Thursday, 31 July 2025

Bills

Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (14:03)

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I just wonder whether the minister would mind giving us an overview of how the introduction of lived experience will be playing out throughout the purpose of the bill. If she could perhaps give an expansion on a definition for that and how that will be used in this particular bill, that would be much appreciated.

Jaclyn SYMES: We are obviously pleased to be including members with lived experience on both the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee (OHSAC) and the WorkCover Advisory Committee (WAC). In relation to your question on what lived experience is, the bill defines someone with ‘lived experience’ as a person who has been affected directly or indirectly by a workplace incident that involved death or a serious injury or illness. This is the same definition as the criteria that is currently used to appoint members to the Workplace Incidents Consultative Committee (WICC).

Ann-Marie HERMANS: In understanding that definition and using it in the committee, would it be possible for the minister to expand a little bit more on how the minister sees that lived experience working through the committee? I am assuming the intention of this is to delineate some greater understanding of how they can improve the WorkCover legislation and the WorkSafe Victoria protocols and regulations, but is there any other purpose to the lived experience on the committee?

Jaclyn SYMES: You are picking up on exactly the motivation. I think if you read the Rozen report, it goes into a lot of this, and this lived experience inclusion in the work is obviously based off the back of his conclusions. Effectively, that is that those most directly affected by workplace injury, illness and death should be provided with a greater voice in the decision-making process, and that is what the intention is.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Minister, I am just going to seek to put all my questions on clause 1 for the benefit of the chamber, if that is of use. I will start with this one. In my earlier contribution, I noted that my colleagues and I absolutely welcome a code of rights for injured workers being brought in. There is a very clear need to explicitly state that injured workers and other claimants must be afforded dignity and respect. Can I just ask, on dignity and respect, how is that set to be operationalised as an objective for WorkSafe?

Jaclyn SYMES: I will start by responding in relation to the code of rights and what it will contain. Effectively, the code includes the 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; and a procedure for lodging and dealing with complaints about noncompliance with the code by WorkSafe, its agents and self-insurers and remedies that apply if any of the complaints are substantiated.

I will go on to further talk in relation to the development of the code and who was consulted. It requires the code to be issued for public comment and review before being provided to the minister for approval, to ensure a broad range of views can be considered before the code is finalised. In developing the draft code for public approval, WorkSafe may seek input from representatives of those who are likely to have had rights conferred by the code – such as injured workers, employee representatives and advocates of injured workers – as well as those who are likely to have obligations under the code, which could include agents and self-insurers.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just a bit further on that point, with respect to the operationalisation of dignity and respect in that code, are there any measurable standards that would be set to be applied?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I outlined for the process in developing the code, Mr Puglielli, it is expected that the Code of Claimants’ Rights will outline the standards.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: On another matter, what specific minimum training and support will be required for return-to-work coordinators, and will injured workers have input into evaluating these coordinators?

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to return-to-work coordinator training, I can run through some of the obligations for employers regarding the training. They will be required 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. The minister, via a ministerial order published in the Government Gazette, may determine the training required to be completed, including initial or refresher training; any qualifications to be held by a return-to-work coordinator; and the time period within which a return-to-work coordinator must complete the approved training.

WorkSafe will approve the training providers that are able to deliver the approved training, and the ministerial order will be a legislative instrument and will be subject to the requirements within the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. WorkSafe may make recommendations to the minister with respect to matters to be specified in the ministerial order. Some of these are obviously acquitting recommendations from the Rozen report, and specifically, the most relevant would be recommendation 17, which recommends the effectiveness of return-to-work coordinators should be enhanced by requiring employers to ensure they have training and the assistance and facilities reasonably necessary to perform their functions under the act. There are obligations to comply and consequences for noncompliance, and in relation to other provisions the bill makes sure that it is well known and understood what constitutes a reasonable excuse and the like.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Forgive me, there was a double whammy to that question. The second bit was: will injured workers have input into evaluating these coordinators?

Jaclyn SYMES: Sorry, Mr Puglielli, did you say ‘evaluating coordinators’?

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Yes.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Puglielli, in relation to oversight and the ability to raise concerns, the WorkSafe return-to-work inspectorate would have a role to play in that regard.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: On another matter, how does the government envision the inclusion of lived-experience members on OHSAC and WAC will improve decision-making?

Jaclyn SYMES: These were some of the topics that we covered with Mrs Hermans. Obviously we are very pleased to implement the recommendation from the Rozen report that really brings in lived experience. We think that listening to those that have had direct experience always produces better results. The purpose of the amendments basically is to give life to the conclusion that those who are most directly affected by workplace injury, illness and death should be provided with a greater voice in the decision-making process. That is why the bill amends legislation to ensure that membership and composition of those bodies will include representatives from that cohort.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Can I clarify: will the input of lived-experience members be weighted or formalised in any way?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Puglielli, I can confirm that they are equal members with the same rights as every other member.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Can I also clarify who decides who the lived-experience representatives are?

Jaclyn SYMES: My advice, Mr Puglielli, is that the minister will be responsible for appointing the lived-experience members of the OHSAC and the WAC after the bill becomes law. The legislation empowers the minister to make appointments to these bodies from time to time, meaning there is no specific recruitment period or deadline. In terms of how long people will be appointed, it is 12 months for the OHSAC and up to two years for the WAC. Just to go on further, obviously other membership is made up of employer and employee representatives who advocate for their members. The lived-experience members do not represent any group. Their appointment will function similar to the independent members of OHSAC and WAC that contribute relevant formal technical expertise and knowledge. They will represent themselves in their own distinct experience. So in terms of attracting people of interest to these things, it is their lived experience that is relevant, not their other skills necessarily. In relation to making sure that those people are equipped and supported to perform their role in the committee, there will be specific supports and mechanisms to be considered through a trauma-informed lens. Existing supports are in place, such as counsellors and buddy systems. Advance agenda distribution might be considered as well, just to make sure that when there is distressing content which is expected, we are looking after the members of the committee.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I will move on to another matter. What processes will be in place for the statutory review every five years?

Jaclyn SYMES: As you have indicated, the scheme will be reviewed every five years. That is to ensure that there is time to allow for trends and issues to be identified but also that we are not letting things go too long so things become entrenched and more difficult to reverse. What further information did you want on the statutory review?

Aiv PUGLIELLI: What processes will be in place?

Jaclyn SYMES: In terms of the timing of the review to start with, if the minister forms the view that a review is required earlier than five years, then they can cause a review at any time. The amendments require at least once in every five-year period for the reasons that I outlined. In relation to the terms of reference for each review, they will be set by the minister rather than being prescribed for similar reasons, to keep up with contemporary information. The Victorian workers compensation scheme’s challenges obviously change from year to year, and different issues come up, particularly with expansion in innovation and the like. I think that has probably answered your question.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: With respect to those reviews, will injured workers or their advocates be involved in them?

Jaclyn SYMES: My advice is that we believe that a review should involve consultation with those very people.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: On another matter, Minister, are you aware of any concerns in the community about ministerial powers to set board director terms and appoint the WorkSafe CEO potentially impacting the independence of the regulator?

Jaclyn SYMES: As you would appreciate, as the minister that is acting for another minister in relation to this matter, that is not something that has been brought to my attention. I might take that one on notice for you.

The advice I have received is that, no, they are not aware of any concerns as described by you.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Moving on to family supports, can I ask: how will the lump sum payments for economic loss to non-traditional dependants – for example, parents – be calculated and capped?

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to compensation for eligible other dependants, each other dependant will be able to receive up to $20,000 compensation. Compensation amounts may vary depending on the level of financial support the person was receiving from the worker and/or the duration for which any financial support provided would have been likely to continue.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Minister, is there any risk of inconsistent or inequitable outcomes from this that you can foresee?

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, Mr Puglielli, we would argue that by virtue of being flexible and being able to consider the level of dependency prior to the incident and indeed how long that was reasonably likely to continue, that would reflect adequately the financial loss, and therefore the answer to your question is no.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Can I ask: will the broader access to therapy and support services following a workplace fatality include mental health and trauma-informed care? And can I ask: how will that be funded and monitored?

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to the therapy and other support services for family members, the minister will be able to issue a ministerial direction specifying the types of therapy and other support services that family members can access. WorkSafe will be required to approve a person or class of persons that can provide those specified therapy or other services. The ministerial direction will be made as soon as practicable following the passage of the bill. New therapy and supports will be identified in consultation with workers and such bodies as the WICC, so we will be taking advice and views from relevant people.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Can I ask what safeguards are in place to ensure forensic cleaning compensation is fair and does not become a contested issue which then delays payments?

Jaclyn SYMES: Thank you for your question in relation to forensic cleaning. We know that some work-related deaths may occur at workers’ homes or homes of other family members, and the WorkCover scheme currently is unable to assist families with any forensic cleaning that may be required after the death of a worker. We certainly acknowledge that for families responsibility for forensic cleaning can be incredibly traumatising – beyond traumatising, frankly – and can also impose a financial burden. So introducing a new compensation entitlement for forensic cleaning will allow a WorkCover scheme to assist families who otherwise would face responsibility for this harrowing task. WorkSafe or a self-insurer will also be able to make provisional payments for forensic cleaning to ensure that the support is provided as quickly as possible.

I think you are familiar with who would be entitled to the payment, and in relation to working out the value we certainly do not want that to be something of a contested nature. So there is a provision that says family members will be entitled to the reasonable costs of forensic cleaning to be determined by WorkSafe. We are not able to give you a figure because it will very much depend on the circumstances of each individual claim.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I will move on to another matter. One of the things the bill does not do is remove the whole-person impairment (WPI) test at 130 weeks, which, as I have raised in this chamber, continues to cause hardship for many injured workers. Is the government considering removing or reforming this test to ensure fairer ongoing entitlements?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Puglielli, I think you have answered your question in the way you asked it. It is not part of this bill, and I am not in a position to provide you with what the current minister has in his work plan. If you would like to ask that question directly of him, I am sure he would be happy to engage with you on it.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: With respect to this legislation and legislation to come, I suppose, what steps are being taken to ensure meaningful consultation with workers and advocacy groups occurs so that we can see changes like those to impairment assessments?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Puglielli, I think, again, it is not strictly within the remit of this bill, but because this bill sets up consultative bodies, we are not confining some of those discussions from happening in those groups. I think in relation to ongoing dialogue there are a variety of ways that individuals and advocates can engage with government.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Minister, can you confirm for me: does the bill include any embedded funding or measures for independent advocacy services to support workers throughout their claims journey?

Jaclyn SYMES: My advice, Mr Puglielli, is that these already exist, so they were not required to be replicated in this bill.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Minister, does the government have any intention to introduce stronger accountability and oversight measures to hold WorkSafe agents and medical assessors, for example, responsible for poor decisions, delays or breaches of obligations?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, Mr Puglielli, I appreciate your interest in this matter, but that is outside the bill and a matter for the relevant minister.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Can you confirm: does the bill in any of its provisions address ongoing delays and disputes related to the 130-week WPI test that I mentioned earlier?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Puglielli, with respect, you have got a copy of the bill. If you have got a particular clause you want to ask me a question on rather than just asking me to identify things in the bill in clause 1, I think that would be a better way of proceeding.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I only asked because I had not identified it myself in the bill, but that is okay; I take your point. Is there any plan from government to improve transparency and dispute resolution mechanisms for complex claims to reduce stress and harm to injured workers?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, Mr Puglielli, I bring you back to the purpose of this bill. You are asking questions about the scheme in general and the support that is available. I am sure that the minister would be more than happy to take you through and answer some of those questions. They are good questions, but I think that they are general questions about the operation of the scheme and WorkSafe procedures and how they go about things, as opposed to the specifics that are in this bill. I am more than happy to pass on your interest, and I am sure they can set up a briefing.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I think there are a few questions that I will raise directly via that pathway rather than today in this session. I just have one more. It is just to go back to the code of rights that we touched on at the beginning. As I have indicated, the code of rights is very welcome, and my colleagues and I absolutely are in support of this being brought forward by the government. We may have canvassed this in your initial response, but just to be clear, I suppose the focus here is making the code of rights actioned and operationalised. Are there plans from government to make sure that these rights can be meaningfully upheld and that failure to uphold them comes with consequences?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Puglielli, the bill requires that the code includes a process for lodging, considering and issuing remedies for noncompliance with the code. The bill does not prescribe what this process will be. The process will be determined in the code itself once drafted after the bill becomes law. So the answer would be that it is envisaged that the concerns you raise, or the reassurance that you are seeking, are matters for the development of the code and will be considered at that time.

David DAVIS: I have no questions here. Maybe it is convenient for me to just explain our amendments here. There are four amendments that are listed on our sheet DD170C, and it would be obviously convenient at 26A – so after clause 26 – to deal with the first amendment. Amendments 2 and 4 are a pigeon pair, and they could be conveniently dealt with at clause 37. Amendment 3 could conveniently be dealt with at clause 38.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 26 agreed to.

New clause (14:31)

David DAVIS: I move:

1. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 26 –

‘26A Premiums order

After section 448(4) of the Principal Act insert –

“(5) A premiums order made under this section for the premium period beginning on 1 July 2025 and ending on 30 June 2026 must not specify a method to be used in calculating the premiums payable in respect of that premium period if the calculation of premiums payable using that method results in premiums payable that are greater than the premiums payable in the preceding premium period.”.’.

Amendment 1 is an amendment that deals with the freeze of premiums for the 2025–26 financial year. It is self-explanatory. I believe the government has given official commitments that this is the case, but this would put it beyond doubt and ensure that there is no further premium rise for small businesses and those in the economy that are struggling at this point for this financial year.

Jaclyn SYMES: As Mr Davis has identified, the government has already confirmed there will be a freeze on the average premiums rate for the next financial year in order to provide businesses with certainty. We are not in a position to support the opposition’s amendment in relation to future decisions.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: The Greens will also not be supporting this amendment.

Council divided on new clause:

Ayes (11): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Richard Welch

Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney

New clause negatived.

Clauses 27 to 36 agreed to.

Clause 37 (14:39)

David DAVIS: I move:

2. Clause 37, line 22, after “delivered by” insert “the Authority or”.

4. Clause 37, page 29, after line 18 insert –

“(3) The Authority must offer training for the purposes of section 106A to employers referred to in section 106(2).

(4) The Authority must not charge a fee for the delivery of training referred to in subsection (3).”.

Amendments 2 and 4, as I said, are a pigeon pair. They ensure that for training provided by the authority for small businesses there is a mechanism for that to occur.

Jaclyn SYMES: On the amendments, Mr Davis, my advice is that the amendments are redundant as the legislation already requires that return-to-work training must be delivered by a provider approved by WorkSafe and it would also allow WorkSafe itself to deliver the training if needed. In order to be registered, the provider will be held to the highest possible standards in line with all other providers registered by WorkSafe. Introducing this amendment would result in different requirements for training providers across WorkSafe’s legislative framework, creating confusion for industry and perhaps worse outcomes for claimants.

David DAVIS: I am listening to what the government says, but at the same time this does guarantee that those smaller employees would get assistance with training without a fee.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: The Greens will not be supporting the amendments for a similar rationale to that outlined by the minister.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (11): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Richard Welch

Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney

Amendments negatived.

David DAVIS: I move:

3. Clause 37, page 29, after line 15 insert –

“(1A) The Authority must not approve a person or body under subsection (1) if –

(a) the person is a natural person who is an insolvent under administration; or

(b) an administrator of the person or body has been appointed under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act; or

(c) in the case of a body registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 of the Commonwealth, an administrator of the body has been appointed under that Act.”.

This is an amendment that will seek to prohibit any organisation or entity that is under administration pursuant to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, Commonwealth, from becoming an approved training provider. An example would be the CFMEU.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government does not believe that this amendment is necessary. The legislation allows small business different training requirements or subsidies as required and provides flexibility for small business.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: It is apparent in the example that was provided this is a political attempt rather than seeking to resolve an actual issue. We will not be supporting the amendment.

David DAVIS: On the contrary, in fact without this clause it is very possible that the CFMEU may well be given training roles, and we see that as a problem.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (11): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Richard Welch

Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 38 to 57 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (14:48): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (14:48): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with without amendment.