Thursday, 31 July 2025

Bills

Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:

That the bill be now read a second time.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:07): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to this bill, the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2025, and to note in the first instance that this is part of a series of bills that relate to the changes that need to be made to WorkCover and WorkSafe and that the opposition will not oppose this bill. Though we will seek to amend it, and I will come to those points later.

The main measures in the bill are those that introduce a Code of Claimants’ Rights to prescribe service standards that must be met by WorkSafe and self-insurers; introduce a lived-experience criteria for the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee and the WorkCover Advisory Committee; amend the return-to-work provisions by requiring employers to provide return-to-work coordinators with paid time off to undertake mandatory approved training and provide them with facilities necessary to perform their functions under this bill and the changes that will consequently, if the house agrees, be made to the act; and introduce new compensation entitlements for family members after a work-related death, allowing family members to receive provisional payments after a death by suicide, increasing weekly pensions payable to dependent children of deceased workers, extending the duration of provisional pension payments, creating an entitlement to lump sum payments for economic loss for dependents who are not the partner or child of a deceased worker, creating an entitlement to lump sum payments for non-economic loss for close family members, providing access to a broader range of therapy and other supports and introducing a new entitlement to compensation for a forensic cleaning where a worker dies at home or at the home of a family member.

It seeks also to improve the operation of the Workplace Injury Commission, allowing it to certify agreements between parties to resolve arbitration disputes; order costs in favour of an injured worker, where the parties resolve the dispute at arbitration or further conciliation following arbitration; and share information with injured workers after conciliation and arbitration has ended. It also amends the process by which members of the WorkSafe board, the chief executive and hearing loss assessors are appointed. The Parliament, this chamber, did have a short, sharp inquiry recently that looked at WorkSafe, failings in the WorkSafe system and problems with the financial viability of the system. Examinations that had been done on WorkSafe’s viability had been kept quiet and hushed up by the government, but clearly the scheme was in some serious trouble and is still in a serious financial position, there is no question about that. All of the increases in benefits that are listed need to be balanced against maintaining the scheme in a viable mode so that into the future the scheme is able to continue to deliver on the one hand for those who are legitimately expecting support after being injured at work and the viability of the scheme for employers. If we squeeze employers too hard, we lose business to other states and we lose employment, so there are significant risks here for the state. That is why the scheme needs to be run at efficiency. It needs to be a scheme that does not have waste and does not have any overruns and lack of financial control in the system. So it needs to strike that balance, making sure that employees are fairly treated when they have been injured but also that the costs are constrained, because at the end of the day this this bill is a significant change.

We will, in our amendments, seek to do a couple of relatively modest items, and I would be very much obliged if somebody would distribute those amendments as we speak so that they are able to be discussed. The textual amendments will amend section 448 of the act to prevent the Governor in Council from increasing any premiums in the premiums order for the 2025–26 financial year. This is not the right time for further increase. We might just distribute the materials.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

David DAVIS: The amendments also require WorkSafe to provide approved training to return-to-work coordinators who are employed by employers with a rateable remuneration of less than $2.895 million at no cost.

One of the findings of the inquiry, and this was an effective inquiry – it was at my reference, but I pay tribute to the work done by many on that committee – was a recognition that by getting quicker return to work, there could be a positive outcome for employees but also a cost saving. This is the virtuous position where, if you can manage the scheme well, constrain the costs, help employees get back to work and provide the support and rehabilitation that is required, you get both a positive social outcome and a good outcome for the scheme’s costs as well. Workplace rehabilitation coordinators are an important part of that, and the reality is that by supporting them we could get a better outcome. It is obviously more difficult for smaller employers to employ people who have got those specific sets of skills, and in that sense one of these amendments seeks to support those smaller employers, because it is not just in the interests of those smaller employers but in the interests of their employees and in the interests of the scheme overall. This is where, again, sensible focus means that we will get a better outcome for community, for individual workers who have been injured and for the viability of the scheme and the premiums in the end that employers pay.

This is a thoughtful set of amendments. The government, I understand, has indicated in its commentary that it will not increase the premiums for the 2025–26 financial year, and we welcome that. But let us put that beyond doubt. If the government is serious in its commitment there, it can simply agree to the opposition’s amendment, and that will have the desired effect and put it beyond question. We think that is, again, a reasonable point.

Victoria’s business costs have become increasingly a problem for our system, not just the costs of WorkSafe but increasingly the costs of taxation and regulation on small businesses. We are very conscious of those costs. We are aware that the state government has jacked them up. There have been more than 60 new and increased taxes under this government since 2014, many of those imposed on small and medium businesses, which actually makes them much less competitive. The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry work that looked at regulation across the states clearly made it transparent that Victoria had the worst regulatory regimes on a wide front. In so many areas we had more regulation, often to little effect other than adding to costs and restrictions on business.

One of those issues for businesses is the on-costs of employment, and we obviously need to run this scheme very efficiently and very effectively. That is why we have been focused on return to work. The committee heard significant evidence about the return-to-work focus and the need to strengthen that, and I pay tribute to the fact the government has responded to what the committee had to say and has in part adopted some of its points.

I want to make some points here, too, about the review of WorkSafe’s management of complex workers compensation claims undertaken by Peter Rozen QC, now Judge Rozen. This was a consequence of adverse findings made by the Victorian Ombudsman concerning WorkSafe’s management of the scheme in December 2019. The Ombudsman, to refresh the chamber’s memory, found examples of workers being denied their legal entitlements, and the Ombudsman recommended an independent review be undertaken, which became the Rozen review. Now, the government has been slow in responding to that, and the Rozen review obviously needed some legislative implementation. The second review is known as the family supports review; it made a number of important recommendations as well.

Some of the amendments – clause 4, clause 27 – relate to the structure of WorkCover, the statutory objectives. It also makes it clear that there is a statutory obligation to actively manage claims and to treat workers with dignity and respect. In a sense, the Rosen review actually predated some of the work of the parliamentary committee in the focus on active management of cases, but both, in that sense, were pushing in a similar direction.

The Rosen review also recommended changes to the composition of workplace advisory committees, composition of the OH&S advisory committee, mandatory training for return-to-work coordinators and a number of other important recommendations. As I say, there was also the family support review, with a number of amendments, which I have outlined, providing for additional support for family members in certain circumstances that were not clearly covered previously.

A number of the amendments also are unrelated to those two reviews or indeed the parliamentary one. There are some matters around hearing loss assessors, and this proposed amendment appears to restrict the class of persons who can assess hearing loss to medical practitioners only. The amendment reads:

must be assessed as a binaural loss of hearing and determined by a medical practitioner …

We sought some clarification of that from the minister, and the minister might like in her wrap-up or in committee stage to make some commentary. The minister’s office has sought – but I think it is better if it is done in the chamber here openly – to clarify that the amendment only seeks to remove the requirement that the minister must approve individual hearing loss assessors rather than the class of persons who can make the assessment. The minister’s office advised the amendments do not change the existing eligibility requirements. I would like to hear that in the committee stage or at a convenient point from the minister if that is possible.

The power to request and share information is strengthened. There is resolution by agreement of parties to the dispute. The costs for arbitration after further conciliation: currently when a dispute is decided in favour of a claimant the body may make an order in favour of the claimant for costs they have incurred. However, the costs cannot be ordered when the dispute is resolved by conciliation. The change provides that if a dispute is resolved as a consequence of further conciliation after being referred from arbitration, the claimant is entitled to be awarded costs. We do not oppose some of these changes; we think they make some reasonable sense.

The appointment of the board of directors: the CEO to be appointed by the board is clause 28. The board of directors is clause 29. It also includes the ability to appoint an acting CEO. Any appointment made by the board is still subject to the minister’s approval. The CEO will also be able to resign by giving notice to the board. The minister’s office has said that this is designed to align with other bodies. I think some of these changes are changes that are neither here nor there. It is not absolutely clear why the government is determined to proceed with those.

We support initiatives aimed at improving workplace safety and ensuring appropriate treatment and rehabilitation of injured workers. We need at the same time to be careful in that the complexity of the scheme can in itself begin to present challenges for businesses and may jeopardise business viability through even higher premiums. So this is a delicate balance to strike. A very complex scheme can be one where sometimes nobody is actually in charge, and that can lead to worse outcomes for injured employees because the active management is not as sharp as it could in fact be.

We have talked already about the code and the return-to-work training and facilities. Again, we support the role of return-to-work coordinators. They do come at a cost for employers. I note the Hanks review in 2008 – also now a judge – found that mandatory training of return-to-work coordinators may impose an unreasonable cost on employers, especially those with very few claims, and the bill will impose this mandatory requirement. So there is this balance to be struck, and we are alive to some of the challenges with that.

In the bill briefing there were a series of questions about the costs here. Officials advised that modelling suggests the cost of these changes would be between $2 million and $10 million. That is a considerable burden, but it may be returned in better management of claims. That is the hope, that there is a return to the system in better management of claims and in better outcomes for injured workers. The minister’s office provided some of these figures around the time of the briefing, but there has been some shillyshallying around this and some walking back of the figures that the minister’s office provided. There have been some suggestions that the costs may be lesser more recently, because they may be online courses and perhaps $485 for a two-day facilitator-led course.

Again, it is important that the scheme be run properly and efficiently. None of the figures, though, that the government has provided seem to take into account any of the on-costs employers will be required to pay. These include the costs of providing additional paid time off to attend the training, which means a loss of productivity while the person is away. There are also the costs of providing a return-to-work coordinator with the facilities required to undertake their role. The facilities could include an office and equipment and so forth. There are some of these costs, and it does not seem that the government has really come to grips with those.

The need for a continuing review of a lot of these matters is noted. For several years the WorkCover scheme has been in serious decline, and the FOIs that I personally managed to get out of the system, which pointed directly to the huge surge in the financial spending of the scheme but not a consequent increase in income and consequently a massive deficit building over time, are something that I think we have got to be very concerned about. It is no use having a scheme that is unviable. It is no use having a scheme that is fundamentally broken, as some have called it. The average premium rate in Victoria is 1.8 per cent now, and that has increased from 1.27 per cent in 2023. Stakeholders have advised the increasing cost of premiums for small and medium business was a factor when considering the ongoing viability of their business in Victoria, and I can report anecdotally that industry associations raise these WorkCover costs and the premium challenges very significantly.

There have been many cases of good employers who do not have a bad claims history where their premium has increased very significantly, in some cases by more than 200 per cent. While there was a freeze last financial year, employers remain fearful of premium increases, especially in consequence of these changes and increased payments. So we need to be very thoughtful about how this is going to operate. I am far from convinced that the state government really has a proper grip on this scheme. It had become an absolute monster that was running out of control, and you would hope that it could bring them back into some sensible zone. Our amendments seek to make provision for return-to-work training by WorkSafe to employers with a ratable remuneration of less than $2.895 million, and that is comparable and consistent with the position that exists in New South Wales. We have not just plucked that figure out of the air. There is a parity with New South Wales on that, and that is why we have chosen that particular figure.

I do want to say that the government got itself in a panic with that last bill. The opposition referred that bill to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee, which looked at that bill across the Christmas period, and the changes or the recommendations were broadly accepted – I think the government understood what the committee was saying. The committee as a whole actually did come to some reasonable conclusions, I think, and they should still be very much the underpinning for the scheme going forward.

But I cannot get away from the fact that if the scheme is not viable, that puts at risk not just businesses and employers and their financial position but actually vulnerable employees as well. You have actually got to make the scheme run properly and viably for everyone’s benefit. You cannot have a scheme that is careering out of control. It was only a few years ago that WorkSafe’s WorkCover scheme was actually a major contributor to the state government’s coffers through dividends – in some cases many hundreds of millions per year as dividends. In more recent periods the state government has had to put money into WorkCover to keep it afloat. That is a sign of a government that has got its settings wrong, got its understanding of the scheme wrong and actually left the scheme compromised. As I said, the consequence of that is employers are hit and business competitiveness is hit, but employees are also consequently at risk of not getting the support and the return-to-work activity and focus that is actually needed. Safety is a very important part of the scheme, but it is this return-to-work component that I think is absolutely central. I think that is enough. We will discuss the amendment further in committee.

Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:31): I rise today to speak on behalf of the Greens on the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2025. No-one gets up, heads off to work and expects that their whole life could be changed in a second, but devastatingly, this is something that people in our state continue to endure. People continue to be injured and sometimes lose their lives at work. It is a reality for too many people in our state, and WorkSafe should absolutely be there to support injured workers and their families.

I am pleased to see that there will be increased payments and support services available to family members who have suffered the loss of their loved ones at work. I think the trauma of losing a loved one in this way and the impact that a workplace fatality can have on a family is hard for many people to truly understand. What I know and what I hope that we can all here accept is that providing financial and psychosocial support is critical for any family that does have to deal with this loss.

Introducing a code of rights for injured workers is also something my colleagues and I welcome. There is a very clear need to explicitly state that injured workers and other claimants of the scheme must be afforded dignity and respect. No-one I think, or hope, would disagree with this, but what I do want to see is how this meaningfully will be upheld and what this will look like when it is operationalised, because I am sure that there are many injured workers who would tell you that they do not feel like they have been treated respectfully or with dignity. These changes really will matter in practice.

My colleagues and I are also pleased that there will be improved training for return-to-work coordinators. It can be such a challenging prospect for an injured worker to return to work, and so it is crucially important that they are thoroughly supported through the whole process by skilled coordinators. I am also pleased to see lived experience be further incorporated into the scheme. My office regularly speaks with injured workers, and I will tell you these workers are very well versed on what more needs to be done with the WorkCover scheme to make sure that it truly supports injured workers. On that, I absolutely think there is still so much more to do to improve the WorkCover scheme. This bill is seeking to make important improvements, absolutely, and my colleagues and I support these. Taking a step back, zooming out, there is much more to be done to make sure the scheme is operating as intended and supporting workers through injury.

In the minister’s second-reading speech, he said:

The challenges faced by injured workers and claimants should not be compounded by their experiences of the Scheme.

To be honest, from the injured workers I have spoken to, I have to say this is currently failing. I have spoken to multiple workers who have had the most appalling experiences seeking support for their injury, to the point that they have been further injured by their experience with the scheme and continue to have to fight at every stage of the process. People are already injured, they are already facing the physical and/or psychological impacts of their injury, and then they have to deal with what they experience as a completely hostile and antagonistic system. The fact that this is going on is just downright appalling. I am shocked to the core by what I have heard from some of these injured workers. It is outrageous, the way that they have been treated, and some of these experiences are a direct result of the dreadful WorkCover bill that was passed last year. People are telling me about the terrifying 130-week cliff that they are facing, about the fact that they now cannot claim their mental injuries. Those changes were dreadful, and it was a shameful day in this Parliament – I think it was in the late hours of the evening – that they passed.

As I have mentioned before, this bill is taking some positive and important steps, but the WorkCover scheme needs much, much more work to ensure that it better supports injured workers through their injury and beyond. So my colleagues and I will be supporting the bill and raising some of the concerns I have outlined in the committee stage process.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (10:35): I am pleased to speak on this bill this morning and to reiterate what Mr Puglielli so articulately said about people’s expectations. Workers’ expectations, when they get up in the morning and go off to work, are not to come home injured and certainly not at all that they might not come home. If we look back in history, some of the issues and reasons why a group of workers gathered under a tree and formed the Australian Labor Party were because of workplace safety concerns, and we have never let go of that. We know why we exist, and it is for protection and support for working people, working families and people experiencing vulnerable stages in their lives and for justice and equality. So this piece of legislation fits very much centrally within the value set and framework of the Victorian Labor Party.

I would like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Ralph Snider from the Workplace Incidents Consultative Committee and thank him, his colleagues and everybody who has contributed to the consultation and feedback on this bill. It is really important for us to hear and understand the lived experience of people who either are related to or close to or indeed themselves have experienced some form of workplace injury. I think sometimes it is really easy for us to slip into feeling like we are the experts and we know this stuff, and it is not true. Circumstances change, new issues emerge, the world changes. Generations of people have different expectations as well, and that brings me to why this bill is here this morning.

The bill will amend the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, and in doing so it will improve the experience of injured workers who access the WorkCover scheme. It will improve the support the scheme provides to family members and dependants of workers whose death is work-related. It will also improve the operation of the Workplace Injury Commission. It will streamline administrative arrangements for members of WorkSafe Victoria’s board, WorkSafe’s chief executive officer and hearing loss assessors. And it will also correct technical oversights from the Workplace Safety Legislation and Other Matters Amendment Act 2022 and the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (WorkCover Scheme Modernisation) Act 2024, which I was here for.

Workplace injuries can have a profound and lasting impact on a person’s life, not just physically but emotionally, socially and financially, so when someone is injured at work, compensation is only one factor. The best outcomes of workplace injury rehabilitation help an injured worker recover physically, psychologically and vocationally so they can safely return to work and everyday life as soon as possible. This may include medical treatment such as surgery, physiotherapy and mental health care. It often includes occupational rehabilitation. Using return-to-work planning and modified work duties during periods of adjustment and recovery can support a safer return to work, reduce the risk of re-injury and help maintain or regain an injured worker’s confidence, skills and connection with the workplace. We certainly know that the length of time between the injury and an actual re-engagement with work has a direct impact on the pace and extent of recovery from an injury. Support services can also play an important part through counselling, case management and retraining as needed. Overall, the goal is not just to treat the injury but to support the whole person in rebuilding their health, confidence and ability to participate in work and life.

Historically, we have certainly come a long way in how we approach workplace injury and rehabilitation. It is a fascinating story that spans more than a century of progress and reform and a growing recognition that early support changes lives. In the early 1900s, workplace rehabilitation as we understand it today did not formally exist in any Australian state. Across the country, state-based worker compensation schemes did begin to emerge, but their focus was almost entirely on physical compensation, not recovery and not a return-to-work emphasis. In Victoria the Workers’ Compensation Act 1914 began providing payments to those injured on the job. However, there was little to no support for treatment or rehabilitation. Workers were often left to navigate their recovery alone and frequently fell into long-term unemployment and poor health.

By the 1980s it was clear the system was not working; the costs were blowing out and recovery rates were poor. Injured workers were falling through the cracks. Employers were facing soaring premium costs as injury rates climbed dramatically, with an average of 450,000 workers injured each year – extraordinary. For many workers the system felt unfair and impersonal, often adding to their distress during recovery. The need for real change, both fiscal and human, was undeniable. Then came landmark reform under John Cain’s Labor government. In 1985 the Cain Labor government introduced the WorkCare scheme, which literally transformed the way we supported injured workers. It was a major shift from the adversarial model to a supportive model. With structural rehabilitation embedded within the system for the first time, the focus centred on rehabilitation and return to work. The message was clear: it was not just about payouts, it was also about recovery. The new scheme introduced compulsory insurance for employers. It centralised claims management. Critically, it put a new focus on early intervention and return to work.

In the 1990s our approach matured further. WorkSafe Victoria became the lead authority and rehabilitation became more holistic. It was no longer just about getting someone back on the job, it was about making sure they were medically, physically and emotionally ready. Employers were given clearer responsibilities. Injured workers were no longer expected to navigate the system alone. The ideas of suitable duties and staged return-to-work plans gained traction.

As we entered the 21st century, Victoria’s rehabilitation model aligned more closely with international best practice. We embrace the use of professional rehabilitation providers, we place stronger obligations on employers to keep workers connected to the workplace and we acknowledge that recovery is not just physical, it is also psychological. In the last decade we have faced new challenges, particularly with the rise of workplace mental injury claims. We responded by strengthening mental health support in rehabilitation programs. We improved protections for workers with psychological injuries. We placed further emphasis on educating employers about the importance of mentally safe workplaces. We began to treat mental health with the same urgency and compassion as physical recovery, and rightly so.

Today, as we debate this bill, we are once again in a period of change. Mental injury claims are rising, and complex cases are taking longer. The system is undoubtedly under pressure financially and operationally, and that is why this bill will continue to modernise our approach. It is important to make sure that our workplace injury rehabilitation and compensation legislation is fit for purpose, reflecting the contemporary circumstances and social expectations of our community. These changes deliver on the Victorian government’s commitment to implementing recommendations of the independent review of WorkSafe Victoria’s management of complex workers compensation claims, led by Peter Rozen KC, now Judge Rozen, and the recommendation to review the adequacy of compensation and supports for family members of workers whose deaths are work related. The details of the proposal include: improving the experience of injured workers and other claimants, improving supports for family members after a work-related death, improving the operation of the Workplace Injury Commission and improving administrative arrangements for WorkSafe.

This legislation will continue a long Labor tradition of standing up for fair, safe and respectful treatment for working people, especially when they are at their most vulnerable. From the groundbreaking WorkCare reforms of the 1980s to the improvements we are making today, Labor has always believed that injured workers deserve more than just compensation. They deserve support to heal, to recover and to return to meaningful work and life. Before I conclude, I would say that prevention of workplace injuries is also a focus. It is not relevant to this bill, but I did not want to leave out mention of prevention of workplace injury in my contribution today.

As I mentioned at the start, it is really incredibly important that when we go off to work in the morning we feel confident that we are going to come home in one piece, whether that is physical or mental. The safety of workplaces contributes so much to the productivity of a business. It contributes to the confidence of teams and the way teams work together, and it contributes to the legitimacy of working in our society. It is incredibly important that we make sure that we do not just use workers as a cost input. Workers are human beings and members of our society. Workers are equally important at the bottom of the rung and the top, at the CEO level. It is really a value statement I think to reflect that through the structure of how we ensure workers compensation works in this state. We cannot just have glib statements that express the value; we have to do the hard work to create a structured scheme that actually practically implements that value set of equality and justice and fairness for workers. These changes that we are proposing in this place today are a reflection of exactly that. The bill strengthens the commitment that we have as a Labor government to workers, and I am very proud to stand with a government that puts dignity, fairness and recovery at the heart of workplace justice.

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:50): I also rise to make a contribution on the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2025. Before I start I just want to go through some of the basics of the main purpose of the bill, with its measures that include introducing a Code of Claimants’ Rights to prescribe service standards that must be met by WorkSafe Victoria and self-insurers when assessing claims by injured workers and the introduction of the lived experience membership criterion, which I do not fully grasp. I am looking forward to it coming into committee for questions on that. It also amends the return-to-work provisions by requiring employers to provide coordinators with paid time off to undertake mandatory approved training, which I will come to in a minute, as well as introducing new compensation entitlements and supports for family members after a work-related death.

I have to agree with members throughout the chamber who have mentioned how incredibly important it is that when a person goes to work they expect to be able to come home safely to their family, their friends or wherever they live. Should anything, God forbid, happen in that workplace that causes injury, they should be looked after appropriately so that there is compensation for them. That is why WorkCover came into being, because people were aware that there were severe injuries taking place and that people were not being looked after. This is incredibly important. As a coalition, the Liberal–‍Nationals will be supporting the essence of the right to have that compensation in genuine circumstances when people have been injured at work and cannot continue in their work as a result of that or maybe have lost their lives, and this bill is introducing the opportunity for families to be appropriately compensated. It is quite an extensive compensation, I must say, for family members; it is not just for one family member but for several family members for amounts of money. But given that there is no way to replace a valued family member who was contributing to the home and to the income of a family, that is an incredibly important thing to take into consideration.

We have to remember, though, that WorkCover per se under the Andrews–Allan Labor government over the last 12 years of Labor has become fundamentally broken. I was really interested to hear Ms Ermacora’s contribution, because she mentioned a period when WorkCover became more holistic. Of course that was in the Kennett period when the Liberals were in government from 1992 to 1999. Thank you so much for the shout-out and for recognising the work of the Liberal Party and the things that we have done to make sure that workers are compensated and that there is an approach that allows people to have that compensation. What we do not want to have in WorkCover is businesses going under. We do not want them going under when people are putting in claims that are actually not genuine.

I cannot tell you the number of stories that I heard when people came to see me during the period in which I had the portfolio of WorkCover. Some of them were outrageous. I noticed in here that there are some provisions made for issues of hearing loss. I cannot afford to omit one of the lived experiences of a business owner who had a situation where somebody they employed well over a decade ago, maybe several decades ago, had worked for them for about 13 hours – a very small period of time. In that time they were found to not be working in a safe manner and therefore were not suitable to be working in a manufacturing industry, and they did not continue on in the workplace and were then moved on. Then, years later when they became older, they wanted to put in a claim for hearing loss for that period of time when they worked for less than a week, just a couple of days – or not even that. I just found that extraordinary. It caused tremendous distress to a reputable business and a business owner, who just found the whole thing unfathomable, that this could even be possible. It goes to show that this is still a broken system, that we still have what Labor itself has declared under its own government a fundamentally broken system. They are constantly having to patch it up.

We are looking to support this bill. We do have some minor amendments that we would like to add to it. But I find it extraordinary that we are still having to work on a broken system under the Labor government, and it bothers me that it is so broken. What bothers me too is the number of loopholes that still exist for exploitation. Do not get me wrong: I want people who are genuinely injured to be able to have that compensation. I think that is progress. I think that is a good thing, and I do not think there would be any dispute from any side of the chamber about the opportunity for that to take place, because we do want people who are genuinely injured to be able to be looked after. One of the things that we do see as a coalition that is of benefit in this bill is the provision for people who have lost that loved one and the additional working through there that allows them to have some compensation. I could not help but notice, and I am assuming it is to do with the cost-of-living rises, the additional payments that are coming in and the increase in the payments that have been awarded to people. It was really interesting to find, since we only made some amendments recently, that we look like we are continually increasing compensation for non-economic loss. I find that extraordinary, because it has not been substantiated as to why, but I am assuming it is a cost-of-living situation, which again declares something about the state of Victoria under a Labor government.

I was pleased to see some of the insertions. It is just the thought of what we are actually dealing with here. This is the sort of thing that can happen, and it is just really upsetting to think about. This is clause 13(3)(f) under ‘Liability of Authority and self-insurer’. It says:

After section 224(1)(e) of the Principal Act …

we are going to be inserting, and think about this:

if death results from the injury, the reasonable costs of forensic cleaning services incurred by family members of the worker in circumstances where the death occurred at the home of the worker or a family member of the worker …

I mean, the fact that in this day and age this could even happen is distressing – to think that somebody could have such severe injuries that would require that sort of clean-up. But thankfully, that has been inserted in there. I am not sure why we have to have that level of detail, but I guess, again, it indicates how fundamentally broken the situation is and the system is.

What I find extraordinary, though, is the amount of money that is going through WorkCover. We look at the TAC, and granted, I think that the TAC is extremely difficult for people to access when they have been in a car accident or whatever accident they may be in. For many people, it is quite difficult to access remuneration for injuries and for medical bills. But in WorkCover it has just been way too free flowing, and that has resulted in people exploiting the system. As a result, it is just one of the contributing factors to a number of small to medium businesses having to close in Victoria. It is that and the land tax that have made it so incredibly difficult. They are the two things that, if you ever sit down with small to medium business owners, they will tell you are really hurting them, the land tax and their WorkCover expenses.

One of the things I have to address is the situation of training. I looked at it and I was thinking about mandatory training, provision of facilities and requirements for return-to-work coordinators, and this is the introduction of this return-to-work coordinator. I looked at that and I thought, ‘This mandatory training comes at a time when we have a teacher shortage and at a time when finding genuine trainers is exceptionally difficult in this state.’ I find it extraordinary. I understand the importance of perhaps putting in mandatory training, but there are several provisions for how it can take place, whether it be online or whether it be in person. It was not ruled out in the bill briefing that some of this training could actually be done by trade unions or employer associations that would be approved possibly to deliver the training.

I understand there needs to be context in a workplace for training and return to work if there has been an injury – I do get that – and that there could be a certain person set aside to be able to help a person return to work and to make sure that they have all the necessary arrangements to make that more comfortable for them. I think that is wise. I am not canning that. I am saying that it is not a bad thing; it is a good thing. What I think is something that we need to be watching out for is the exploitation of that. I am just going to put it out as a suggestion to the government, because I know that this state has an extraordinary debt – what is it, $188 billion in debt – and it is costing us $26 million in interest a day to pay off this debt. That is what every hour – a million dollars just down the toilet, or more.

In terms of being cost-effective, I do think there is the possibility of having online training that is available to everybody to access – something that is short and succinct that can be provided to people in the workplace, that is ongoing and that can reduce those costs and that can actually be something that is generic. Then it means that the person that is actually having to be rehabilitated for their return to work in their actual workplace does not need to do all the general training through some sort of external, mandatorily required training; they can just be given the generic one through an online system and then just the contextual one in the workplace by a coordinator. That would be my suggestion to the government. To me that is more cost-effective. I know it is not my place to say that, but I am just putting it out there, because the debt in this state really does bother me, as does the situation for businesses, which is that they are under extreme pressure. I noted that they said that training could be different for smaller businesses than it would be for larger businesses, and there is no context as to how they are going to define what a smaller business is and how they are going to define what a larger business is and who is going to have to pay how much. None of that is actually in there. So the cost that employees and businesses are going to wear in this situation will be another burden on our economic situation and another pressure that could cause more businesses to feel it is just not worth it: ‘It’s too hard to do business in Victoria. We’re going to have to shut down or relocate.’ So I think that a holistic approach towards WorkCover is something that needs to be considered.

I applaud the concept of WorkCover and compensation, because like I said, it is highly necessary, and it is extremely important that we are fair and reasonable to people who have been injured. Where I feel there are still areas where it is lacking is in the opportunity for exploitation. I am glad that there is going to be a review. As mentioned in this bill, that is going to be every five years, and I think they are proposing that the next one be around or by December 2030. To me that is a bit far down the track. I actually think that the review of some of the things that are being implemented here needs to be sooner to be able to see if it is working, if it can be done more cost-efficiently and if it is going to actually be working for businesses so that they do not end up having to shut down. I understand that the Labor Party come from a union background, and I understand that it is incredibly important for them to make sure that their union people are looked after. But at the same time we have to also remember that every Victorian deserves to be looked after and every Victorian is not a member of a union. So we want to make sure that we are being fair and reasonable when we work in the area of WorkCover, and we want to make sure that we are not giving out money – extraordinary amounts – in areas where it would be inappropriate and an illegitimate use of hard-earned taxpayers money.

We will be supporting this bill because in essence we recognise that families, where they have lost a loved one, need to be compensated, but I just wanted to add these additional thoughts on the bill.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (11:06): Thank you so much for the opportunity to rise and make a contribution on the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2025. This is a particularly sensitive topic for me, having lost a very beloved family member to a workplace accident a few years ago now, and I was reminded about it only last week when I was in fact preparing for this bill before us. I will just ask the patience of the chamber at times when I might get a little bit emotional on this subject matter, because it is an emotional subject matter, talking about the loss of our loved ones or talking about folks that just do not come home from work at the end of the day. So thank you so much.

Throughout our state’s history Labor governments have delivered for workers union values that are in Victoria’s DNA. We are a state and a government that puts workers safety at the forefront, and this bill is another example of that. It provides an improved experience for injured workers accessing the WorkCover scheme and enhances the supports and benefits provided to the family members of those who have died a work-related death. This bill is not just about making legislative changes and administrative improvements; it is about dignity and it is about support, and most importantly, it centres the lived experience of injured workers and their families. These are changes that the entire union movement has been working towards for a long time, and it is another win for workers, fought for by comrades all around the state and delivered by this Allan Labor government. I know the entire team at Victorian Trades Hall Council have been fighting and advocating for pro-worker changes like these for a long time, and it will be a welcome addition to their long list of wins over the years. I had the good fortune of seeing them as they came to visit us here in Parliament yesterday.

The union movement began in Victoria, and it is safe to say it has not lost its steam. Changes like the one this bill makes will have an impact on every Victorian worker and their family for years to come. It delivers on our commitment to implementing recommendations provided in two separate reports: the independent review into complex workers compensation claims management undertaken by Peter Rozen KC, now Judge Rozen, which was provided to government in April 2021 – and I would like to take a moment to commend Judge Rozen and all those people who submitted reports to the review; all the hard work and harder stories have finally culminated in a piece of legislation that will make real change in the lives of Victorians; and the review of the adequacy of compensation and supports for family members of workers whose death is work-related – that is the family support review.

The bill before us will enact the recommendations requiring legislative change that were accepted by the Victorian government following these reports. I will just take a moment to acknowledge in the chamber the former Minister for Workplace Safety Ingrid Stitt, who I understand has been a champion on this subject matter for many, many years over her esteemed career – thank you for your work with that, Minister Stitt.

Can I also say that this bill provides improved operational efficiency in administrative processes relating to the Workplace Injury Commission, the WorkSafe Victoria board, CEO appointments, hearing loss assessors and minor technical amendments. The reforms before us strengthen Victoria’s WorkCover scheme by centring dignity, fairness and high-quality service for all Victorians, from the injured worker navigating a complex claim to the grieving parent, child or sibling facing an unimaginable loss. These changes fulfill key commitments made by the government in response to the review. The bill brings to life the aspirations of so many Victorians. One of the central messages of the Rozen review is that the experience of so many workers in the scheme just was not good enough. People were being let down by a system that failed to treat them with the respect, care and dignity they deserved at a time when they absolutely needed it. The bill responds in many ways, not just tweaks.

I am just going to say one of the pieces that I was pleased to see is the change that empowers the minister to develop and publish a Code of Claimants’ Rights, setting out the rights held by workers and the obligations on WorkSafe, its agents and self-insurers to uphold them. This code will include mechanisms for lodging complaints, setting out a process through which rights are enforced and ensuring that remedies are available when breaches occur. It will be developed with robust stakeholder consultation to ensure it reflects the lived experiences and real expectations of people in this system.

We know that the longer a person remains off work, the less likely they are to return, and we also know that returning to work when safe and appropriate is a vital part of recovery. That is why this bill will now require return-to-work coordinators to undergo approved training. Employers will be required to ensure that coordinators have the tools, facilities and support to carry out their responsibilities effectively. This responds to recommendation 17 of the Rozen report and is part of building workplace capacity so that injured workers are supported back into employment as smoothly and safely as possible.

Through WorkSafe’s Return to Work Victoria initiative, backed by $50 million in funding, we are trialling new supports like a worker mental health hotline and a program for small businesses to build mentally healthy workplaces. Just last year WorkSafe supported more than 26,000 injured workers to return to work, and with this bill we strengthen the foundation for even better outcomes ahead. Returning to work is not just about getting back to business, it is about restoring dignity, rebuilding confidence and reconnecting with community. For many injured workers, the path back to fulfilment is filled with physical, psychological and logistical barriers. That is why this government has made Return to Work Victoria a key pillar of our injured worker support system. Through this $50 million investment there is the support that is needed. Returning to work when safe and appropriate delivers better health, financial stability and long-term wellbeing. It is a goal we all share, and it is one that the government is backing with both policy and funding.

The truth is that no-one knows the true cost of workplace injury or death more than those who have lived through it. This bill recognises that by ensuring that the lived experience is not a footnote in policymaking but is truly a voice at the table. Expanding the membership of both the WorkCover Advisory Committee and the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee is testament to that. It includes people directly or indirectly impacted by serious workplace injury, illness or death. It reflects our deep gratitude to the members of the Workplace Incidents Consultative Committee, people who, despite their own unimaginable loss, have chosen to advocate for system reform. Their insights have directly shaped the measures in this bill.

The death of a loved one at work is a tragedy no family should endure, and when it happens our responsibility is to stand by those families. As I said, that was my role when we had a death in the family – trying to navigate the complexity of this system. It is never easy, so hearing that this bill makes it all that much easier by a suite of measures – I am going to say proudly to this chamber these are measures that I am enormously, enormously proud of. These include increasing the weekly pension paid to dependent children from 5 per cent to 12.5 per cent of the worker’s pre-injury earnings, applied retrospectively for up to five years, and introducing a new lump sum payment of up to $20,000 for economic loss to dependent family members who are not a partner or a child – that is, siblings, parents or others that relied on the worker’s income. I think an example of that is a son who helps out their mum from time to time. I am really pleased to see this. The other one is a non-economic loss payment of $10,000 for close family members who shared a genuine relationship with the deceased, recognising the pain and suffering caused by loss beyond financial dependency. I lost my cousin. I did not have a financial dependency on him, but that loss was enormous. So for me, I was really pleased to see the government recognising that there is loss too for family members.

There is also an extension of the provisional pension period for dependent partners from 12 weeks to 26 weeks, ensuring that families do not face undue hardship while waiting for a claim to be determined. There are also measures to allow for provisional payments to be made in suicide-related workplace deaths, which are always a tragedy. It will expand access to bereavement counselling and therapy, including for families where the worker had an eligible disease or severe injury. I know Mrs Hermans spoke about this, but introducing a new entitlement to cover the cost of forensic cleaning after a work-related death in the home is a practical yet deeply compassionate reform.

The idea that came to mind about where this might be applied was actually in our regional communities. I previously helped some farmers in a life long ago. When there were injuries on the farm they went home. They went back to the home to wait for the ambulance to arrive after their tractor had an accident or there was some sort of accident with machinery; they went to the home. This was the best example that I could think of. If that was a large-scale employer, it would certainly be eligible under this. I am thinking about those sorts of incidents that happen. They are a real tragedy. Even to have the insight to include that in this bill means that absolutely this bill was drafted with voices of lived experience at the table. Can I commend folks for thinking about that, because let me tell you, that is never an easy thing.

Each of these measures – every single one of them – acknowledges the profound and lasting impact of a work-related death on families and communities. The tireless advocacy of many, many injured workers, families and industry leaders has shaped everything from improved bereavement support services to stronger recognition of families’ needs in the aftermath of workplace fatalities. By legislating the inclusion of lived experience voices on the WorkCover and occupational health and safety advisory committees, we are ensuring there is empathy in the DNA of our policymaking. Their presence ensures the system is never disconnected from those it was built to serve.

This bill also contains important changes to the user experience at the Workplace Injury Commission, our independent dispute resolution body. Workers can now access their dispute documents after conciliation or arbitration concludes, including addressing a key barrier to informed decision-making. This bill also includes sensible administrative improvements to ensure that the scheme runs efficiently. These include allowing the WorkSafe board to appoint its CEO with the minister’s approval, reducing red tape, which is also in keeping with best practice; enabling some acting CEO appointments for up to 12 months without Governor in Council processes; and clarifying that the WorkSafe board of directors can resign directly to the minister and the minister may determine their terms and conditions. There are also some improvements, which I was pleased to hear – removing the outdated requirement for the minister to approve hearing loss assessors, delegating this responsibility to WorkSafe, just as we do for so many other assessor types. These changes are modest, but they are incredibly important. They free up capacity and align our practices with other modern public sector entities.

The bill mandates that the scheme is subject to a statutory review every five years. The first is to occur by 31 December 2030, and this ensures that the system evolves with the needs of workers, families and workplaces and that we will remain accountable absolutely to those we serve. It also delivers really practical improvements to the operation of the Workplace Injury Commission and WorkSafe’s administrative processes and corrects prior technical oversights.

As I said, it is a bill about justice, about dignity and about delivering on the promises we made to injured workers and their families. Labor built the WorkCover scheme to protect workers. Unlike those opposite, who once abolished common-law rights for seriously injured workers, we are never going to walk away from our proud legacy in supporting injured workers. We will always put the rights, health and dignity of working people first. No-one ever plans to get injured at work, and if they do, or if the unthinkable happens, like what happened in my family, I want them to know that this government will be there to support them, just as this government was there for my family back in 2017 when I lost my dearest cousin James.

I will finish my remarks by commending this and recommending a vote of thanks to everyone who put their best efforts in to bring this bill before us today. The legacy of your work will sit with Victorians for many, many years to come.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (11:20): I am proud to stand and speak in support of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2025 and to follow on from the personal and reflective comments from Ms Watt. I am sure many people, particularly on this side, when they get an opportunity to contribute today, will have stories that are personal by nature and that I think go to the essence of this bill. It is about making people’s lives better, particularly when their lives are in very, very difficult situations. I think, no matter what any of us do in our lives, it should be full of purpose. If you look at the establishment of the Labor Party, you see workers represented, you see political representation and you see outcomes for workers, their families and working people and see their lot improved. I am very proud to support this bill, to stand here and talk on it. As Ms Watt said, people have done the work on this bill to improve the lives of Victorians who are in probably one of the toughest spots you can be in. When a family member does not come home from work, that is an absolute tragedy. It is difficult enough for those that go to work and receive an injury and are impacted for the rest of their lives or for even an extended period by that injury.

We have got Ralph Snider here today from the Workplace Incidents Consultative Committee. The committee commenced in mid-2021, and there are 13 lived-experienced members on there. I was just reading through some notes before that Ralph had made, encouraging workers, when they get an injury, to get on top of it. I was an electrician for a decade. I was lifting a drummer cable one day, and I did an injury to my forearm. It is okay – I manage it – but I have still got that injury today. That is probably why I do not do as much handwriting and whatnot as I should in preparation for some of my speeches.

It is important that workers are supported in their workplace to, first, identify risks so that accidents do not happen – and so that when accidents do happen, they are straightaway getting the medical support and help they need and the rehabilitation to get on top of that injury so it does not become chronic. Whether it is a blue-collar injury or whether it is white collar through repetitive strain and whatnot, I do not think we should underestimate it. There are obvious body impacts that come out of traditional blue-collar workplaces, but there are also white-collar injuries. Perhaps our bodies were not designed to be sitting in one place for hours and hours on end every day. I know I use a standing desk whenever I can. I really struggle to sit and be in one place, and people working in a white-collar sector should also be mindful of those repetitive strain injuries.

To come back to the bill, as I was saying, when people are in a situation – and this is not just a worker in this case when we are talking about death, but also their immediate family who is impacted – it turns their lives upside down. It turns extended networks and communities’ lives upside down. We know that every year when we go to the workers memorial service, a lot of my colleagues here from the Labor Party turn out alongside those in the union movement to form the political labour movement and come together to acknowledge, reflect on and respect the workers who have lost their lives.

So often we see workers from the construction sector, workers from the manufacturing sector, workers in agriculture – so many people across these sectors – in tragic and quite horrifying accidents, and we have to remember there are a whole lot of people that will be on that worksite and witness and have to live with these accidents. We heard some comments from Mrs Hermans before about costs to business, painting a gloomy picture about business. I actually just ran down to my office – that is why I am puffing. I went and got some notes about the economic situation in Victoria at the moment. I forget where I have sat them, but I am going to come back to that in a few minutes. It is easy to say, ‘Everything’s a bit tough. Everything’s a bit hard to do. That would be nice, but.’ And that is exactly why the Labor Party exists – because it is not a nice-to-have, it is a must-have to have protections in place to ensure that accidents do not occur and to have financial safety nets in place when they do occur.

What this bill will do for dependants of workers – and I am really proud that it is acknowledging other people just outside immediate children and partners as well, and, again, I come back to that lived experience – is it is looking at what the lived experience of people in this situation is and it is addressing it. There are a number of other changes which I will go through as well, which are improving the regulatory framework and the way a variety of things are working. But I want the majority of my contribution just to focus on how important this is and what difference this makes to people’s lives. I know my old man was in between shearing, factory working and taxi driving when I was in primary school. He got hit by a truck one night and was laid up for a fair while. Without WorkCover I do not know what we would have done, and there are many, many families that are in that position. So it is incredibly important, as I said – a movement that has determinedly, unapologetically been committed to establishing a framework that protects workers before injuries occur but then supports them in the event that they do occur.

When you hear language from the Liberals framing these things up as ‘It would be a nice-to-have but the economy’s not in a state to do so’, the same argument could have been made at any decade in the last 130 or 140 years, and we would probably still be having the fatalities that we had when the labour movement formed to protect workers. We would still be having widows with children at home not knowing how on earth they are going to get by without the local community getting around them and supporting them. We are not here to hear apologist lines. We are not here to support amendments to try and water things down, amendments that go nowhere. We are here to recognise the purpose – our purpose: to improve workers lives and improve families’ and communities’ lives, and that is exactly what this bill does, and I am really proud of it.

I will pick up on Mrs Hermans’s comments about the economy. The Victorian economy is growing, and over the last decade it has grown faster than any other state. The Victorian economy is 31 per cent larger than when we came to government. Victorian employment has increased by 12,800 people in June 2025. Over the last year employment has increased by 84,600 people – that is 2.3 per cent – and the share of Victorians in work remains high. In the year to June 2025 Victoria’s unemployment rate has averaged 4.4 per cent, remaining below the 20-year prepandemic average of 5.5 per cent. Victorian business conditions and business confidence increased in June and both returned to positive, optimistic territory for the first time since October 2024, and business investment grew by 6.6 per cent for the financial years 2022–23 and 2023–24.

As a result, business investment reached record levels as a share of gross state product and per worker in 2023–24. We have added 113,000 businesses since June 2020 and created 651,600 jobs since September 2020, and Victoria is home to 3500 startups, scale ups and unicorns, with an ecosystem worth $132 billion in 2024. There are plenty more notes, but I will not go on and dwell on those. But to say that worker safety or indeed compensation for the families and loved ones of workers have impacted that – (a) there is no time for those comments and (b) there is certainly no evidence to back that up.

I will just go through some of the specifics of the bill. Recommendations 19 and 20 of the Rozen report recommend that the objectives of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 and WorkSafe Victoria be amended to expressly provide for fair, respectful and dignified treatment of injured workers and their dependants by WorkSafe and the provision of high-quality services, adding new objectives to the WIRC act and the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (AC act) to ensure users of the WorkCover scheme receive high-quality services and are treated fairly, respectfully and with dignity. This puts the injured worker at the centre by building these into the scheme as fundamental expectations.

A code of rights: recommendation 14 of the Rozen report recommends that WorkSafe develop a code of injured workers rights, which should identify the rights of workers and the corresponding responsibilities of WorkSafe, identify the process by which rights may be enforced and be developed with consideration of codes in other jurisdictions, such as the New Zealand Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights. The bill delivers on this through the creation of a Code of Claimants’ Rights, which will be delivered in consultation with stakeholders after the bill is passed. The bill requires that the code includes specific rights of claimants under the code; obligations to ensure services provided by WorkSafe, its agents and self-insurers are provided in a manner that promotes and upholds those rights; a procedure for lodging and dealing with complaints about noncompliance with the code by WorkSafe, its agents and self-insurers; and remedies that apply in any complaints that are substantiated. The code will have the ability to provide rights to all persons who have entitlements under the WIRC act and the AC act, such as injured workers, dependants of deceased workers and family members of deceased and injured workers, and return-to-work coordinator training. We know that the longer a person is away from work, the less likely they are to ever return, and languishing on workers compensation indefinitely is not the answer. In some of the some of the commentary I read from Ralph, that was highlighted in his comments.

Recommendation 17 of the Rozen report recommends that the effectiveness of return-to-work coordinators should be enhanced by requiring employers to ensure return-to-work coordinators have training and the assistance and facilities reasonably necessary to perform their functions under the WIRC act. I think it is important that there is a clear understanding and that training and education piece to ensure that it is embedded in culture across the workplace and that when there is an injury people get back and get actively supported in the right way, under the right expectations, so people can return to work in a really safe way. The bill will implement this recommendation by introducing a requirement for employers to ensure that their appointed RTW coordinator completes approved training within the required timeframe, unless the employer has a reasonable excuse for not doing so. This amendment aims to build the capability of workplaces to more effectively support their injured workers to recover and to return to work, which is better for workers, businesses and the scheme. The minister may determine the training required to be completed, including initial or refresher training, any qualifications to be held by an RTW coordinator and the time period within which the RTW coordinator must complete the approved training.

I am proud to be part of a party that has a very clear purpose and that absolutely understands why we are here. For generations upon generations we have been protecting and supporting workers, their families and their communities, and through that being able to identify values is what enables the Labor Party to form policies and to create policies that are going to make the lives of Victorians better. We see on the other side there is a vacuum of purpose; there is a vacuum of identity and of values. They are not able to form policy. They are not able to bring a plan to Victorians. We hear excuses. We hear reasons why. We hear platitudes. ‘This would be nice, that would be nice, but we can’t do it. We can’t do it because of A. We can’t do it because of B.’

A government that is clear on its purpose, that is clear on its values and that formulates policies and brings forward legislation, like we are doing today, is going to make an incredible difference in people’s lives. It is going to see a better Victoria for generations to come. It is something that I am incredibly proud to support. No doubt, as we will hear, my colleagues are incredibly proud to support it. I commend the bill.

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (11:35): I also rise to speak in support of this bill, the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2025, before us this morning. I would like to begin by acknowledging the tireless advocacy of the families of workers who have been seriously injured or lost their lives at work, in particular the lived experience Workplace Incidents Consultative Committee. This bill is one of many achievements of that committee and proof of the importance of policy guided by those who have lived experience. There have already been 28 confirmed work-related fatalities in Victoria this year alone. While I welcome improvements to injury compensation, it is important to remember the priority must always be the prevention of these incidents and the protection of workers, because the best outcome for any worker is to never actually be injured at all in the first place.

For those who are injured at work, it is essential that they are able to easily navigate a system which compensates them fairly and allows them to return to work when they are fit and able to do so. A key change included in this bill is the creation of a Code of Claimants’ Rights. In its current state, it is not legally actionable. I would encourage the government to consider granting it stronger powers in the arbitration process. The WorkCover system has become so complex and confrontational that workers often suffer secondary psychological injuries while trying to navigate it. This was something that became so abundantly clear in 2023, when I chaired an inquiry into the WorkCover bill that we had at the time. Hearing those stories, it was so vital that we listened to them, because many reported being treated with suspicion, being asked to relive their trauma repeatedly and feeling like they were fighting a system designed to deny their claims in the first place. Those experiences run directly counter to the principles this bill seeks to enshrine in the Code of Claimants’ Rights.

The mandatory return-to-work, or RTW, coordinator training included in this bill does have the potential to improve this. RTW coordinators can and should support injured workers in their navigation of the system and get them back to work as quickly as possible. But workers need to be able to trust the RTW coordinator in the first place. As long as return-to-work coordinators are employed directly by employers, there will, of course, be a trust deficit. Injured workers must feel confident that the person supporting them is genuinely acting in their best interests, not simply managing liability or risk for the employer. It is wonderful that RTW coordinators will have mandatory training, but it is essential that that training is developed and delivered in a way which actually focuses on the needs of injured workers who are returning to work. Training must also focus on the support needs of those groups which report feeling least capable of navigating the system when they go into it. All of this has major implications. The It Pays to Care report found that injured workers who believed they were treated fairly were 25 per cent more likely to return to work.

There are, I guess, a number of things that have changed in this system in recent times, particularly after the last bill that we passed almost two years ago now, but it is great to see these improvements for workers who have been injured at work as they navigate the system and return to work, which was fundamentally the thing that we all agreed we wanted to see in the first place and what is most important. Obviously there is still so much more for us to do and more for us to consider – potentially winding back those changes that many of us did oppose here on the crossbench. But this bill before us today is fundamentally a good one, and we look forward to working with the government to see how it rolls out. I commend the bill to the house.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:40): I rise to speak on the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2025. Fundamentally, this bill is about fairness. It is about ensuring that those who suffer a workplace injury are treated with respect and dignity and that families who have gone through the tragedy of a loss due to a loved one’s workplace death receive the compensation and support they need and they deserve. The bill does this by delivering on the government’s commitment to implementing recommendations from the Rozen report and the family support review.

Losing a loved one through a workplace incident is every family’s nightmare. When people go to work, they should come home safely. Of course there are laws and regulations in place to ensure that people do come home safely, but sadly and rarely but perhaps too commonly, they do not. The grief alone can never be fully compensated for. What we can do as a government is not leave these families behind. We can extend a hand and be the ground beneath their feet to ensure they do not fall when they are at their most vulnerable.

It was obviously up to a Labor government, the Cain Labor government in 1985, to first pass the Accident Compensation Act 1985 following the work done in the Cooney report earlier than that. Through the happenstance and good fortune of the electoral systems and the popularity of the Cain Labor government, we had an opportunity to pass Victoria’s first statutory work cover scheme in 1985. Labor then created what was known as WorkCare, a precursor to what we now call WorkSafe, to have a statutory scheme replace a system of privately underwritten workers compensation schemes. What that change did – the importance and the significance of the change made by that Labor government 40 years ago – was to ensure that there was compensation for workplace injury or death on a universal basis and not just for those who could afford it. The work cover act has been modernised and improved since then, including through the legislation before the chamber today.

The changes within this bill pertaining to supporting families following the death of a worker have been guided by an internal review of WorkSafe as part of the government’s families and injured workers system reform and implementation package. One of the major things the bill does is recognise that people can be compensated for their grief following the loss of a family member and deserve to be compensated for that grief – for, for many, what is the biggest loss of all. The bill will introduce new measures for a $10,000 lump sum compensation entitlement for losses resulting from non-economic matters. The bill therefore explicitly recognises losses due to non-economic factors and legislates for available compensation when it comes to a workplace death. The lump sum will be available for close family members who have a genuine and personal relationship with the deceased worker at the time of their death. It is a first step in recognising their pain and suffering and acknowledges that the impact of work-related deaths is broader than the economic loss inflicted on the family. In further support offered on non-economic loss, the bill provides funding for a more diverse range of counselling, therapy and support services for families, which will better support their needs. The total cost cap for claiming these services will be increased, while changes in the bill will expand eligibility criteria for family members.

In addition to the grief, in addition to the non-economic loss, there are financial losses to families from workplace deaths, and this bill makes sure that families and dependants are sufficiently supported. The bill will create new lump sum entitlements of up to $20,000 for economic loss experienced by a person who was dependent on the deceased worker but was not their partner or their child. Currently family members who were not a partner or a child of the deceased worker but who were dependent upon them are only eligible for support if the worker did not have a partner or a child. The bill strengthens pension payments to child dependents of deceased workers and legislates that the weekly pension payable to dependents of a worker is increased to 12.5 per cent of the worker’s pre-injury average weekly earnings, up from 5 per cent – an increase that will be implemented so that those who are eligible will be entitled to the new pension payments in the five years prior to the commencement of the amendment.

Another important change this bill makes is in relation to provisional payments being paid for a work-related death caused by suicide. Death of a family member has an immediate financial impact, regardless of how the death came about. It is only right that these provisional payments are made to families and dependents while the determination of a claim is ongoing. Claims for provisional payments can be made in relation to aspects such as funeral expenses and associated travel and accommodation expenses. These changes have the wellbeing of those impacted at their heart – higher pensions for children and new entitlements for grief to help heal from the pain and the loss endured.

The bill also deals with improvements to the WorkSafe scheme for workers who suffer injury. The Rozen report, which many of my colleagues have referenced, made several recommendations for strengthening the WorkSafe scheme centred on ensuring that injured workers are treated fairly, respectfully and with dignity – all elements this bill delivers on.

One of the more significant changes made by the bill and recommended by the Rozen report is that those directly affected by workplace injury, illness or death should be provided with a greater voice in the decision-making process. I think the concept of giving a greater voice to those affected by decision-making has been at the heart of this government’s approach to legislative change in a variety of contexts to make sure that those who are affected by legislation have a voice in helping to shape it. We see it here in amending laws for injured workers, just as we have seen it in a variety of other contexts. In this bill the lived experience of workers is given greater value. The bill amends the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 to expand the membership composition of the WorkCover Advisory Committee to include persons who the minister considers have been affected, directly or indirectly, by a workplace incident involving serious injury, illness or death.

The bill also amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to increase the membership of the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee by two additional persons who the minister considers have been affected, directly or indirectly, by a workplace incident involving serious injury, illness or death. These members in both instances are referred to as lived experience members. It is a huge step forward for workers and their rights and an important way in which in this context, as in other contexts, the government is understanding the need for the voices of those who are affected by matters – those who have the lived experience in the subject matter being referred to – to be included in the processes, the committees and the reference groups that are set up to consider these matters and provide advice to government. It is something which I think we should all both reflect on and be very proud of: that we are giving more voice to those who have lived through the matters that are being discussed.

The bill delivers on recommendation 14 of the Rozen report: that WorkSafe develop a code of injured workers rights. This Code of Claimants’ Rights further enhances the rights of workers when they have been injured and provides for clarity on how they should be treated. It will outline the obligations of WorkSafe and establish a clear procedure for dealing with complaints.

Another important aspect of the bill is the way it deals with return-to-work coordinator training. We know and understand that the longer that a person is away from work and the more time that someone is disconnected from their workplace following an injury, the less likely they are to return. If they are less likely to return to their former workplace, it means that they are increasingly likely to need to gain new skills in order to return to a workplace. Recommendation 17 of the Rozen report recommends that the effectiveness of return-to-work coordinators could be improved by requiring employers to ensure that return-to-work coordinators have training and the assistance and facilities reasonably necessary to perform their functions under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

The bill implements this recommendation by introducing a requirement for employers to ensure that their appointed return-to-work coordinator completes approved training within the required timeframe unless the employer has a reasonable excuse for not doing so. Oversight: the bill includes provisions that will enhance oversight of the scheme, requiring that a statutory review of the scheme be undertaken at least every five years, the first of which must be completed by the end of December 2030. There is provision that if the minister forms the view that a review is required earlier than the five-year period, then they can cause review to be held at any time. So the amendments will require a review at least once in each period of five years after 31 December 2030.

This amendment recognises that regular, proactive reviews of Victorian workers compensation will enable emerging trends and issues to be identified as they emerge rather than when there is already a significant issue. It is a proactive step in responsible monitoring of the issues that workers face, in identifying trends and in trying to deal with issues before they become too significant and too significant a burden on workers, employers and the scheme. This requirement for regular reviews also aligns the Victorian workers compensation scheme with provisions that apply in other states.

There are some other more administrative changes which I will refer to at the conclusion of the remarks today. They are designed to both improve the administration of the scheme but also reduce the administrative obligations that the scheme places on a range of processes. They will change the process for appointing the CEO such that the CEO is appointed by the board with the approval of the minister rather than through the inclusion of a Governor in Council process, which will make the process more efficient and more appropriate in the circumstances. And that is going to enable the board to appoint an acting CEO for a period of up to 12 months when the substantive CEO is unable to perform their duties.

Further administrative changes proposed in the bill will change the process for WorkSafe board member appointment such that the minister will be empowered to set the terms and conditions for appointment and that directors can then resign in writing to the minister. Currently these processes involve the inclusion of the Governor in Council in the process, which for a range of reasons creates unnecessary and additional layers of administrative burden. Certainly the making of these amendments will ensure that the processes that are required for the efficient administration of the scheme, particularly with the appointment of board members, can be done in a more efficient manner.

The bill will also remove the requirement for the minister to approve a person to undertake hearing loss assessments for impairment benefit claims, to reduce delays in appointing assessors. It seems to be a particularly high threshold to have the involvement of a minister in the appointment of those who are doing what are functional assessments for impairment benefits under the scheme. This will both reduce the delays in appointing assessors to this particularly important element of the scheme but also ensure that their appointment process is consistent with other assessors under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The bill will fix further and additional drafting errors in the legislation.

I think what the government has demonstrated through this change, and what Labor governments today and in the past have demonstrated, is our absolute determination to provide statutory workplace compensation here in Victoria, schemes that ensure that they are delivering on the support that workers need when they become injured at work and the support that their families need when there are unfortunate circumstances – rare but too many – where people die in the workplace. This bill delivers fairness and more support for those families so that alongside their grief there is some additional support. I commend the bill to the house.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:55): I also rise today to speak on the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2025. This is a bill which introduces important changes to the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 and the Accident Compensation Act 1985. These reforms aim to enhance the experiences of injured workers whilst they are on the WorkCover scheme, particularly in terms of improving support for the families and dependants of deceased workers.

This issue is something that, as I have spoken about in previous times as well, is a matter that I am particularly passionate about, given my previous career experience working to represent generally lower paid retail and frontline service workers, and when it came to supporting them through WorkCover cases it was in some situations all too sad to see the system working in a way which was not supporting their full rehabilitation and was causing them further distress. So anything that we can do – and there have been a number of things that this government already has done to reform and improve in this space and to improve the outcomes for injured workers, and this is a continuation of that work. That is why I am so pleased to be able to share a few words on this bill today, because anything we can do to support those injured workers and, as I noted in particular, support those who have tragically lost their lives and their loved ones is a good thing. It is a very important part of that continuation of reform that we are undertaking in this space to modernise WorkCover and make it as responsive and effective as it can be to support Victorian workers.

The key reforms in this bill will improve the experience of injured workers accessing the scheme, establishing a Code of Claimants’ Rights, requiring a return-to-work coordinator to be appointed by employers and adding lived experience members to the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee and the WorkSafe Advisory Committee to enhance the support and benefits for family members of deceased workers. These amendments will implement the recommendations of the independent review of WorkSafe Victoria’s management of complex workers compensation claims, which was led by Peter Rozen KC. The government is committed to ensuring that WorkSafe takes a person-centred approach. Five of the recommendations from the Rozen review do require legislative change to be put into effect, and this bill today is acting upon that commitment of government to fulfilling those recommendations.

When it comes to injury, no-one goes in to work expecting to be injured or put at risk of serious injury. No-one deserves to go to work and be faced with serious injury. Every worker has the right to feel safe at work, and they must be afforded protection in the event of injury. That is at the heart of our state’s WorkCover scheme, and it is also a principle that goes to the heart of this bill today. We have a special privilege here in this place as lawmakers to be able to do everything that we can to ensure that workers rights are protected and that their safety at work is assured, and the Jacinta Allan Labor government is standing with injured workers and their families, ensuring they are treated with the respect, the care and the dignity that they deserve at these toughest of times.

This bill sets out new objectives for both the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Accident Compensation Act to ensure that workers on the scheme receive high-quality services and are treated fairly, respectfully and with dignity. The new objectives act specifically on recommendations 19 and 20 of the Rozen report, and it is a pretty straightforward change which is aimed at making the treatment of workers at a high standard of services a fundamental expectation of the scheme, putting that expectation clearly at the heart of it. By doing this we are making sure that the outcomes for people going through the scheme and going through the WorkCover system are actually a central foundation of what it sets out to do.

Of course the experience should be straightforward for most people, and there are many good employers and even good case managers who support that process. But far too often, indeed from my experience, people were finding themselves falling through gaps in the system. Without these robust reforms, such as in this bill today – and President, you are telling me to sit down, I believe, because it is question time.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.