Wednesday, 21 September 2022

 Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (20:25): (2141) My adjournment debate is for the Minister for Workplace Safety, and the action that I seek is for the report WorkSafe is commissioning to be publicly supplied prior to the time it is issued.

On 4 March 2020 the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales issued a decision that an assistance dog is a reasonably necessary medical treatment for the purposes of their Workers Compensation Act 1987. Ms Bunce was an experienced registered nurse who experienced an aggressive patient who threatened her before he had to be restrained. She had also witnessed a similar incident which resulted in a homicide by an aggressive patient in 1999. In 2018 her son obtained a dog as a pet. She found the presence of the dog to be helpful to her condition, and her psychologist supported the idea of obtaining an assistance dog, as assistance dogs have been shown to improve anxiety and depressive symptoms in patients. Ms Bunce made a claim for the purchase of an assistance dog and the cost to maintain that dog for the course of its life. Unfortunately the insurer denied her claim and argued that an assistance dog was not medically related treatment as defined in the act and not reasonably necessary. This exact behaviour happens in Victoria regularly.

The matter was then heard by arbitrator John Wynyard. Wynyard determined that the supply of an assistance dog could only be covered by the definition contained within their act where it provides for therapeutic treatment given by direction of a medical practitioner. He held that the proposed treatment was reasonably necessary as the medical experts’ opinions were unanimous that the proposed treatment was appropriate and indeed had been effective for Ms Bunce’s condition as she had obtained great benefit from her assistance dog already. Wynyard ordered that the insurer pay the cost of provision and maintenance of an assistance dog. Significantly, Arbitrator Wynyard found that an assistance dog falls neatly into the definition of ‘medical treatment’ as provided by section 59(b) of the act.

WorkSafe Victoria has been settling such claims, hoping to avoid litigation to ensure a binding decision is not made in the courts—just disgraceful. Minister, I have been speaking with you and your office about this for more than 12 months, since the passing in this place of my motion to recognise psychiatric assistance dogs in official workplace safety as a treatment option. We are still waiting for the WorkSafe report, and the election is almost around the corner. Many stakeholders are anxiously waiting for a decision and progress to be made. Psychiatric assistance dogs literally save lives. They are a cost-effective treatment option. Ron Fenton, if he were alive and here today, would be shocked that more action has not been taken to give life back to mentally injured emergency services workers. What is Victoria waiting for?