Tuesday, 6 February 2024

Committees

Economy and Infrastructure Committee

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

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (13:20): Pursuant to standing order 23.22, I table a report on the inquiry into the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (WorkCover Scheme Modernisation) Bill 2023, including an appendix, extracts of proceedings and minority reports, from the Economy and Infrastructure Committee, and I present the transcripts of evidence. I move:

That the transcripts of evidence be tabled and the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

The Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (WorkCover Scheme Modernisation) Bill 2023 seeks to introduce changes relating to workplace injuries and the WorkCover scheme. This inquiry focused on considering the bill’s proposed changes, and the scope is deliberately confined to assessing the merits, implications and potential ramifications of the bill itself. It was not, and was never intended to be, an inquiry into the WorkCover scheme itself. However, due to much of the evidence heard during the process, we do make a recommendation that it is further looked into.

The inquiry had some significant challenges. Firstly, it was referred to the committee by the Legislative Council on the last sitting day of 2023 and had a required tabling date of today, the first day of the new parliamentary year. Therefore the inquiry was held over the Christmas and new year period, when many people are on annual leave. It was difficult for many of the organisations who the committee identified as key stakeholders to engage as they would have liked. Nonetheless we got it done, and I would like to express my appreciation for the stakeholders who were willing to give up valuable time to either appear in the three days of public hearings that were held in mid-December or to provide a submission subsequently. The committee at all times recognised that the timing of the inquiry and the tight deadline made it difficult for them.

I would also like to thank the committee members for making themselves available during those very busy pre-Christmas times for the public hearings and for giving up time in January, which is often one of the few periods in the year when members can finally have a break. The committee had different views on the preferred outcome of the inquiry, and that is reflected in minority reports in this report. However, despite these differences of opinion, I would like to express my appreciation for the courteous and professional manner in which members expressed their different views throughout. The pressure put on committee staff in an inquiry that considered changes around stress and burnout were not lost on me. I really cannot thank the committee staff enough for their marathon effort, in particular Michael Baker the committee manager and Caitlin Connally the inquiry officer, in pulling together the public hearings at very short notice and for providing the comprehensive draft report quickly over the Christmas period. The administrative staff Julie Barnes, Jo Clifford and Sylvette Bassy also made a significant contribution in getting this report ready in time for tabling today. This bill is obviously a very challenging one for this chamber, and I am hopeful that this report will guide us through the decision-making process.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (13:23): I would like to begin by complimenting other committee members on the work that was done here. This was a short, sharp and pressured inquiry. I want to particularly single out Michael Baker and the staff for the work that they did, which was actually a significant challenge. Three days of public hearings before Christmas and working to write the report and adopt material by this point, by 6 February, has been a significant challenge, but I think it has actually been done with some panache and some style, so I am just going to put that on the record as a very positive step by the committee. Indeed I think there ought to be more of these short, sharp inquiries into bills to actually strengthen the underpinning of understanding of members and to bring out and flush out a great deal more. I thank the staff in particular.

There is a dissenting report from the coalition members, and the reason for that is because there are a number of matters on which we disagree, but that is as it is. I do think the central recommendation of the inquiry by all members that there be not only proper consultation by the minister but that consultation precede the bill proceeding and that there be a report back to the chamber on that is an important one. The second recommendation in particular that is important I think is the establishment of an independent inquiry by an expert panel into the operation and viability of the WorkCover scheme within three months. That would obtain the agreement of employers and employer organisations before the appointment of people so that we can be sure that there are independent, competent and high-quality people who are able to do that report and that that report will be completed within 12 months.

We know the scheme is in serious trouble, and that is one reason the coalition members attached the Finity report to the back of this. The government has known for four years almost the details and that there are really serious problems – (Time expired)

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (13:25): Labor’s WorkCover bill will harm Victorian workers. What we have seen in this bill – limiting eligibility, stigmatising mental health and penalising workers to make up for shortfalls – is not the way to achieve reform, and stakeholders confirmed these concerns during hearings. The message was absolutely clear: wrong way, go back. In a minority report submitted together with committee colleagues Mr Ettershank and Ms Purcell, we urge Labor to withdraw this bill.

The Greens are in agreement that the current system is absolutely in need of reform but in sharp disagreement about how this bill proposes to do that. These changes will push injured workers into poverty, into emergency departments and into an already overstretched mental health system. Yet despite the damning evidence heard against these changes, I fear that Labor and the Liberals are teaming up to keep this bill alive. This is a desperate attempt by the government to claw back money after deliberately underfunding WorkCover for years, and the bill penalises workers. It is very much weighted in favour of employers, the way that the system works now, and of WorkSafe agents who want to minimise payment and maximise profit, as we heard during hearings.

What is needed is a far broader look at WorkCover, and that is welcome, with a focus on prevention, rehabilitation and an overall operation of the scheme that is sustainable. I observe that much of that work has actually been done. There have been multiple reviews into WorkCover over a number of years, such as the 2016 and 2019 reports by the Victorian Ombudsman. Many of those reviews include detailed recommendations to improve the scheme. The changes proposed in the bill I note are inconsistent with the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System and the government’s own mental health policy. Labor’s anti-worker bill should be withdrawn.

I want to conclude by echoing the comments thanking the committee secretariat and staff, who helped us pull together this committee and hearing schedule at such short notice.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (13:27): I would also like to just reiterate my appreciation to the secretariat. This was an incredibly rushed inquiry, and it was a testament to their dedication and their professionalism that they brought this together in such a timely manner, so our deep thanks to them for their work. It was also, as Ms Purcell suggested, rather ironic given the mental health and stress element of the bill that we were subjecting our own parliamentary staff to just such pressures.

Speaking on the question of the minority report that was put together by us, the Animal Justice Party and the Greens, it was I think fair to say that the inquiry, notwithstanding its limitations, demonstrated clearly the deep flaws within this legislation. So flawed is it that employers and unions were virtually singing from the same song sheet, so poorly constructed that everyone agreed that this will be a lawyers picnic for years to come, so incoherent that much of its assessment for mental health injury is premised upon texts and documents that say they should not be used for the purposes of mental health assessment. It is farcical, but worse still, the legislation is at its heart profoundly cruel. It punishes people – workers – with mental health injuries, which is ironic given the government’s own inquiry into mental health.

I would just in closing note that notwithstanding all of these flaws, there is a consensus position amongst all of those committee members, and that is that that bill should not return to this chamber until such time as an inquiry has had the opportunity to try and in detail explore the legislation and rectify its many, many faults.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (13:29): As a participating member of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee, I rise to make a brief contribution as well on the tabling of today’s report on the inquiry into the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (WorkCover Scheme Modernisation) Bill 2023. As colleagues have noted in their contributions, this was a very short inquiry run by this committee, and I would like to particularly acknowledge the very hard work of the committee staff, including in particular Michael Baker, in leading us through this inquiry, which was done with the upmost professionalism as if we had had many, many more months to process and organise ourselves. I would also like to acknowledge the stewardship of our chair Ms Purcell and, like others, note the collegial nature in which all members participated in this inquiry, which was really nice to be a part of. Finally, I would also like to really acknowledge the witnesses who came and spoke to us and shared their experiences, shared their stories and shared their insights and really acknowledge the contributions and the impact that they made on this inquiry as well.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (13:30): I will start off by thanking the staff of the committee, particularly Michael Baker. As mentioned by many colleagues, it was a tough ask that this chamber made but I think a worthwhile one, looking at all the submissions and looking at the amount of detail that we came up with and the people that we heard from. I think the opposition was justified in putting forward a motion to this chamber to refer it to a committee. As you can see, there are a number of recommendations that we are keen to see acted on, particularly that the minister actually enacts some consultation. One clear piece of evidence from the inquiry is that there was no consultation, as many stakeholders said. They were ‘consul-told’ about changes, so we are keen to see the minister take part in some pretty urgent consultation around that, and an independent inquiry into the scheme itself commissioned within three months. In obtaining that agreement from employee and employer organisations as to who that should be, you will see a quite detailed dissenting report from the Liberals and Nationals. It was good to see those opposite often supporting our motions throughout that majority report as well. But particularly with regard to our dissenting report, which is quite detailed, we would like to see the government guarantee a freeze on premiums for two years.

We would like to see the government consider separate scheme arrangements for private and public sector employees. The private sector, as we heard during the inquiry, should not be forced to subsidise the public sector. The Victorian public service is responsible for a disproportionate amount of WorkCover claims, with 38 per cent of all mental health injury claims made by public servants, who make up only 10 per cent of Victoria’s labour force. We want to see premium discounts for good employers, and we want to avoid another WorkCover crisis by having WorkCover accountable to the Parliament every six months.

Motion agreed to.