend the schedule to include female-specific cancers. It would have been a very welcome announcement today, being International Women’s Day. I have undertaken consultation with members of the fire services, unions, volunteers and academics, and there is broad support for this precautionary principle to apply, and it is something I will continue to push for.

I turn now to another important aspect of the bill, which is an amendment to the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996. This bill will prohibit the tribunal giving notice of the time and place of a hearing to a person who committed or is alleged to have committed an act of family violence or certain sexual offences. This is a welcome protection for victims, but we think it should go further, and I will be proposing amendments to extend this to offences of stalking, threats to kill and threats to inflict serious injury. I will be asking for those amendments to be circulated later as we head into the committee of the whole.

The serious offences of stalking or making threats to kill or threats to inflict serious injury can occur within the context of family violence, but they also exist outside of that context. The Victorian Law Reform Commission consultation paper on responses to stalking cited 13 872 offences recorded by police in Victoria, with stalking in the context of family violence reported at only a slightly higher rate than non-family violence stalking. It certainly shows the prevalence.

Similarly, in the eight years to 31 December 2019 more than 66 000 threat offences were recorded by police in Victoria. Nearly two-thirds of those threats were threats to kill, and more than half were associated with family violence. That leaves a substantial proportion that were unrelated to family violence, and we must provide protection and support for those victims in the same way that we protect victims of family violence. Threat offences cause immediate fear but also limit victims’ freedom of choice. Someone who has a fixation on someone, perhaps without even knowing them personally, can wreak havoc on the life of their victim, and we are all very familiar with the death of Celeste Manno. An opportune offender can use the knowledge of a Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal hearing to further offend, such as putting a tracking device on the victim. Simply being in the vicinity of the tribunal can be an act of intimidation. This alone could deter a victim from even making an application.

The new financial assistance scheme will not require tribunal hearings, which I think will be welcome for most victims, and will eliminate this issue. I will talk more about this amendment during the committee stage, but I hope that the chamber will support us in extending this provision a little further for very serious offences that are known to be markers for future violence and give important protection to victims. There are other changes to acts in this bill that I will not refer to now and will leave for other speakers to address. I look forward to asking a few questions in the committee stage. I thank the house.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:25): I rise to make a contribution on this very important bill, the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021. The bill addresses several identified areas for improvement and enhancement across WorkSafe Victoria’s insurance and occupational health and safety functions. It is an omnibus bill, and there are quite a range of different areas that amendments will be going to. I know previous contributors to this debate have touched on some of those areas that are being amended, and I will return to some of those shortly.

The bill will effect changes to disease compensation, changes that will address inadequacies identified during a WorkSafe review of compensation arrangements for workers diagnosed with certain occupational diseases in response to the Victorian government’s silica action plan. It will also enact changes to the threshold for notification of incidents to WorkSafe and the grounds for issuing prohibition notices and directions by inspectors. This will allow for improved responsiveness to risks and hazards and further enhance WorkSafe’s prevention mandates.

In terms of consultation for the bill, I can say that WorkSafe completed confidential discussions with a range of stakeholders to discuss all the proposed changes made by the bill. As I highlighted, this is an omnibus bill and there are a range of amendments going to various aspects. This is just an outline of some of the groups that were consulted. It includes the Australian Industry Group. Many may not know, if you are playing along at home, what the Australian Industry Group is, but it is a rather large employer organisation representing employers in the manufacturing sector and beyond that. It includes the Australian Nursing & Midwifery Federation. As a former industrial officer for the ANMF’s Victorian branch, I can say that I know the nurses are a formidable union and they would have had much interest in these changes in the bill. The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union was also consulted. I am proud to say that I also worked for that union representing workers in the manufacturing sector, and I know how critically important it is to have very strong protections for workers who work in manufacturing and who are exposed to a range of workplace safety issues in the work they do. It has been said before in this place, but every worker deserves to go to work and come home safe.

I will give an anecdote a bit later on and relate a story that one of my colleagues in the other place talked about, the experience of a worker who suffered silicosis and what it is like to be affected by silicosis not only on a physical level but also on a psychological level. This is what this bill will also do. It goes some way to assisting people dealing with the psychological issues around knowing that they have been diagnosed with silicosis, because it is not a very pleasant disease to suffer from. The outcomes are particularly poor. If you have worked in a job where you were a stonemason cutting stone benchtops and the like, those sorts of things, there was a group of workers that were affected and impacted early on by those things. It is not a pleasant thought to know what your final moments might be like, so it is good to make sure that workers are supported appropriately not only physically but also psychologically through the end stages of some of these diseases.

The Australian Workers Union, the CFMMEU, the Community and Public Sector Union, the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Association of Victoria, the Victorian Automotive Chamber of Commerce, the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Victorian Farmers Federation, the Victorian Trades Hall Council and a range of legal outfits, the Transport Accident Commission and other lawyers were also consulted. As you can see, there was a broad cross-section of organisations—employer groups, unions and lawyers—who were consulted in regard to the bill. Consultation has also taken place with the Workplace Incidents Consultative Committee on the family support changes, and their feedback has been included in the development of these amendments.

As I mentioned earlier, these changes are to improve and enhance responses to workplace health and safety. The proposed amendments will take effect regarding the disease compensation arrangements, and the family support benefits will commence on 1 July 2022. A delayed commencement allows sufficient time for systems to be updated and for implementation. Other amendments in the bill are intended to commence the day after the bill receives royal assent.

Just getting back to the issue of silicosis, changes to compensation arrangements for silicosis and prescribed progressive disease include that all costs related to these proposed compensation changes are based on information that was collected in 2019 and during the initial and further reviews into the silicosis compensation arrangements and were updated during the preparation of the bill. The estimated total annual cost of the disease compensation changes to the WorkCover scheme is approximately $4.5 million to $11.6 million per year. The implementation costs of these proposed changes will be negligible as the implementation will require updates to existing policies for agents and WorkSafe staff and will not require the development of new systems or processes. So the total cost will consist of allowing injured workers with silica-related diseases to make one subsequent common-law application for damages if they develop subsequent silica-related disease and has an estimated cost impact of $4.43 million to $14.77 million for liability upon implementation and $0.07 million to $0.72 million for the premium to break even annually. Allowing for impairment benefit payments to be made to injured workers with progressive diseases that have not stabilised is expected to have a cost impact to the scheme as these workers are assumed to already be entitled to benefits. So as you can see there are some mechanisms that need to be put in place to ensure that people who may have been exposed to silicosis can be adequately catered for.

In terms of silicosis claims, in 2020 there were 110 silicosis claims received by WorkSafe agents, the largest number of silicosis-related claims received in a single year. Between 1985 and 2020 a total of 61 silica-related claims were lodged, and 21 of these were lodged in 2019. As at 15 March 2021, there have been 1080 workers registered for the health assessment program, and 709 of these, or 65 per cent, have completed the health screening in full and 520 required a secondary screening referral with a respiratory physician. There have been 132 known positive diagnoses of silicosis, and 80 per cent have had complete screenings. This means that one in every 5.3 workers who have completed the screening process has been diagnosed with silicosis and lodged a claim with WorkSafe. So I guess the thing is that whilst there was a demand for stone benchtops and the like years ago, you can see the trajectory that these things have as people have worked and been exposed to this type of dust. You can see the rate that people have been succumbing to diseases, and I just want to give this anecdote. The surge in demand for stone benchtops in Australian homes, offices and shops since the early 2000s has seen silicosis case numbers rise, and what is more the numbers are likely to push up even further. New evidence is also emerging of the high numbers of workers in non-stonemasonry industries like tunnelling, quarrying and manufacturing who have developed silicosis and other forms of silica disease. Silicosis can indeed take years to develop after the initial exposure time, which means workers only find out they have the disease long after breathing in the dust.

I will just give this anecdote of somebody who worked not directly in the industry but in an associated part of the industry. Joanna McNeill, a 34-year-old Australian mother of two, was diagnosed with silicosis last year after returning to her office job at a quarry. She had contracted the deadly disease dubbed ‘the new asbestosis’ while at her desk. She says not knowing how long she has to live is the hardest part of her battle ahead. Last year she said:

At the moment I am feeling healthy, but I don’t know if that will be the case in one year, let alone five or 10 years and as a mum of two young daughters that terrifies me.

So it is exactly for the reasons like Joanna’s story, to care for her and not only for her but for her family and her children, that these reforms are important, because as she goes on to say, she did not know that just by working in her office job at a quarry she would suffer that kind of exposure. As I said, she does not know how long she has to live, and that is quite a heavy burden for her to bear as somebody who was simply working in an office job.

These reforms are important. These reforms are among a number of reforms the Andrews Labor government has made commitments to working people in Victoria about—things like industrial manslaughter, things like our commitments around wage theft and even things like nurse-to-patient ratios to make sure that nurses and patients are protected. These changes to our workers compensation system will ensure that workers are protected and adequately catered for, because as I said before, workers who simply go to work deserve to come home safe and not to suffer some of these terrible diseases that can come from, as I said, something as simple as people wanting stone benchtops in their kitchen, where working with that type of stone has resulted in these sorts of things.

This is a terribly difficult topic, and I know there will be potentially a lot of workers watching this debate today. It is important. As I said, the legislation that will pass through this chamber today is an omnibus bill—it changes a number of different pieces of legislation—but there are some really excellent things in here to assist workers. Workers compensation is a sadly necessary thing that we need to have as a scheme. As I said, people get injured at work, and it is something that needs to be there to adequately help and assist workers and their families.

I will leave my contribution there. I know there will be many more questions perhaps in the committee stage of the bill; there will be other speakers who may well give more detailed contributions in this debate today. What I will say is I would commend this bill to the house. Some crossbench members may have some amendments, but I think the bill in its current form should remain unamended. As I said, I will leave my contribution there and commend this bill to the house without amendment.

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (16:37): I also rise to speak on the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021. I will try not to repeat some of the comments made by previous speakers detailing what sorts of changes we are making to the existing legislation, but it is quite an important area this bill is looking at: amending and fine-tuning the current legislation to make things much easier for injured workers to be able to access workers compensation and also enable WorkSafe Victoria inspectors—and there are some elements I will come to later on—to do their job to make sure workers are safe, to make sure workers, when they go to work, are able to go home in the same condition. I think that is very important.

WorkSafe inspectors can issue a provisional notice to cease work currently—for example, if there is an immediate danger to the health or safety of workers. The amendment talks about enabling a notice when there is the potential to lead to a safety risk or a health risk, so basically providing that extra layer or extra flexibility by providing for our health and safety reps and WorkSafe inspectors being able to do that. Sometimes there is a fine line, and I have witnessed that in my previous job; there is always an argument between employers, workers, unions and even WorkSafe inspectors in relation to what the level of danger or risk is in a particular workplace when there is an incident. That has created a lot of debate where health and safety representatives could issue a provisional notice to cease work, for example, and the employer’s view is that there is no immediate risk.

But there is potential risk, and WorkSafe inspectors will have to adjudicate between the health and safety representatives and the employers in trying to find a solution. Some employers might turn around and say, ‘There’s no immediate risk, so therefore we don’t need to stop work’. The risk is that if that argument is accepted in some instances accidents or incidents do occur and people get hurt. These changes I think give flexibility to WorkSafe inspectors so that if they are satisfied that there is a potential risk, they will make that judgement.

In my experience WorkSafe inspectors have over the years had really good judgement. They do not want to put businesses out of business and they do not want to put workers at risk either. They are always looking for the happy medium, mindful that business needs to continue to operate in a safe manner, because in the back of their mind they want to make sure workers are safe in the workplace. I want to use this opportunity to give them a shout-out and say they have been doing a great job in the last whatever period of time. I know there have been a lot of investments in recent times by the Andrews Labor government to increase the number of inspectors to make sure WorkSafe has enough resources to do its job. I want to pay tribute to the wonderful work that WorkSafe inspectors do on behalf of Victorians. I know in my previous life I did not always agree with some of their decisions, but most of the time they get it right. I also want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the health and safety reps, who do voluntary work and do tremendous work in keeping workers safe.

The other part of the bill talks about giving access to workers in relation to silica. In May 2019 the Andrews Labor government unveiled a nation-leading and comprehensive silica action plan. Silica-related diseases have a huge impact on workers. Ms Terpstra was touching on that earlier. I know unions have been campaigning for many, many years to make sure that is covered through a number of things. We all have beautiful Caesarstone in our kitchens—these wonderful benchtops and so forth—but we forget one thing—

Mr Ondarchie: Is it named after you, Caesarstone?

Mr MELHEM: Apparently so, Mr Ondarchie. We forget one thing: a lot of workers have suffered a great deal in cutting these benches, because most of it is engineered stone, and they die from it. They develop a horrible disease and then they die from it. So I am pleased with the action plan we have put in place. We have banned some of that work and we have introduced some strict rules and regulations to make sure we are not further exposing workers to that horrible disease. I am pleased with the changes.

We also need to recognise that it is not just about preventing disease. In my view good health and safety legislation is designed to prevent injury and prevent diseases in workplaces. That should be our number one priority: prevention. We should not be focusing on saying, ‘You’ll be right. You’ll get yourself killed or lose an arm or develop a cancer or whatever from work, and then we’ll just pay you or pay your family’. That should not be the focus. Our number one priority should be about preventing these injuries and diseases to make sure we do not put workers in harm’s way. But we know we cannot have zero injuries and zero diseases. We would love to. A lot of companies in a lot of jurisdictions work towards zero harm. But from time to time unfortunately people get injured and people develop diseases. In that unfortunate situation we need to make sure that there is enough compensation in whatever scheme we have got in place to make sure we look after these injured workers or people who develop those injuries.

Also one of the areas the bill talks about is looking after the children who are dependent on the injured person. It is currently set at age 16, and that will be extended to 25. I think that is a welcome change as part of this legislation in relation to the family support benefit which as my colleague has spoken about is an anomaly now. I am pleased it has been fixed so we can look after the children of these injured workers or workers who actually develop these diseases. The bill also will continue the household help services payment already being received by a worker with an accepted claim where they die as a result of their work-related injury, for six months after their death—so we are basically looking after the people left behind. I think that is a welcome change.

I did speak earlier about the prohibition notices, so I will not go into those again. But incident notifications; that is another area. The bill will amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to include a broader range of matters considered to be notifiable incidents. That again is another grey area. At the moment, if you have an incident, how severe is that incident? What is the threshold, the trigger, to notify WorkSafe? I mean, I would probably go too far in saying any near misses should be notifiable, but on the other hand people say, ‘Look, you don’t want to go and inundate WorkSafe for every near miss you might have’. But I think it is important to actually expand on the current list, and this bill will do that.

For example, infectious diseases and illnesses is an important one. There has been a lot of debate in the last two-and-a-bit years about COVID-19 and where WorkSafe responsibility comes in and where Department of Health responsibility comes in. Even in this chamber there have been a lot of questions by the opposition to government in relation to that: whose responsibility is it—is it the health minister’s, is it the WorkSafe minister’s—and which department is it? I think clarifying that—even in workplaces or companies where there is a bit of confusion about whether or not there are health directions and who administers them; so, what the employer’s responsibility is—is important.

But I go back to the near misses and increasing the definition of ‘near misses’, because you could have a near miss and an employer could think, sometimes with good intention—I do not think any employer, any human being, would wake up one morning and go to work when they are operating a business and say, ‘I’m going to hurt someone today; I’m going to cause the crane to collapse and kill someone’. No-one does that. You would have to be a psycho to do that—and unfortunately we have them from time to time. But the important thing is I think 99.99 per cent of employers and managers want to do the right thing. No-one would want to wake up one morning and say, ‘I’m going to go and injure a worker’. But it is important not to downplay some of the near misses, so that will get fixed as part of this.

The other changes, which I will address in the last few minutes, are in relation to the Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform) Act 2019, which has caused a lot of angst amongst firefighters and amongst people in this state—and I know it is a very emotional issue. What I say in relation to this is: I want to congratulate all the firefighters who have fought hard for many, many years to actually get presumptive rights put in place. I am so proud to be a part of this government, the Andrews Labor government, who actually introduced that bill to this house. We made it legislation. And I remember my colleague on this side Colleen Hartland. We did not agree on a lot of things, but that is one thing I want to acknowledge: the good work she did in that space to make sure we got that.

But where I disagree with the United Firefighters Union is denying the 90-odd maintenance workers or mechanics access to that. Whilst I understand the emotion behind some of the arguments, I think this bill addresses the issue that there are 90 or so mechanics who should be able to access that. At the moment every firefighter is entitled to access that scheme, including volunteers, including forest firefighters. There are certain criteria you still have to meet to access the fund, so I am not sure about the argument that this could deplete that fund. I do not think the argument is there. I understand there is emotion about it—I respect that—but I think it is the right change and the right amendment to make sure we are not leaving these people behind. I come from a background where you do not leave workers behind, you do not leave any worker behind. It does not matter who won the benefit in the first place. I think these workers are entitled to access that. Hopefully no-one will access it. I go back to the point I made earlier: a scheme should not be designed around ‘If something happens to you, well, don’t worry. We’ll just pay you or pay your family compensation’. It is about preventing it from happening in the first place. That is the best tool we can use and deploy to make sure no-one needs to access any compensation. But unfortunately I live in the real world, and people get injured from time to time or develop diseases because of their occupations, and when the need arises they should be compensated and looked after.

With these comments I commend the bill to the house. I want to commend Minister Stitt for the good work she has done in this space to make sure we have some fairness in the workplace.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (16:51): I too rise to speak on the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021, and it is with great pride that I do so. Over the many pieces of legislation that we have dealt with in this place during my time, I can say that our focus, our attention on the rights of workers to go to work and, importantly, to go home at the end of their working day, however long that is, regardless of occupation, has been something that has been very prevalent in this government’s reform agenda over the last few years, and it is a very proud record. What we have before us today with this omnibus bill continues that proud record.

It is no secret that a few of us on this side of the house have worked for unions. That is amongst other occupations we have had, but I know people like to focus on that. Certainly workplace safety, worker safety, is not the purview of the union movement, but I have got to say that the union movement do a lot of heavy lifting in this space. All of us who have worked in the union movement have seen the devastation of workplace injury on working people and their families, particularly when those injuries could have been avoided, when something could have been done to prevent that injury happening in the first place. We have all got those stories in our knapsack.

Mr Ondarchie: Be careful with the heavy lifting, that’s all.

Mr GEPP: Yes. We have all got those stories in our knapsack, and they are not stories that you want to revisit too often in your mind because a lot of them are stories of tragedy. In my own time with my union, the CPSU, when I was the national divisional secretary for community services and employment we had Centrelink workers in my portfolio. The workplace abuse that Centrelink workers used to confront and the complexities of the social security scheme that they had to administer and what that brought about for them in the workplace—you might think, ‘Well, what could possibly have gone wrong?’, but there were incidents with distraught people who were really trying to get ahead and just keep their noses above water but were running into obstacle after obstacle in terms of the Social Security Act 1991 and resorting to desperate measures in order to demonstrate their plight. The impact that that had on the workers that I was privileged to represent for a quarter of a century was extremely difficult. Customs workers, immigration workers, meat inspectors—all of those—are not occupations that you would necessarily normally associate with workplace injury, but nonetheless it was there.

It permeates throughout our state and our nation. Every worker at some point is confronted by either an injury to themselves or perhaps an injury to a colleague. It could be physical or it could be a mental health injury. It can take on many, many different forms. Any advance from my perspective, in terms of advancing the cause of workers to ensure that workers go to work and come home safely to their private lives, whatever that private life looks like, is very, very important.

I think a lot of people in this place would have grown up with a system that was designed to put obstacles in front of you. If you were injured in the workplace, not only did you have to confront whatever injury you had incurred in terms of carrying out your job but you then had all of the added obstacles put in place to make life even more difficult for you. As I said, I am very, very proud that our government has been focused completely differently on this issue of workplace safety. We have been about prevention and support.

I think it was Ms Terpstra who in her contribution said that even if it is things like nurse-to-patient ratios, these things have an enormous impact on the health and wellbeing of nurses. So it can be an omnibus bill like this or it can be other measures that we put in place—laws that are put in place where employers who do the wrong thing are held to account. As I said, for too long in the workplace safety system it was the worker who was presumed to be the guilty one, and when they were injured they had to try and navigate a system that was particularly difficult. This bill again continues our very proud area of reform by advancing some of those issues.

Many of the matters covered by the bill have been talked about by others, but there are a couple that I just want to touch on. Silica—who knew, as Mr Melhem said, what the outcome of kitchen stone would lead to? It is a devastation that we now know exists in the injury and the horrible, horrible, horrible disease, silicosis, that results, and the impact on the workers who contract this horrible disease and their families as well—their children, their partners, their parents, their brothers and their sisters who have to stand by and just watch their loved one suffer. I am proud that the Andrews Labor government unveiled in 2019 our nation-leading comprehensive silica action plan.

Tragically, as has been mentioned already, four people have died from silica-related illnesses since the beginning of last year, and WorkSafe Victoria, I think, has something in the order of 60 claims for silica-related diseases.

We have got to do better. We have to do better in this space; we have got to do better. We cannot say that for our kitchens to look better, it is okay for workers to die and suffer terrible health problems—all in the name of aesthetically pleasing kitchens. We have got to do much better. And we have got to support—and this bill will support—our OH&S laws to provide more support to those workers affected by silicosis and other similar occupational diseases.

We of course know that the bill will also make amendments to the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 to improve compensation arrangements for workers with silicosis and, as I said, similar diseases, and these amendments will also allow injured workers with silica-related diseases to make a common-law application for damages where they suffer a subsequent silica-related disease. I would find it difficult to think that anybody in this place could possibly object to or oppose that.

I am very pleased that in the last 20 years part of the conversation that has gone on, not only in this place but across the nation, when it has come to workplace safety has been on the impact on families. It is so important that we are able to support families with benefits where they have had a loved one that has died because of a workplace injury or incident. I am pleased that this bill does that. Mr Melhem touched on the prohibition notices and directions, so I will not go into those.

Very briefly on the firefighter presumptive rights amendments, I was the senior adviser to government when that work was done. I commended at the time the firefighters union and the firefighters who had campaigned for many a long day to be recognised for the risks that they face in their everyday work. That was the focus of the work that we did back then, but it was also apparent to everybody when that bill was introduced that there are other workers in the firefighting system who are also exposed to the risk of particular types of cancers in carrying out their duties. It was clear I think and inevitable that at some point there would be more of a deep dive into the potential impacts on those workers.

As has been said, there are about 90 in addition to the firefighters. This is not a diminution of rights for firefighters—far from it. There is no loss of benefit, no loss of right, no loss of entitlement for firefighters, and nor should there be. We absolutely stand firm and committed with our firefighters to ensure that their workplaces are as safe as we can make them, bearing in mind the difficult work that they do. So there is no reduction in entitlement for our firefighters at all. And indeed, even with the extension of this legislation to the other 90 workers that this would cover, they still have to make a claim under the act, as does a firefighter. And let us not forget that for them to make a claim they have to have been diagnosed with cancer, and if a medico points to their duties as being the presumptive cause of their cancer, then we should be looking after them.

I will conclude my remarks there. As I said, I am very proud of the bill. I am very proud, and I commend the minister for her work on this bill, and I commend the government more broadly in terms of its focus—our focus—on the rights of workers to go home every day after their work is completed to their loved ones. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:05): I am also very happy along with my colleagues to speak on these very important amendments, and like Mr Gepp, I also represented workers. I represented them with pride. But I also understand the incredible—but measured—risks that are associated with the work they do and the importance of making sure that we mitigate the risks that they are exposed to in their workplaces. I also understand the human side, as I would hope everyone in the chamber would, of people who are doing the hard work on our behalf every day of the week, including if they are at risk of things such as silicosis, which is obviously a devastating disease that can have extraordinary—and not in a good way—ramifications for the worker and of course their family, because when we are thinking about workers we are not just thinking about them. We are thinking about their colleagues, we are thinking about the people that they work with, because a workplace is as good as the people that you connect with in that space, that you rely on every day, and usually you share much more than just the work that you do. You also give each other advice and support on so many matters in your life. There is a socialisation aspect to it as well, and there is pride in your place of work and making sure that you really do deliver. I know that the workers that I used to represent took tremendous pride in being able to acquit the various KPIs that they had as part of the very important work that they did as well.

From that point of view, I guess with the place I am coming from there are probably two key points that I would say. It is, one, understanding the tremendous responsibility that workers bear every day in their workplaces; but, two, also having that compassion and understanding for the impact that a workplace can have. It can be very positive, but of course there are risks, and when things do not go as planned then it comes back to all of us as a community at the end of the day. So that is why it is so important to drive these kinds of transformative changes to make sure that we really are looking after fellow Victorians at the end of the day.

I was a little bit concerned about a question about integrity. Why would we risk integrity in terms of being able to deliver appropriate outcomes for workers? I was a little bit taken aback by some of that commentary, because I know my colleagues, at least those that I can speak for in this chamber, take tremendous pride in doing everything we can to appropriately represent Victorian workers in their workplaces, so it would go against our DNA fundamentally to put any of that at risk. That is just not who we are as a Labor Party and as the Andrews Labor government, I can assure you. That is why there has been, of course, due diligence in the preparation of this legislation—the consultation in the lead-up to these reforms that we are bringing through today. So I just want to put that to the chamber. I know I have put it in a very simplistic manner, but I think that fundamentally if you look at our record for legislative change and reform when it comes to protecting workers, it is not just words, it is actual and recorded changes that we have made to mitigate the risks of workers being injured but also to make sure that they are appropriately supported in the event that something happens in their workplace that is not to their betterment—workplace manslaughter, for instance. We are the party that brought the legislative changes through this chamber. We are very proud of that, and we are very proud of the many unions who have advocated on behalf of their workers and helped to support those incredible changes, sharing stories of workers unfortunately who have endured things that they should not have had to endure along the way. Nevertheless, they are part of this important story, and it does not stop today. We are building constantly on these reforms.

I think Mr Gepp was talking about the premise of the firefighters presumptive legislation per se: we were all in this chamber, and I think it was a very emotional moment when we brought about those changes. The legislative reform was evolving before I came to Parliament, so I am not claiming the glory of it, but it was very—‘nice’ is probably not the correct word—rewarding to be part of that moment in this chamber when those reforms were initially being brought through. Of course they have to be brought through progressively as we examine the various mechanisms that are required in order to make sure workers get the entitlements that they deserve.

I was talking earlier about, and I think a number of my colleagues have mentioned it, the mechanical side of it. I am going to go a little bit out of my comfort zone here, because I am obviously not the most practical person in my working experiences. But I understand, for instance, when mechanics are having to repair fire trucks they not infrequently have to do it in situ, and therefore they can be very much at risk of exposure in a similar vein to firefighters who are on site. Also I understand that with the firefighters’ foam that is used to put out fires, which obviously has risks itself, they can be exposed to that in quite a concentrated format. I will walk into some areas where I am not an expert, having not done it myself, but I think broadly speaking you can understand that the point that I am trying to convey, however inarticulately, is that I respect and appreciate the risks that workers can face. I have tremendous respect for the fact that they are having to do things that are required in the sense, for instance, that a fire truck, when you are addressing a very dangerous situation, has to keep working, so you cannot simply say, ‘Oh, well, we’ll repair it tomorrow. We’ll repair it next week’, because that might mean the end of being able to address that very acute situation. I have absolute respect for those who put their lives at risk for all our safety and benefit at the end of the day.

Just to emphasise, with these reforms there is no loss of entitlement. It comes back to there should be no question mark about integrity, and I am repeating that because it did really land very heavily. But I do want to reiterate and to reassure that we are very much and continue to be committed to the safety of workers and in this context to those who are relevant to this legislation that we are bringing through the Parliament today.

Just to summarise what this bill will achieve, the bill will make amendments to the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, the Accident Compensation Act 1985, the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 and the Equipment (Public Safety) Act 1994 to deliver tailored compensation arrangements for workers with silicosis and similar occupational diseases and deliver on aspects of the government’s silica action plan; amend the requirements relating to the issuing of prohibition notices and directions to better respond to serious risk activities; and improve entitlements for the families of deceased workers. This comes back to what I was saying before: it is never just about the worker, it is also about all those that that worker is connected with and all those lives that can be changed for the better or for the worse depending on the nature of the injury that that particular worker suffers, and indeed in the case of a deceased worker that would be the worst outcome of all. The bill will also include a broader range of matters to be considered notifiable incidents, clarify funding arrangements for infringement notices and make technical and procedural amendments to the WIRC act.

I should emphasise: I do not want anything to be taken away from the fact—and I think there is risk of that with a little bit of the discussion that has been in the chamber—that these amendments are designed to improve outcomes for injured workers, let there be no mistake about that, enhance scheme operations and increase WorkSafe Victoria’s ability to prevent and respond to workplace safety incidents. It is an inherent net positive. Obviously reform is a continuum; it is not a static state, so let me put that little caveat. But in some of the interaction I have heard here there has been some querying about what this will deliver. Well, let it be known it is designed to improve outcomes for injured workers. I do not think anything in any way should resile from that outcome with the delivery of these reforms here today.

The bill will also amend the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 in relation to the conducting of hearings by the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal to prohibit alleged offenders from being notified of or attending hearings in matters of family violence or sexual offending.

Just to round off so that I am being thorough, the bill also amends the Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform) Act 2019. It extends presumptive rights coverage to Fire Rescue Victoria and the Country Fire Authority vehicle and equipment maintenance employees, changes the method for calculating eligibility qualifying periods to count a part year of service as a full year of service and allows periods of service as an FRV, CFA or forest firefighter or as a vehicle and equipment maintenance employee to be combined. The bill also amends the Forests Act 1958 to allow periods of service as vehicle and equipment maintenance employee to be combined with the qualifying period of forest firefighters.

So it is incredibly comprehensive. I do not think I am saying anything that anyone in this chamber is not aware of, but suffice to say I think that you can see from what has been transacted already in the chamber that we are very much in earnest here. We are absolutely on the side of workers, and to suggest otherwise in any way really is incorrect and inappropriate. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (17:17): I rise to speak in favour of this very, very important omnibus bill before us. It touches on a number of areas of law that many in this chamber are very passionate about. I thank some of the previous speakers for their contributions that I have had the pleasure of listening to: Ms Taylor, Mr Gepp, Ms Terpstra and many others that have contributed to the debate already. It is a bill which focuses on a number of areas, probably the most prominent being issues around workplace safety and entitlement to compensation but also other integrity measures in place at the moment as well that probably have not been discussed at length and which I might start off with and touch upon, such as strengthening the integrity of the Victorian Legal Services Board. This is a matter that is obviously very close to me as a lawyer and as someone who has practised.

For people that may not be aware, the Victorian Legal Services Board and the Victorian legal services commissioner together are responsible for regulating the Victorian legal profession in accordance with the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014. The board has powers and responsibility for many vital functions under the uniform law, including licensing, compliance audits of trust moneys and trust accounts, interventions into failing law practices, applying for injunctions and civil penalty orders, filing criminal charges to enforce the uniform law and managing the Public Purpose Fund. It is the peak body that regulates the legal profession.

What these amendments will do is replace the current process of electing the lawyer members to the board with a Governor in Council appointment process similar to the one used to appoint non-lawyer members to the board and extend the Governor in Council’s power to remove board members to establish a direct link with a lawyer member’s legal practice. The amendments will not alter the appointment process for the chairperson or the non-lawyer members.

What is the current process for appointing members to the board? It is important to understand what we have and what we will be moving towards. The board consists of seven members, including one chairperson appointed by the Governor in Council on the Attorney-General’s recommendation, three non-lawyer members appointed by the Governor in Council on the Attorney-General’s recommendation, and three lawyer members elected by the legal profession. The appointed non-lawyer members and chairperson are subject to robust probity checks in line with the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s appointment and remuneration guidelines. These amendments change the composition of the board. The number of board members remains the same, being one chairperson, three non-lawyers and three lawyer members. The amendments do not change the appointment process for the chairperson or the non-lawyer members in that they are appointed by the Governor in Council, so there is no change for them.

For the lawyers that are on this board there is an important change. These amendments improve the governance arrangements by making sure that they are subject to the same robust probity checks as non-lawyer members of the board. That is very important.

What kind of probity and integrity checks are we talking about? We are talking about common concepts that we would be familiar with—issues such as conflict of interest, issues of disciplinary proceedings and other matters that may be of concern and may bring the board into disrepute. We are making sure that they are subject to the same robust probity checks, that they are not the subject of actual or potential disciplinary action at the time of their appointment and that they can be removed from the board by the Governor in Council if they are subject to disciplinary action during their term of office. Disciplinary action is taken against a lawyer by the commissioner at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal following a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct. That is very important because right now the mechanisms and the legal process in place may not be clear. This is making sure there is a clear process for removal if someone is in that position.

Why can’t improved governance be achieved through introducing integrity requirements into the election process? That is important to understand. Adopting an appointment process will provide consistency with the appointment process for other members of the board. I think it is important that everyone on the board has gone through the same rigid process. The appointment process will ensure that all members of the board have the appropriate skills and experience to perform the board’s important statutory functions. It also provides an opportunity for the Attorney-General to improve the diversity of the board. I think that is an important thing, being International Women’s Day, but also diversity encompasses different abilities, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds—a range of factors. As a government we are proud of our record in addressing issues of equality across the board, and I think this is another avenue for us to implement that in practice.

Will the legal profession still have a say in the composition of the board? Of course they will. The amendments provide that the Law Institute of Victoria will nominate six candidates, the Victorian Bar will nominate three and the Attorney-General will recommend two solicitors and one barrister from these nominations for appointment by the Governor in Council. So effectively the LIV, being the peak body for lawyers in this state, and the Victorian Bar, the peak body for barristers, will put forward nine candidates, and then the Attorney-General will pick out three from those nine, so it will still be reflective of the peak bodies’ wishes because in the end if they were not happy they would not be putting forward those candidates. It is intended that the Attorney-General will develop appointment criteria for the LIV and the bar to use publicly to call for nominations from amongst their members. This will provide the legal profession with access to the nomination process.

It is important to ask the question: will the amendments change the eligibility requirements for lawyers to sit on the board? No, they will not. The existing requirements are that you must be a lawyer, be based in Victoria, have held a licence for five years, hold a current practising certificate and have a minimum of five years experience. That will remain the same. As an appointed member you will just be subjected to the additional probity checks regarding conflicts of interest and other considerations regarding any disciplinary matters on foot.

Why does the Governor in Council require further powers to remove board members? Currently the Governor in Council can remove any board member if they are of the opinion that the member is guilty of improper conduct in carrying out the duties of his or her office. This would not allow the Governor in Council to remove a lawyer member if there is improper conduct in their legal practice. The amendments will extend the Governor in Council’s power to remove a lawyer member or the chairperson if they are also a lawyer if they are subject to disciplinary action during their term of office. That is very important.

In introducing these reforms and incorporating them into this omnibus bill these amendments have been developed in consultation with the board and the commissioner, and we have also consulted the LIV and the Victorian Bar. This is an important reform. It is another integrity measure that this government is introducing, and I felt that this needed to be touched upon and reflected upon in this debate.

Obviously a significant part of this reform is about workplace safety, and I see Minister Stitt in front of me. She is doing amazing work in workplace safety, and there have been a number of bills that I have already had the opportunity to contribute on in terms of debate in this chamber before. We have had changes to the arbitration system. Anyone that understands the WIRC act—the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013—will know it is an important forum. Before people go to the court system when they have a dispute regarding their entitlement to weekly payments or medical and like expenses, they go to the ACCS—the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service. That is where these disputes are held. The previous process was that when a dispute was not resolved it would end up either at a medical panel or, in some cases, in the Magistrates Court. We understand the challenges of the court system, the time and costs of that process and the stress with any form of litigation. To prevent that our government introduced an arbitration model, and that model was quite popular with many of the stakeholders and has been implemented.

But that is not the only reform that has already been implemented by this government. Also we had reforms to allow provisional payments—so, early access to treatment for workers with mental injury claims; that was another great reform—but also industrial reforms, such as wage theft and workplace manslaughter laws, which were key parts of our platform about workplace safety, about workers rights. And I think this bill is part of that. It is an extension of that. It is our commitment to workplace safety, to extending those rights to other workers who have been greatly affected. Obviously I am talking about the firefighters presumptive rights compensation and fire services legislation. It extends coverage to Fire Rescue Victoria and Country Fire Authority vehicle and equipment maintenance employees. It is common sense, if people are working in similar circumstances and are exposed to similar hazards, that they be protected from I guess any disease that is subsequent to that exposure. I think there are a number of my colleagues who have touched on the technical elements of that bill. Suffice to say I wish to express my strong support also because it is not about taking away any rights, it is about extending rights to other workers in the same circumstances.

That is what we want to see. We want to see safer workplaces but also more accessible compensation. You need to understand that for many workers who suffer from these kinds of diseases we are not talking about sums of money that will return them to health, but actually it provides to a certain extent a level of safety net for their loved ones, because the conditions they are suffering from in most cases will be terminal or quite serious, and so their quality of life will be greatly affected regardless of the amount of compensation they receive. This compensation will provide some surety to their loved ones, to their dependants that rely on them. So I think that is why it is so crucial that we do not wait and that we move ahead with this reform as soon as possible.

It is great to hear that many of the speakers are in support of this bill, because it is so important to those workers that will be affected. The minister in the past has stated that she does not believe it will be a large amount of people that are affected annually, but nonetheless it is important because of how serious these injuries and diseases can be. It makes a number of reforms, in effect making the presumption process more straightforward. I will not add to that discussion, because we have had a significant contribution from colleagues in this chamber.

There are a number of other elements to this bill that are important, such as victim support, building on the Victorian Law Reform Commission review. This government has committed to adopting all the recommendations and those reforms in relation to that. There are a number of other workplace safety and OH&S legislative changes also that are incorporated in this omnibus bill. On that note I just wish to express my support for the bill, and I commend it to the house.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (17:28): There has been a lot said in the course of the debate on this bill, but to me it has identified three key things. On the one hand we have the importance of prevention and of education as it relates to workplace health and safety. On the other hand we have response to the way in which injury occasioned in the course of work is addressed and the recourse which is available or indeed has not been available in certain tragic circumstances to victims of exposure. And finally, we have the issues that we grapple with here today—namely, government responsibility and accountability in the way in which such workplace health and safety considerations, risks and recourse are made available to victims of workplace injury.

There are a couple of other things in this bill which I will turn to when it comes to my contribution here today, but I note that they have been touched upon by other contributors in the course of this debate, most recently Mr Erdogan in what he has said around legal practice and the way in which appointments can occur.

I want to address the issue of silicosis first and foremost. Silicosis is a risk and indeed a disease that is occasioned through exposure to silica dust, most often in the course of construction and mining. What it does is work its way into a condition known as pulmonary fibrosis. This causes scar tissue on the lungs, which in and of itself is not able to be cured. The problems associated with silicosis are many and varied. It is an enormously distressing disease, and whilst impacts can be lessened with certain treatments such as lavage of the lungs, it is not ordinarily something which can be managed in the long term. Where exposure is frequent and prolonged, silicosis is terminal. When we look at construction and mining as being one of the five industries or sectors in which workplace deaths occur most frequently it stands to reason that we build upon the silicosis response plan by addressing the way in which prohibition notices can be issued and the way in which targeted work can be undertaken to improve the compensation arrangements for workers with silicosis and other like diseases.

I spoke on the importance of addressing silicosis as a workplace, industrial and, in many cases, domestic consideration relating to disease back in 2011, and we have come a long way since then. But WorkSafe Victoria needs the relevant tools in order to prevent serious injury—as I said, that permanent scarring on the lungs—by changing the threshold by which prohibition notices can be issued. It is also important that we recognise the seriousness of workplace incidents, including near misses which make up for a proportion of matters that contribute overall to a riskier workplace through a culture of recklessness, or indeed a failure to disclose near misses when and as they occur, that quite often does lead to, directly or indirectly, the consequence of injury and all too often serious injury.

The other theme that I touched upon as the second matter that I want to focus on in my contribution today relates to a response to work-related injury. This bill seeks to clarify and to streamline the response that is available to people who sustain a workplace injury such as that which I have described and which also, as I will go to shortly, arises in the course of emergency response and that frontline service delivery in the course of exposure to toxic materials.

The changes that we are making in relation to silica and the action plan there recognise the longstanding history of exposure for workers in construction, including in the stonemason industry. It also identifies that we have got a long way to go in better supporting and assisting people, including within the DIY framework—people who actually work in their own homes with exposure to silicosis occasioned through frequently handling over a long period of time of granite and other aggregate materials. We all remember James Hardie and the work that it did consistently and at great cost to undermine the cases of people like Bernie Banton in seeking access to compensation. There were too many tragic circumstances involving people dying without access to compensation, and Mr Banton’s work, his life’s work, to establish that compensation fund is one of the reasons why we are so committed to continuing to address work-related risk as it stands and as it arises in the course of exposure to toxic materials.

We want to make sure also that when we strengthen our occupational health and safety laws we provide more support to workers and their families affected by the effects of silicosis and other occupational diseases. Changes to the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 are also designed to improve the compensation arrangements for workers with silicosis. We want to make sure that workers are not disadvantaged, in comparison to the current situation where they are barred from pursuing a common-law claim after they develop further silica-related diseases following an initial award. We are in a position to allow injured workers with those silica-related diseases to make that common-law application for damages if they develop a subsequent silica-related condition.

We also need to streamline the current claims process. Many other speakers have gone to this particular refinement and the amendments that passage of this bill will facilitate. Making sure that we are in a position to provide swift assistance and compensation to injured workers is a crucial part of these legislative reforms, and this is where the waiver for the current requirement to demonstrate that a disease has stabilised for a period of 12 months for workers with specific diseases to access impairment benefit compensation will play a key role. There will be greater support for Victorians, as others have noted, who receive a lung transplant due to work-related injury, and we will extend compensation for counselling services to families of workers who are diagnosed with an eligible disease.

We want to make sure in all that we do that we are addressing well, thoroughly and diligently the risks associated with crystalline silica. This is done through a combination of education and prevention, on the one hand, and response, on the other. Hopefully, as the former category of education and prevention is upscaled, as the prohibition notice framework continues to evolve and to grow over time, we will see fewer cases of crystalline silicosis arising, fewer instances of people with that lung scar tissue for which there is no cure.

Families of deceased workers, as others have noted, will also be able to access better support, with weekly pension payments for children with disability to be extended from the age of 16 to the age of 25. This is a relatively common theme now in the context of improving access to entitlements for young people who age out of a certain category. To that end, we are really proud to have worked for a really long time on increasing the age from 16 to 18, to 21 and to 25 across a range of different government initiatives. This initiative is no different. We want to make sure that there are improved compensation entitlements to families of deceased workers, and the partial retrospective operation of these changes means that eligible dependants who are between the ages of 16 and 25, upon commencement of this act, will receive back payments for the period for which they would otherwise have been entitled under operation of this legislation as amended.

Household help service payments will be continued for a worker with an accepted claim where they die as a result of their work-related injury for six months after their death. Again this is in stark contrast to the work that was done by so many advocates and their families in response to the James Hardie asbestos exposure matters, which went between various jurisdictions—which went through the courts at great cost and great anguish and trauma for those involved—before finally reaching unsatisfactory conclusions, in many instances, that resulted in partial or full revocation of compensation payments well after the fact.

Prohibition notices and directions I have dealt with in the course of my earlier contribution on this bill, so I do not wish to dwell on that particular component of the bill or indeed on incident notification, which in essence requires a disclosure to WorkSafe, which in essence then extends WorkSafe’s awareness and capacity to act to a greater number of circumstances.

We want to in the course of this bill also amend access to presumptive rights. This is an issue which has attracted an enormous amount of attention, and there are a few things that I want to put on the record with the time that I have available today. I, like so many others in this place and in Parliaments that have preceded us here, have fought as long and as hard as I can—as we can—for a recognition of the inherent danger of firefighting and of frontline response. I have been part, as others have in this place, of numerous inquiries into the risks attendant in fire and emergency response and in relation to systemic reform and overall structural change of fire services and fire safety in Victoria.

Through the course of those inquiries it has been persistently clear to me that no worker should be left out when it comes to recognition of the inherent risk associated with firefighting activities where there is an exposure to toxic chemicals or substances which leads to a diagnosis of one of a specifically listed number of cancers. We enacted the presumptive rights legislation framework as part of our overall commitment to an improved, safer, stronger and more adaptive fire services and fire rescue system across Victoria. The amendments that are being proposed by this bill include vehicle and equipment maintenance employees who suffer from those specified cancers and allow them to rely upon a presumption that it was indeed their work that caused the cancer in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

I note the concerns raised by stakeholders in a range of different forums. Particularly I note the concerns raised by the United Firefighters Union (UFU), which indicate great concern about a potential erosion of the scheme should there be a change in government, which will adversely impact upon the rights of firefighters to access the presumptive rights scheme in the event that they are diagnosed with one of the specified cancers. I have tried very, very hard to understand the rationale for these objections. I have read every piece of material that has been provided to me, as others, at least on the government side, have done as well. We take at our core the issue of workplace health and safety incredibly seriously, and one of the things that I want to put on the record is that I would not for a second countenance any change to legislation that reduced or diminished access to workers compensation for people whose job it is to expose themselves to risk and danger. It is not why I stood to be elected. It is not why we are here in government reforming our compensation schemes and making the highest possible standard apply in ways which can then be extended to other jurisdictions.

I know that the secretary of the UFU is deeply unhappy and deeply concerned by these changes as foreshadowed to extend access for the presumptive rights scheme to these vehicle and equipment maintenance workers. It is my view, however, having read all of the material and considered the various positions put in relation to these amendments, that all boats will be lifted with the rising tide and that in fact vehicle and equipment maintenance employees who are in certain circumstances, such as being diagnosed with one of the specified cancers, such as being attendant on a fireground, such as meeting all of the preconditions that apply in order to access the scheme, ought to reasonably and fairly and appropriately be able to access that framework which I know the UFU and its members have fought so hard for over the years. I think it is incumbent upon us to do better by all workers, and I think that this bill achieves that end. I commend it to the house.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (17:44): I am very keen to add my voice to this debate and express my support for the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021, and I thank Minister Stitt for her important work on this reform and her commitment, which I know runs deep, to making sure that all Victorians have the safest possible workplace that they can have. Back in the day when I was a union official I spent about eight years working with people who had been injured at work—storemen who had hurt their backs, poultry processing workers who had worn out their wrists, people who had developed allergies to things like tea or latex and could no longer work with the products that they had worked with.

I worked alongside a couple of wonderful union officials—many—but Gail Burmeister is in my thoughts at this time because she was the other side of the coin. She was, and remains to this day, an extraordinary champion for safe workplaces. It was why she got out of bed every day, and I am sure people listening to this will know her and know of her exceptional determination but also her really thoughtful policy work. The other person I thought I would mention is Peter Kelly. Mr Kelly was the president of the Victorian branch of the National Union of Workers, and he was my mentor and guide in making sure that our members had the best possible support that they could have at work. We helped people in predominantly manual work to navigate the workers comp system.

This was a period from around 1996 until about 2002 or 2003, and during that period there were some phenomenal changes made to our workers compensation schemes. We have given it a red-hot go of late with the pandemic legislation, and I note Ms Symes’s extraordinary efforts there, and the assisted dying debate, and I note Gavin Jennings’s extraordinary efforts there in terms of stamina and staying through the night. But only efforts like that challenge the extraordinary debate that occurred when the Kennett government abolished common-law rights for injured workers. It was a threshold moment, and I have no doubt that it contributed to the defeat of the Kennett government at the end of their second term. Since the Cain government—we will soon be marking 40 years since their election—Victorian workers have had legal protections, since 1985, that provide for them to be safe at work and for them to receive adequate compensation should that not happen.

I am taking you all through this history lesson because stewardship of this system and this scheme, this no-fault compensation scheme, is so important to Labor MPs. I certainly credit the Kennett government’s move on common-law rights and the statutory benefits that were cut as part of that same series of measures as the single most important factor that drove me to want to be a member of Parliament, because it is pretty tough talking to people who have been injured at work all day every day and describing to them the difference between what is fair on the one hand and what the law says. The law says, ‘Too bad. You’ve been injured at work in the most horrific of circumstances, and that’s bad luck. No support from the system for you’, when of course everyone knows—I think all Victorians know—that what is fair and reasonable and what we are all honour bound to provide for people is that if they are injured in their workplace they are supported with their doctors bills, they are supported with some wage protection to help them get through and indeed they are supported to make a return to work as quickly and as fully as possible wherever it is practical to do so.

I often reflect when we are having debates on legislation and other policy debates around the place on the lot of injured workers, because I spent most of my 20s with people who had lost or had severely impaired their ability to earn their living. What that then does is it affects their family and their finances, and it affects their finances for the long term; it affects their earnings and therefore their superannuation, and it affects the dignity that they have in retirement. Indeed most of our members were blokes; about two-thirds of our members were guys, so most of the people I worked with were guys.

Here we are on International Women’s Day, and times have changed a bit. But for a guy who is the breadwinner for his family, supporting some kids and maybe with his partner working less than full time or on a lower income, losing the ability to be a breadwinner is profoundly, profoundly confronting for so many of these men and their sense of identity and not only their role in their workplace but their role in their family and their role in the world. I share all this with you because I wanted to make the point about how incredibly important it is to have a strong and stable workers compensation system that provides support for people who have been injured at work. I know that the minister is absolutely committed to that and absolutely determined that that be the experience of people who are injured at work. That brings me to some of the reforms in this bill.

Indeed some of the reforms in this bill make some modest adjustments to operational matters, but this bill goes to the very worst of workplace injuries, not the kinds of workplace injuries that require a handful of trips to the physio and some anti-inflammatories, a month of rest and then going back to work; or even going back to work with an ongoing impairment and some support and assistance; or not going back to work and having a reduced level of income for the rest of your working life—or just perhaps for a couple of years and then it stops. This is about the types of conditions that arise through the course of somebody’s employment that can cost them their life. No-one should ever have to pay for their job and for the lack of safety in their job with their life, but we know that there are people who put themselves at quite extraordinary risk when they go to work, like our emergency services workers. Indeed through the pandemic we have had people knowingly entering into an environment that places them at risk of their own health and safety, and so these reforms that are before us today are incredibly important.

There was a time when we were in opposition, in the period between 2010 and 2014, when the Labor opposition—you cannot actually get anything done in opposition, which is maddening, to say the least, or not much anyway—worked with the crossbench to try to get the then coalition government to move on presumptive rights for firefighters who had been exposed to a particular list of chemicals so that they therefore had a presumptive right to the compensation scheme. What that means is that the repeated exposure to certain toxins and certain types of cancers should be accepted to have a relationship. Instead of somebody spending a year or so duking it out in tribunals and courts trying to establish this while not getting the support they need to treat their illness, in effect the reform reverses the onus.

There have been some great champions for this, and I do want to give Colleen Hartland a shout-out for her determined work on this. Colleen and I used to join in these debates in this place quite often during that period and try and nudge the dial. Colleen has been a determined campaigner for this reform. If I recall, in her valedictory speech when she left this place she reflected on that having been one of the parts of her work that she was most proud of. We had parliamentary committee inquiries which provided me with the opportunity to meet with a number of firefighters who had terminal cancer and who would be in precisely the sorts of circumstances where that compensation would exist. We are very proud of the reforms that we have made on presumptive rights for firefighters—incredibly proud. Similarly I also commend the work on the silica action plan and also the determination of my colleagues to ensure that people have the support they need with silicosis—a truly, truly awful condition.

I know that this has been a long debate, and I will probably start to draw my remarks to a conclusion. I am just so pleased to support this bill. It will expand to a very modest number of people that presumptive rights framework. These are people who have the same workplace, the same exposures and the same cancers as people who have that entitlement that has already been established, and I think that that is a very good thing.

If I could just finish by recognising the challenges faced by people who are injured at work, recognising the challenges faced by their loved ones who live with all that comes with that and I guess expressing my ongoing determination as a member of Parliament for Western Victoria to always stand up for the rights of injured workers, to always ensure that people have fair and adequate support should they be injured at work. And for people with small, quickly fixed injuries that is as true as for people whose work causes them a premature death. We reflect on their fight, reflect on the fight of people who have suffered and who have campaigned successfully for these reforms and thank them for doing so. I am very, very pleased to commend this bill to the house.

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (17:57): In summing up I would just like to thank all members for their contribution on the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021, an important bill and important debate today. Today’s amendments make some really vital changes to the support for injured workers and their families, and importantly, as touched on by a number of members, the bill contains important aspects of the Andrews Labor government’s silica action plan, improving the compensation arrangements for workers with silicosis and other like diseases. I note as raised by Mr Ondarchie that these reforms are widely supported by a broad range of stakeholders across Victoria.

Workers suffering from silicosis are currently not able to pursue common-law claims where they develop further silica-related diseases after an initial award of damages. These amendments will allow injured workers with silica-related diseases to make a further common-law claim for damages if they develop a subsequent silica-related disease. We are also providing greater support to Victorians who have received a lung transplant due to a work-related injury and, importantly, extending compensation for counselling services to families of workers diagnosed with an eligible disease. These are compassionate changes that recognise the debilitating nature of this terrible disease.

In relation to one in the broad range of points made in this debate, I just want to touch on the use of prohibition notices. I think it is important to note that WorkSafe Victoria inspectors take their enforcement activities extremely seriously and will use their expert discretion in all cases. The immediacy requirement in the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 limits WorkSafe’s ability to address serious risks that do not have immediate health and safety consequences. In such cases a prohibition notice cannot currently be issued, as the risk is not immediate. Amending the grounds for issuing prohibition notices and directions under the OH&S act will address the apparent gap in enforcement powers for the outright prohibition of an activity which causes non-immediate but very serious health and safety risks. These changes will also enable WorkSafe to better enforce its prevention mandate through ensuring activities that pose serious risks are prohibited until WorkSafe is satisfied that the risk has been remedied and the workplace made safe. The proposed amendments align the Victorian enforcement regime more closely with the model work health and safety laws.

In terms of the impact on businesses I will just make a couple of points. I know that Mr Ondarchie was particularly interested in this point. Firstly, when WorkSafe inspectors are visiting any Victorian business, whether that is a small business, medium business or large business, they will always focus on working collaboratively and educating where necessary, but of course they will take action if they need to when there is a serious or immediate risk to the health and safety of workers. Secondly, prohibition notices are only issued in relation to a particular activity. They do not act to shut down an entire workplace where the risk is confined to a particular activity. In limited circumstances where a single activity comprises the entire business—for example, if the business is one piece of machinery—then a prohibition notice may require all activity in that workplace to cease, but that is extremely rare.

The decision as to whether to issue a prohibition notice as opposed to an improvement notice will be subject to different considerations depending on the situation and the associated level of risk to health and safety that the inspector encounters. The proposed amendments to the grounds for issuing a prohibition notice will not cause significant disruption to most businesses and will serve only to prevent dangerous activities from continuing in workplaces.

I will touch briefly on some of the changes to incident notification provisions. The current requirement limits the type of incidents WorkSafe is notified of to those which involve an immediate risk to a person. These changes will mean incidents which pose a serious risk to a person’s health and safety but which occurred without a person present are now notifiable, recognising that they are no less dangerous for occurring.

Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need to regulate a range of serious transmissible illnesses which WorkSafe should be notified of where there may be risks associated with transmission at the workplace, which is why these changes are so important. As always, I will just make the point that with the making of any regulations WorkSafe ensure they consult widely with key stakeholders in their development.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for Workplace Safety, Bronwyn Halfpenny, for her work with the Workplace Incidents Consultative Committee, a committee of people who have experienced the trauma of significant workplace incidents and fatalities, who were instrumental in the development of the changes to the family support benefits. These are compassionate and sensible changes to workers compensation arrangements, and these health and safety measures ensure that WorkSafe inspectors are equipped to deal with not only immediate risk but also serious risk to workers’ health and safety. I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Referral to committee

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (18:03): I move:

That this house requires the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into, consider and report, by Tuesday, 5 April 2022, on part 5 of the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2021, including but not limited to:

(1) the potential impact of part 5 on the existing firefighters presumptive rights scheme;

(2) the evidentiary and scientific basis for the proposal to extend firefighters presumptive rights to a cohort other than firefighters; and

(3) the most appropriate mechanism to provide presumptive rights to vehicle and equipment maintenance employees or other employees of Fire Rescue Victoria and the Country Fire Authority.

As I indicated in my second-reading contribution on this bill, I am moving this motion to refer part 5 of the bill, which provides for the changes to the firefighters presumptive cancer scheme, to a short committee inquiry. The government is trying to rush through changes that I believe require greater scrutiny. I will not repeat all the arguments I made previously except to say there are genuine questions to be resolved with the government’s proposed changes to the firefighters presumptive cancer scheme and a short inquiry is the best mechanism to do this.

The terms of reference in the motion are simple: firstly, to consider the impacts of the proposed changes to the firefighters presumptive cancer scheme; secondly, to consider the evidence base for the proposed extension of the scheme to other workers; and, finally, to consider the most appropriate mechanism to provide fire service workers other than firefighters with access to presumptive laws. The proposed inquiry is short—less than one month—with a reporting date of 5 April, leaving time for the bill to progress in this session of Parliament and with the ability to address any issues arising from the inquiry.

We have a duty to get this right. I think we all support other fire service workers having access to presumptive rights, but we should not be rushing these changes if there is a chance they could undermine the integrity of the scheme firefighters fought so long and so hard to achieve.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (18:05): I would like to speak in favour of this motion for a short and sharp inquiry into a very specific part of this omnibus bill, being the extension of presumptive rights to mechanics and those that work in workshops. I do not think any of us oppose the notion of workers having presumptive rights. We want to protect all workers, and to a large extent this bill goes to so many of those protections and expanding those protections, as we have heard this evening. I would like to just take this quick opportunity to thank all of those people who have worked to protect us for so long.

But the path to the presumptive legislation that we have now was a really long and arduous one. It took decades of firefighters fighting for this, collecting the evidence and presenting to numerous parliaments around not only this country but internationally. Firefighters watched their colleagues die of brain cancer, they watched their colleagues die of other forms of cancer and they kept trying to fight for presumptive rights. They were knocked back, knocked back and knocked back, and finally the evidence was enough and they were able to prove that without doubt they deserved presumptive rights for a range of cancers. This was a really difficult, difficult campaign, but the science won and the evidence won, and now we have presumptive rights legislation.

I think it is reasonable to consider this quite sudden move to extend the firefighters presumptive rights to mechanics and workshop personnel. We are not asking for anything long, but we are asking for a short inquiry, as Dr Ratnam says, to look at the impact that this may have on the existing presumptive rights. I know—I look around this chamber—many of us spent many hours, days, in this chamber debating presumptive rights and the right for firefighters to have them because the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that they deserved them. Right now I have not seen any evidence, but that is not to say that we cannot offer a scheme for other workers that do come across the same carcinogenic chemicals that our firefighters do. But I want to see an inquiry to ensure that this does not impact on the existing scheme and to ensure that this is the most appropriate mechanism to protect those other workers who put themselves at risk and who do come into contact with asbestos and with other dangerous chemicals.

I think this is a very reasonable thing to do in this case. Considering how long it took us to get presumptive rights for firefighters, I do not think another few weeks to consider the impact of this bill on those existing rights is unreasonable, and I would urge people to support this motion.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (18:09): I find it somewhat ironic that the Greens and Ms Patten when asked at a previous time to hold an inquiry into the pandemic legislation before it went through said, ‘No, we’ve got to get on with it’, and now we are talking about presumptive rights for workers here they say, ‘No, let’s hold on this and have another inquiry’. The state opposition will not be supporting this motion.

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (18:10): The government will not be supporting the Greens motion as it would unnecessarily delay the progress of the important reforms contained in this bill and it seeks to inquire into matters that have already been answered in significant detail.

House divided on motion:

Motion negatived.

Committed.

Committee

Ms MAXWELL: I ask that my amendments be circulated.

Ms SYMES: With the house’s indulgence, I seek leave to join the minister at the table. As the Minister for Emergency Services I am well placed to deal with questions in relation to the presumptive rights for the mechanics.

Leave granted.

Clause 1 (18:20)

Mr ONDARCHIE: I want to thank the minister at the table for responding to my questions in her summing-up. The opposition will have no questions in the committee stage.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions on clause 1? Ms Maxwell, I will get you to talk to your amendments when we get to the actual clauses.

Ms MAXWELL: I am just wondering whether the minister can enlighten the house on what consultation has been undertaken about this reform, specifically in regard to the presumptive rights legislation.

Ms SYMES: Thank you, Ms Maxwell. While the development of this reform predates when I took over as the Minister for Emergency Services some six months ago, I can confirm that, prior to my becoming minister and since, we have consulted broadly. The government consulted closely with our fire agencies, FRV, CFA and indeed the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. We have also worked closely with the Department of Justice and Community Safety and WorkSafe Victoria in the development and design of this reform. And of course we have consulted with impacted workers and their representatives and unions, including the United Firefighters Union (UFU), the ASU, the AMWU and Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria, as well as a range of other stakeholders, I am advised, early on.

Overwhelmingly stakeholders have strongly supported these reforms, and where concerns have been raised we have sought to consider, address and respond to all the concerns throughout the development of the work. I would say that the single goal with this reform is to strengthen the support we provide to our firefighters and fire agency workers, who, as you would recognise, put their lives and safety at risk to keep the community safe in responding to fire events.

Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Attorney. Just one more quick one. How many district mechanical officers did you actually consult with, and are you convinced that this is a necessary part of the bill, to include these DMOs in this presumptive legislation?

Ms SYMES: Thank you, Ms Maxwell. There are less than 90 vehicle and equipment maintenance (VEM) personnel employed across FRV and CFA who will be captured by this legislation, by the opportunity to be afforded protection with presumptive rights. The ASU represent the DMOs in the CFA predominantly, although some of those DMOs are also members of the UFU by choice, and the AMWU, who represent the FRV vehicle maintenance employees, are the representatives for that cohort. There is also a group of employees that have spoken to us as individuals, including some delegates, but they are mainly represented by their key unions.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 (18:24)

Mr MEDDICK: Minister, how does the government distinguish between FRV and CFA workshop personnel—that is, those working within workshops in a corporate capacity—and those working in an operational capacity?

Ms SYMES: Mr Meddick, for the purposes of the presumptive rights this is to apply to the vehicle equipment maintenance personnel and not extend to the professional administrative staff. So as I outlined to Ms Maxwell, there are approximately less than 90 of these employees across FRV and the CFA. We are proposing that the presumptive right to compensation be specifically designed to apply to vehicle and equipment maintenance workers who are operational. To this end, in addition to serving the requisite qualifying period, vehicle and equipment maintenance workers will also need to demonstrate that they have attended fires to the extent reasonably necessary to meet the requirements of the presumptive legislation.

The legislation is proposing a strategic advisory committee established under the act to provide advice to WorkSafe to help establish whether vehicle and equipment maintenance workers have attended a reasonable number of fires, and it is a similar approach to the volunteer firefighters scheme, so it is well versed in that regard. But it is not to extend to employees who perform administrative functions only.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Attorney, for your answer. By the breadth of your answer there it does sound like that will cover off a number of other questions that I have, so forgive me if I ask them anyway so that the answer goes on the record. The second matter: it is a matter of organisational knowledge that incident safety plans are implemented at fires and those plans require firefighters to enter structure fires. Firefighters are within what is known as the hot zone. All other persons, including Ambulance Victoria, vehicle and equipment maintenance employees et cetera must be away from the hot zone. Has the fact that vehicle and equipment maintenance employees are not permitted to be within the hot zone and therefore do not have the exposure to the carcinogens been considered when providing this cohort with presumptive rights?

Ms SYMES: I thank Mr Meddick for his question, and I guess it would be a good opportunity for me to talk about the personal experiences of DMOs that I have spoken to in relation to their attendance at fire events. It is fair to say that they work side by side with professional firefighters, with—particularly in relation to structure fires—our hardworking FRV personnel, who indeed enter the hot zone. But from a DMO’s perspective, they are responsible for ensuring that any issues with the vehicle can be maintained, so there are occasions that they will have to attend a fireground and be very close to the structure fire itself. What I am told by the DMOs is that firefighters appropriately enter the structure equipped with protective equipment, including breathing apparatuses, and although the DMOs are not entering the building, they are in the vicinity—they are right there next door in the event that they are required to deal with a vehicle and the like. Therefore—and they do not have breathing apparatuses, for example—they are acutely aware that they may indeed be subjected to carcinogenics, smoke and other damaging fumes in that regard.

There is also a little bit of evidence that I think you might be familiar with. Alex Forrest is an eminent expert in this space. He talked about when he provided information to the Senate inquiry that looked at these things some time ago. I have got some information that he provided in relation to this exact issue. I will just find his quote, Mr Meddick, because it goes to this point, and having an expert provide this type of information is of course something that is important. In his evidence at the 2011 Senate inquiry into presumptive rights he said that:

… mechanics … are on duty and will go to fire scenes and work within the smoke to ensure the machines are working, especially in winter firefighting, so they would be exposed to carcinogens as well, even though they are not fighting the fire.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Attorney. That goes to answer my next question, which was: what does attendance at fires mean for VEM employees? But if attendance at fires is the basis upon which VEM employees are to be covered for presumptive rights, does the government have any intentions to extend the legislation to other groups that happen to attend fires?

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.

Ms TAYLOR: I move:

That the meal break scheduled for this day pursuant to sessional order 1 be suspended.

Motion agreed to.

Ms SYMES: Mr Meddick, in relation to this particular reform, obviously it is an amendment to the Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform) Act 2019. The reason that this act is relevant for this cohort is that they are employees of fire services. It is not envisaged that you would extend any of these rights to people who do not attend fires, and it would not be appropriate to expand them to workers who are not employed by fire agencies. To be provided with presumptive rights under this act you have to be an employee of a fire service. So as we explored in your earlier questioning, there is no intention to provide rights to people who do not attend fires, and in relation to the cohort of people we are talking about, now that we have got volunteers, career firefighters and the vehicle maintenance people, that is the extent of this reform.

Clause agreed to; clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 (18:32)

Mr MEDDICK: Attorney, in 2017 the Andrews government issued a media release promoting its promise to deliver firefighter cancer compensation. The government was able to finally deliver on that promise on 20 July 2019 when I, among others, voted with the government to introduce much-needed fire service reform and the presumptive rights for Victorian firefighters. Firefighters presumptive rights were based on the policy position of the government, which was backed by scientific evidence known and understood. Quotes attributable to the Premier at the time include:

Firefighters risk their lives to keep us safe and they deserve our total support—making these important changes will enshrine that in law.

And further:

No longer will firefighters have to prove the clear medical link between cancer and firefighting.

Now, unlike with firefighters, there is no clear medical link to support the inclusion of any group other than firefighters in firefighter presumptive rights. So my question is: is there any underpinning scientific evidence to include a non-firefighter cohort in the presumptive rights scheme?

Ms SYMES: Thank you, Mr Meddick. Look, there is a significant body of evidence indicating that because of the work they do on the fireground, firefighters are more susceptible to a range of cancers. This, alongside a deliberate commitment to working people and the wellbeing of injured workers, is the basis on which we delivered the presumptive rights, as you have indicated you supported. We have also recently passed the forest firefighters presumptive rights compensation scheme, again to pick up a cohort of people who are protecting Victoria and exposing themselves to smoke and other dangers related to concerns for their health and safety in this work, and they still go out and do it. There is strong evidence to suggest that anybody who works in this field should be provided with this right.

There has been a detailed review of the work of the vehicle and equipment maintenance workers. It is clear that they regularly spend time alongside firefighters in the very places where there are increased risks of cancers associated, so on that basis it is sound policy to extend the right to these workers. There is obviously a strong evidentiary foundation, and the Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Service Legislation Amendment (Reform) Act 2019 established this. We believe that it is reasonable that these types of workers—the vehicle and equipment maintenance workers employed by FRV and CFA who attend fires in the course of their employment to maintain and repair firefighting vehicles and equipment—may be exposed to the hazards of a fire scene and therefore deserve the protection. So in one sense, Mr Meddick, there is very little distinction between the volunteer firefighters and the forest firefighters in relation to this cohort of workers and their attendance at fire events.

Mr MEDDICK: I thank the Attorney for that answer. It goes a certain amount of the way to answering what was my next question; it kind of half answers it. If there is scientific evidence that has been provided to the government on that, can that information be provided to the house for its consideration? I am happy for you to provide that on notice if that is the case. Scientific information that went into the drafting to move this cohort into there—is that a possibility?

Ms SYMES: Mr Meddick, what I might draw to the attention of the house is, again, evidence coming out of Canada. Mr Alex Forrest, who is the foremost global expert on firefighter cancer, is obviously well known and regarded in this field. In evidence he has indicated that the scheme in Canada covers employees of a relevant fire department rather than specifically defining firefighters. He indicated that employees must show they attended fires to the extent necessary to attract the presumption, which is, as you would appreciate, similar to how our scheme applies to volunteers and is intended, subject to this bill, to apply to vehicle and equipment maintenance employees. He also discussed non-firefighter cohorts that are exposed to the same risks as firefighters, which, as you would recall, we have gone through in previous answers. Effectively, even though they are not fighting the fire, this is a cohort of workers who are in effect next to the fire.

I would point to the Australian Services Union in their support of this reform. They have brought to my attention the experience of a particular member, who was one of at least 28 vehicle and equipment maintenance workers at the Hazelwood mine fire, as an example of the exposure that can be faced by district mechanical officers. The DMOs spent 11 weeks at Hazelwood working in the pit beside firefighters, getting trucks going because it was an extreme event and they could not afford to be pulled offline. This has meant years of working with raw concentrate, concentrate firefighting foams like Tridol, 3M AFFF and other firefighting foams containing PFOS and a range of substances—PFAS, chemicals. They have been exposed to heavy diesel exhaust gases in confined spaces, for example, and other chemicals in the course of their work.

I take the opportunity, Mr Meddick, to reflect that I know how important this right is for firefighters. Of course I do. I was involved very closely with the development of the legislation and indeed the challenge to get it through the house. I was in the opposition rooms when we could not convince the government of the day that firefighters deserved presumptive rights. I know the trauma that many firefighters have gone through. They have seen their mates contract cancer. They have passed away. There are people in this room that have had experiences such as that. There is nothing in this legislation that seeks to undermine that hard fight that many people went through to secure that presumption. This is a cohort that in my mind were left out at the time. They are there, side by side, with those firefighters, and I think it is time that we added them.

Ms MAXWELL: Just to go on from Mr Meddick’s line of questioning, Attorney, you said that this is a cohort that is being incorporated into this presumptive legislation that may not fight the fires but may just be on the fireground. But is it not true that a lot of those employees, whether they be DMOs or people working in those workshops, are actually firefighters at some stage?

Ms SYMES: It is a good point, Ms Maxwell. As I have indicated, there are less than 90 vehicle and equipment maintenance personnel that will be picked up by this, and a lot of them have crossover work with either having been a career firefighter or indeed being current volunteers. So in terms of the actual core number of people that would be added by virtue of this addition, it would be less than 90 because some people would already be covered.

Mr MEDDICK: Attorney, I will just carry on from Ms Maxwell’s question there, which was leading into one of the other questions. To the point you made, a very relevant point, about the gentleman you spoke about that was at the Hazelwood mine, for instance, if they are already firefighters—and usually the crossover is there—aren’t they as such already covered under the compensation scheme as it stands because they are already firefighters, and therefore there is no need for them to be included in this particular section?

Ms SYMES: Mr Meddick, many may be already eligible, but as the bill makes clear, you can join together your service as well, which would be a relevant consideration for the panel in determining your attendance at a reasonable number of fires, for example. But, yes indeed, it is fair to say that many of them would already be eligible if they were employed as firefighters or volunteers. But having this catch-up will make sure that if they are no longer employed there is still continuity for the purposes of being able to access the scheme.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Attorney, for that. The Senate inquiry into the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 provisions in 2011 examined at length whether presumptive legislation should be introduced to firefighters. In examining this and the science that supported their inclusion, the inquiry also turned its mind to whether other occupations had the same exposure and should be included, and it was found in that inquiry that other occupations should not be included. The federal legislation passed the Australian Senate in November 2011, and the Victorian legislation, which passed this house on 20 June 2019, is modelled on that federal legislation, albeit with the inclusion of CFA volunteers. So my question is: has this particular drafting of legislation, this amendment, taking into account the findings of that Senate inquiry into that amendment bill?

Ms SYMES: I guess the answer would be yes, because I have been quoting from the Senate inquiry in relation to some of the evidence that was brought by Mr Forrest. So there is a range of supporting evidence to include people such as the vehicle and equipment maintenance personnel due to, as we have discussed, their exposure to fire events. This is something that we are committed to achieving for this cohort of people. Let us be frank: I hope that none of them ever make a claim, because you do not get to make a claim unless you contract cancer, so I hope that there are very few that are in this position. The Senate inquiry mainly considered firefighters as that bill only dealt with firefighters, so I have brought to your attention some complementary evidence. But it is fair to say that that Senate inquiry did not go in detail to the issues that you have asked. I have just drawn out evidence from Mr Forrest that indicates a positive—his view that vehicle maintenance workers and mechanics and the like who are on the fireground do have a risk that they are exposed to.

Clause agreed to; clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 (18:45)

Mr MEDDICK: Attorney, to provide confidence to the presumptive legislation scheme a rebuttal presumption is provided for in the current legislation. There is no science that supports the inclusion of non-firefighters in presumptive legislation. Given the operation of the rebuttal presumption, is the government of the view that the WorkCover insurer will still reject each VEM employee’s claim on the basis of that lack of scientific evidence linking their exposure at work to the development of cancer? Is there a risk there that this might happen with WorkCover insurers?

Ms SYMES: Mr Meddick, the presumption can only be rebutted by WorkSafe where it can prove the cancer was not caused by an eligible worker’s employment or service. The legal test is where their proof is to the contrary. There is a very high burden of proof—higher than in other jurisdictions with presumptive rights schemes. The reforms do not change the legal basis for rebuttal at all and will have no impact, as we have discussed, on firefighter claims.

In relation to some of the issues that you are going to, the rebuttal considerations that the panel would consider are not in relation to scientific basis; they are based on whether you meet the eligibility of having attended a reasonable amount of fires. It is not open to the panel, if this bill is successful, to make a determination about whether someone should be entitled to it or not. They just have to be confident that the person has met the eligibility criteria as set out in the legislation.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Attorney, for your answer. Just following on, I guess, in that regard, the bill before the house stipulates that VEM employees must seek an expert opinion for the advisory committee. That committee was previously established to review select firefighter presumptive claims. Is the government aware that the advisory claim for each VEM employee’s claim could be potentially rejected or could even be likely based upon that?

Ms SYMES: Mr Meddick, I believe that that was covered off broadly in the previous answer. But in relation to the role of the strategic advisory committee, it will provide expert advice to WorkSafe on two issues: whether a vehicle and equipment maintenance employee has attended fires to the extent reasonably necessary to fulfil the purpose of their role as a vehicle and equipment maintenance employee and whether a vehicle and equipment maintenance employee has attended an exceptional exposure event. So the issues that you have been canvassing in your last two questions are not what the strategic advisory committee has regard to. What they can look at is the nature of the event, injuries regarding an event, relevant records or data in relation to proving attendance and other matters prescribed by the firefighters’ presumptive rights compensation regulation. It is not a line of inquiry to question the basis for the presumption.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Attorney, for that. It is much, much clearer in that regard. But has the government given any thought to the scenario of litigation between the VEM employee and their employee’s workers compensation insurer perhaps becoming an increased likelihood in the context of that rebuttal presumption?

Ms SYMES: Mr Meddick, no, there is no evidence of that, but I will ask my colleague the minister who is responsible for the WorkSafe scheme to give some additional information to you.

Ms STITT: Thank you, Mr Meddick. Under the WorkSafe scheme where a vehicle and equipment maintenance employee disputes a decision made in relation to their claim, including a decision to reject the claim, they may request conciliation of the dispute, just like any other worker who makes a workers compensation claim, by the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service. The ACCS is an independent body which will help to facilitate the resolution of the dispute. If further medical information is required to resolve the dispute at conciliation, again, just like any other workers compensation claim, the ACCS may refer a medical question to the medical panel for a conclusive medical opinion, and again like any other claim, if the dispute cannot be resolved via conciliation, the worker may commence proceedings for judicial review of the decision in the Magistrates Court or the County Court, or when the alternative arbitration function commences they could also choose to go down that path.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Minister, for that clarification. I just want to come to a point that the Attorney made about the qualifying period. With respect to that, I understand the bill seeks to provide for a mechanism to combine any of the following periods:

(i) any period during which the worker was employed as a career firefighter—

that is five years—

(ii) any period during which the worker served as a volunteer firefighter;

(iii) any period during which the worker was employed as a vehicle and equipment maintenance employee;

(iv) any period during which the worker was employed as an occupational … firefighter;

(v) any period during which the worker served as a surge forest firefighter.

To understand the intent of the government, if you are a career firefighter with four years service and are diagnosed with brain cancer, that has a qualifying period of service of five years, so it is not automatically presumed that this cancer is a result of your exposure to entering burning buildings, for instance. However, and I am happy to be contradicted here on my reading of the legislation, then, a person who has served as a surge forest firefighter twice, a volunteer for one year, an occupational forest firefighter for two years and a VEM employee for two years will automatically have their brain cancer claim accepted, whereas the other will not. Is that the intent? Is that disparity an oversight or is it something that might have been missed, or am I completely reading that wrong?

Ms SYMES: Mr Meddick, there was a lot in that question. It was a little difficult to follow, sorry. I guess what I would say at the outset, and you may want to follow up with a supplementary question of course, is that the intention of the legislation is to allow for a combination of periods of service that are captured by this bill or indeed the forest firefighters presumptive rights as well. It is to enable people to move around but, if they are still exposed to the same risks, not to have their eligibility reset effectively from the start of each period of service, regardless of which agency they may be working for. This is particularly relevant for volunteers who might be in and out and then cross over into the career workforce as well. But in relation to how you have added up those things, I might have to take that on notice, because there was a lot.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Attorney. Yes, I apologise. It was a bit confusing in the way that it was framed. But I guess for clarity, then, what it appears to be is that a worker who has worked in various settings and has a combination of years service will qualify automatically but a person who has been a career firefighter for under five years, who might have been exposed and have that particular type of cancer as a result of their exposure, does not automatically qualify under the presumptive rights. There is a disparity that appears to happen there, because they do not qualify for the five-year period; they have a little less than that. But they might have attracted that cancer as a direct result of exposure. But I am happy for you to provide that on notice.

Ms SYMES: I am happy to take it on notice and provide you with some specific advice in relation to the combination of service, but just by illustration, similar to how you have outlined it, the intention is to be consistent with the forest firefighters presumptive rights compensation scheme. For example, if a person has served as a forest firefighter for five years and then subsequently serves as a career firefighter for 10 years, they would have a combined service period of 15 years, and this is relevant as all specific cancers have a qualifying service period of between five and 25 years. The bill therefore actually increases access to the scheme for more career firefighters by enabling the combination of those periods of service. But you did give me a specific example about somebody with different service. I would prefer to have a look at that in writing, if that is okay, and respond in detail.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Attorney. I will endeavour to get an example of that for you, and then we can move on.

Clause agreed to; clauses 27 to 86 agreed to.

Clause 87 (18:57)

Ms MAXWELL: I move:

1. Clause 87, before line 11 insert—

“(aa) an offence against section 20, 21 or 21A of the Crimes Act 1958 or any corresponding previous enactment; or”.

We agree that alleged offenders of family violence or sexual offences should not be notified of or attend tribunal hearings relating to their victims. While there may be some loose argument that an offender may have some reputational interest in a victim’s assistance claim, it is an affront to the very notion of victim’s assistance that an offender is given the opportunity to be aware of a claim, let alone attend, listen or, even more strongly, participate. The Victorian Law Reform Commission review into the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 recommends that alleged offenders should not be notified of a victim’s hearing or be allowed to attend. It is our expectation that the new scheme will deliver on this. In the meantime the bill closes part of the loophole but still leaves a serious gap.

I know in the circumstances of Di McDonald the offender was notified of her interim claim and attended the court. Ms McDonald would refute that the offending was in the context of family violence. The offender wanted a relationship, but she did not. What could be described as some malicious mischief resulted in the magistrate denying her interim support and suggesting that she come back when she had a case. Ultimately the offences against Ms McDonald were proven beyond reasonable doubt and her offender received a substantial jail term, so her victim status is very clear.

Many threat and stalking offences do occur in the context of family violence, but around one-third of them do not. The devastating case of Celeste Manno is very clearly in my mind when thinking of the serious indicator that threat offences and stalking will lead to future violence. The reoffending rate for threat offences is double the rate for all offenders in Victoria, and there is no substantial difference in the reoffending rates between family violence and non-family violence offenders. One-third of victims of these serious offences will not be protected by this prohibition unless this amendment passes. It demonstrates the need for the new system to be expedited, but in the meantime we need to make the changes we can to improve safety and support for victims. On that basis I commend these amendments.

Mr ONDARCHIE: The state Liberal-Nationals coalition will be supporting these amendments of Ms Maxwell today. Can I thank Ms Maxwell and Karen Rourke from her office for the very comprehensive amendment explainer that brought them to us. This is in some sense, with respect to Ms Maxwell’s explanation, a bit of a no-brainer. This amendment should carry forward as an improvement to this bill, and as a result we will be supporting it.

Ms STITT: The government has introduced changes to the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (VOCA act) to remove barriers for victim-survivors of family violence and sexual assault applying for financial assistance at the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal. They align with findings and recommendations from the Royal Commission into Family Violence and the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC). VOCAT provides financial assistance to victims of violent crime under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act. Currently VOCAT can notify alleged offenders and allow them to appear at hearings where they have a legitimate interest or substantial interest in the victim’s application for assistance.

In 2018 the Victorian Law Reform Commission reported on its review into the VOCA act. The government has committed to significantly progress the recommendations of the report in this term of government. The review recommends that the new scheme will place victims at the centre, and therefore the alleged perpetrator of an offence would not be notified of the victim’s hearing and should not be able to attend that hearing under the new financial assistance scheme. Recommendation 21(a) states:

The proposed Act should provide that the objectives of the Act are to:

recognise, on behalf of the state, victims and the impacts of a criminal act on a victim, through the provision of a respectful forum for victims to be heard and to have their experiences properly acknowledged by the state

In doing so, the VLRC found that:

… removing perpetrator notification reflects a trauma-informed approach that prioritises victims’ safety and wellbeing.

Regardless of model, or other technical and procedural reforms implemented, the Commission considers this to be a significant step in prioritising victims’ safety and wellbeing needs and placing victims’ needs at the centre of the state-funded financial assistance process.

Removing perpetrator notification and attendance at hearings reflects a trauma-informed approach to responding to victims of crime. The Royal Commission into Family Violence made a similar finding: that notifying perpetrators and allowing them to attend a VOCAT hearing can traumatise victims.

Exactly which offences and prohibitions should apply within the current VOCAT legal framework was a complicated decision. The Attorney-General and the Minister for Victim Support considered this in detail with regard to the VLRC’s finding that notifications had a chilling effect for survivors of sexual assault or family violence.

The original amendments made by the government were confined to family violence and sexual offences to balance VOCAT’s needs to gather evidence and determine facts whilst removing barriers and improving victims’ safety in matters where it was identified as most problematic. Offenders’ notifications will not be included as part of the new administrative financial assistance scheme.

The government thanks Ms Maxwell for raising the experiences of victims of stalking and other offences listed in this additional amendment to extend the notification and attendance prohibition to further offences of stalking, threats to kill and commit serious injury. This is supported by the government.

We need to make it clear that there is a balance to be reached between modifications to the current scheme and the work to implement the new scheme. Whilst we reached a position in the bill following the request of stakeholders, we also understand the trauma and negative impacts for many of the victim-survivors who Ms Maxwell has mentioned today and at other times in this place, and this is why we are happy to accept these sensible suggestions.

The government is committed to delivering a new administrative scheme to deliver financial assistance for victims of crime in Victoria. The financial assistance scheme will replace VOCAT, and this is an administrative scheme. No hearings will be required, and therefore there will be no place for alleged offenders. The government amendments included in this bill go beyond the VLRC recommendations to deliver immediate positive outcomes for survivors of family violence and sexual assault prior to the commencement of the FAS.

We need to balance the need to ensure family violence and sexual assault survivors can seek assistance at VOCAT without fear of their abuser being notified of their VOCAT application with the need for VOCAT to appropriately consider an application outside of family violence and sexual offences where illegal activity may have taken place. The Andrews Labor government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence and building a new financial assistance scheme for victim-survivors.

Mr ONDARCHIE: So that is a yes?

Ms STITT: It is.

Ms MAXWELL: I would just like to thank the minister for her words and particularly thank the members of the government who I have collaborated with in regard to these amendments. I thank them for their time and for their support.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 88 (19:06)

Ms MAXWELL: I move:

2. Clause 88, page 58, before line 1 insert—

“(aa) an offence against section 20, 21 or 21A of the Crimes Act 1958 or any corresponding previous enactment; or”.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Consistent with the amendment to clause 87, the state Liberal-Nationals coalition will be supporting this amendment and thank Ms Maxwell for bringing it to the house.

Ms STITT: Similar to our position on clause 87, the government will be supporting Ms Maxwell’s amendment to clause 88.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 89 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (19:08): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (19:08): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with amendments.