Tuesday, 22 September 2026

 The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger) (21:41): I have considered the amendments on sheet JS102C circulated by Ms Symes, and in my view they are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an obstruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 is required.

In addition, the amendments on sheet AP91C circulated by Mr Puglielli are not in scope. However, amendments 1 to 6, 8 to 16, 18, 19 and 21 on that sheet are sufficiently covered by the wording of Ms Symes’s instruction motion and can be considered if the motion is agreed to.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (21:42): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that we have the power to consider amendments in the new clauses to amend:

(1)   the Accident Compensation Act 1985:

(a) to provide for claims and damages related to employment between 12 November 1997 and 20 October 1999;

(b) to make further provision for the award of provisional and subsequent damages to injured workers with serious dust-related conditions;

(c) in relation to commencing certain proceedings related to serious dust-related conditions without complying with certain requirements;

(2)   the Dangerous Goods Transport Act 2026 in relation to reckless endangerment offences;

(3)   the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to remove a limitation period for certain actions;

(4)   the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 and the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026:

(a) in relation to reckless endangerment offences;

(b) to provide for health and safety orders and related matters;

(c) to provide for the use of impact statements in certain proceedings;

(5)   the Transport Accident Act 1986 in relation to certain benefits for children; and

(6)   the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013:

(a) to make further provision for the award of provisional and subsequent damages to injured workers with serious dust-related conditions;

(b) in relation to commencing certain proceedings related to serious dust-related conditions without complying with certain requirements.

Motion agreed to.

 The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger) (21:43): The outstanding amendments 7, 17 and 20 on sheet AP91C circulated by Mr Puglielli are not covered by the instruction motion moved by Ms Symes and notice of the instruction motion has been given to enable their consideration. Mr Puglielli has advised that he will not seek leave to proceed with these amendments.

Mr Welch has given notice of a motion to be moved in the committee to divide the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 is required.

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (21:44): I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that:

(1)   they have the power to consider a motion to be moved by me prior to the commencement of consideration of clause 1 of the bill to divide the bill into two parts with the short titles of:

(a) Workplace Legislation Amendment (Compensation and Other Matters) Bill 2026;

(b) Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Representative Powers) Bill 2026; and

(2)   if the motion is agreed to, the committee can consider and report the bills to the Council separately.

Motion agreed to.

Committed.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The house has passed an instruction motion empowering the committee to consider a motion to divide the bill to be moved by Mr Welch prior to the consideration of clause 1. I therefore call on Mr Welch to move his motion.

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (21:47): I move:

That the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Bill 2026 be divided into two bills set out in accordance with the notice of motion given this day by me.

Council divided on motion:

Clause 1 (21:54)

Richard WELCH: I would just like to start with some questions around the expanded representative powers and access to documents. Under the provisions of the bill, the representative can examine any documents or can have access to any documents. There is no limit on the number of documents or the range of documents, at least not prescribed. I just want to clarify: do those documents include HR records?

Jaclyn SYMES: Thank you, Mr Welch, for giving me a bit of a heads-up that this is a theme that you are keen to explore in the committee so I had the opportunity to review these provisions of the bill and seek some advice.

I might take some time to just run through a few things that I think will help our conversation on this topic. At the outset, providing the ability for health and safety representatives (HSRs) and authorised representatives of registered employee organisations (ARREOs) to access documents is not new. That is clarifying that that is okay because that is what currently exists. What is new is the ability to copy those documents. However, in reality, given modern practices with smartphones and the like, we think this type of thing is probably happening anyway. It is a further clarification to put beyond doubt that in that role, to facilitate your work, you can inspect documents, even though it is currently practised – and the ability to formally obtain copies.

You asked about the specific types of documents that people can access, and I think I have had some inquiries around privacy concerns and the like. As I said, the power for HSRs and ARREOs to make copies of documents and the subsequent use of those copies does not displace existing privacy, secrecy or confidentiality provisions under other laws. Such provisions apply unless expressly displaced, and the bill does not expressly displace any of those laws. In particular, if we think about medical information, that cannot be provided without the employee’s express consent unless the information is in a form that does not identify the employee or from which the employee’s identity cannot be reasonably ascertained. In practice, an employer may refuse to disclose a document to a HSR or ARREO without necessary consent on the basis that it contains sensitive information and disclosure may breach relevant privacy, secrecy or confidentiality laws. On your specific reference to HR records and the like in relation to somebody’s pay, address or identity, it may be relevant to be not provided if it would be at odds with other laws and issues of privacy and the like. For example, an employer may decide not to share a document or to provide a redacted version if it contains confidential health information, other types of private information or information subject to privacy, secrecy or any contractual confidentiality obligations – so in terms of the employee’s contract of employment, for example, particularly their pay or the amount of leave they have and that kind of stuff. WorkSafe Victoria will update its non-statutory guidance to reflect these changes that are in the bill.

Richard WELCH: Thank you, Minister; that is a very, very helpful answer and does help narrow down the scope of the questions to some degree.

I could go either way here. I could start talking about some other specific kinds of documents – I might reserve the right to go back to that – but I will ask you this question. In refusing to provide the document under the provisions you just explained – that they consider it sensitive – what is the procedure for that? There does not seem to be a procedure that says how. Is that done verbally? Is that done in writing? How do they actually refuse? I ask because the bill is quite explicit in saying that the representative has right of access.

Jaclyn SYMES: As I indicated in my overarching introduction to this topic, the powers do not differ from existing access to information in any material way. Existing provisions already allow ARREOs to inspect any plant, substance or other thing at the place to support their inquiry into a suspected contravention. WorkSafe currently already interprets this to include documents. The bill expressly clarifies that ARREOs may inspect and make copies of documents relevant to a suspected contravention. The amendment provides greater certainty to ARREOs and employers about the types of materials ARREOs can access to exercise their powers, better understand risks and support timely resolution of occupational health and safety issues to the benefit of all workers. It has to be reasonable for the purposes of inquiring into the suspected contravention.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Jaclyn SYMES: Pursuant to standing order 4.08, I declare the sitting to be extended by up to 1 hour.

I think what would also be relevant, Mr Welch, to your question, is that the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 includes pathways to address the misuse of HSR and ARREO powers. An employer can contact WorkSafe and seek assistance, including advice, or request that an inspector attend the workplace where there is a dispute of concern about the exercise of powers. When an employer and a representative are arguing potentially over what would be a relevant document or not, they can seek the intervention of WorkSafe.

Richard WELCH: Unless I missed the very first part because I was trying to find something, I am still not sure that as the investigation is underway and the representative requests to see a document – is the owner of the document entitled to refuse it there and then on the spot?

Jaclyn SYMES: It has to be in relation to the inquiry. The right to access certain health and safety information relates to actual potential hazards arising from an employer’s undertaking, plant or substances used for that undertaking and the health and safety of members of the HSR in the designated work group. There is no change to the access that currently exists; it is just a clarification. In relation to whether an employer can refuse access – it can in the way that I articulated before in terms of that it has to be relevant. They could argue that it is not. It cannot breach existing privacy rights or medical or personal information, but it can provide access to redacted information. I hope that answers your question.

Richard WELCH: The only missing piece in this is who determines it is relevant, because the employer may say, ‘It’s not relevant,’ and the representative may say, ‘I think it is relevant.’ Who determines that?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think I was getting there before with the ability to have an inspector come and deal with these types of disputes. For example, if the employer refuses to allow an ARREO to take a copy of a relevant document, the ARREO may request WorkSafe to arrange for an inspector to attend and inquire into the matter under section 89(3) of the OH&S act. Likewise, the employer has an equivalent right under section 89(3) of the OH&S act to request the attendance of an inspector if they consider there are issues with the ARREO’s actions in relation to the documents.

Richard WELCH: Given that they may be looking at commercially sensitive documents in some cases, does the person undertaking the inquiry and requesting access to those documents need to declare a conflict of interest if one may exist?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think at the outset, Mr Welch, it is important to note that, as I said, this is an existing practice of access to documents. I sought advice on the most common exercise of this particular practice. It includes requests for documents such as health and safety policies and procedures, risk assessments, workload assessments, incident-related records and the like. It is not really the type of information that you are referring to in relation to –

Richard Welch: But there is no limit to the documents.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, there is. It has to be related to health and safety information relating to actual or potential hazards arising from the employer’s undertaking, plant or substances used for the undertaking, the health and safety of members of the HSR at the designated work group. For your example of commercial-in-confidence contracts and the like, I fail to see how that is going to fall into the types of circumstances that are really about making sure that policies, procedures and safety measures have been conducted and complied with.

Richard WELCH: In the explanatory memorandum it says under clause 22:

… provides that a health and safety representative has an express power to inspect and copy or take extracts from any document at the workplace, subject to the limitations at section 58(2).

Jaclyn SYMES: Maybe read 58(2).

Richard WELCH: I will have to read 58(2), I think.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister?

Jaclyn SYMES: There was no question.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Was there a question, Mr Welch?

Richard WELCH: I accept the minister’s answer, actually.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, the minister needs to give the answer on the record.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch referred to limitations that are currently within the bill.

Richard WELCH: Minister, how many cases in the past five years have been identified where the existing powers were inadequate?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have that information, Mr Welch, and I am not sure there would be a determination that would be collated in a dataset that would give you an accurate reflection on that. But this was the result of a review and feedback from people that operate in the system, so the reason it needs clarifying is because it is not clear.

Richard WELCH: Is there a scenario where the documents may be subject to legal privilege and under inspection is the privilege automatically lost even if the document turns out to be relevant or marginally relevant to the investigation?

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, Mr Welch, if there are reasons documents should not be inspected, then there are provisions to mount that case. There are safeguards to prevent an authorised rep from misusing information that is obtained, which may pick up on the example that you have put. But again, the examples that you are reflecting on – legal privilege, commercial-in-confidence – are things that we are very familiar with. They are not expected to be a feature of this regime. Let me ask if the box knows of any examples where there are currently legal privilege cases, because I think it is a hypothetical.

The box advises that in their experience it is something that would rarely arise. However, there are protections in place in relation to use of information, particularly if it was relevant for a later court case, for example.

Richard WELCH: Sorry, Minister, I could not hear you.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, my advice is that it is not a common occurrence, that we would fall into legal privilege matters. There are, as I said, safeguards in relation to the use of information. Employers that might be concerned about a future court action, for example, can seek advice in relation to legal privilege matters and could refuse on those grounds. That would probably warrant the inspection or advice of WorkSafe. But again, the advice is that this is not a common occurrence. It comes back to that the documents that are more likely to be subject to this type of access, given it already exists, are health and safety policies, procedure, risk assessments, workload assessments – basically documents that are directly related to the safety of a workplace.

Richard WELCH: Okay. So on behalf of employers, I am taking from that that there is a mechanism and a process by which they can decline to reveal a document and then there will be a third party, the WorkSafe inspector, who will make a determination as to whether that refusal is justified or acceptable.

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, Mr Welch, I explained that there are rights for both parties. I take it that you have sought advice, particularly for employers. Employers may decide not to share a document, or provide a redacted version, if it contains confidential information or other issues that would not be directly relevant to the purpose of occupational health and safety matters. WorkSafe do not provide a formal determination, but they can come and provide advice, and there are different steps that currently exist, particularly in relation to the Magistrates’ Court, looking at entry permits and the like.

Richard WELCH: I am sorry; I know said I was not going to labour anything, but I think it is important to have clarity for businesses: is there recourse other than the Magistrates’ Court to say that we contest the relevance of a document or we contest the sensitivity of a document, therefore we do not want to disclose it? Other than going to the Magistrates’ Court, how do they contest it?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, this bill does not change the existing practice now. At the moment, there are agreements between employers and HSRs and ARREOs in relation to accessing and viewing of documents. This is simply formalising and clarifying that existing practice and there is no change except, as I had indicated, the WorkSafe inspectors’ power to provide advice on OHS matters. That usually resolves a lot of the disputes.

Richard WELCH: Minister, the government says there are penalties for misuse of information. How many prosecutions or enforcement actions have occurred under the existing misuse provisions?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, I do not have that information on me. Again I can ask the minister’s office to provide you with the information, perhaps through another forum, but I do not have that information. The data that you have asked for, I am not even sure it will be collated in that particular way, just from having a bit of knowledge about how court data is compiled.

Richard WELCH: Minister, if the data is misused, who specifically will be prosecuted? Is it the individual or the organisation they are representing? Who gets prosecuted?

Jaclyn SYMES: For HSRs who contravene prohibitions – a prohibition on publishing different things, for example – employers can apply to the Magistrates’ Court for orders disqualifying the HSR. There a number of steps that could be taken for misuse of information or the publishing of information et cetera.

Richard WELCH: So it is the individual who did the disclosing, as opposed to their organisation that they did it on behalf of?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not want to reflect on any particular matters, but you can apply to disqualify a HSR. There may be the opportunity for a HSR to argue they were acting under direct instructions, as an example. Again we are getting into hypotheticals, but the avenue is the Magistrates’ Court.

Richard WELCH: Minister, if the misuse creates commercial damage, will the offended party be able to pursue compensation?

Jaclyn SYMES: In relation to contraventions of provisions, I will give you an example, because you have just said ‘misuse of information’ and some of the information I have in front of me is in relation to unauthorised publishing online and the like. For example, an REO who contravened that prohibition would be committing an offence under section 91 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, with a maximum penalty of 60 penalty units. Obviously, that is a penalty, not a civil action. In relation to civil actions, there are also different offences, such as coercion. The bill goes through a number of offences for misuse of information, with penalties attached. There are safeguards on the misuse of information as well. Section 91 of the act refers to intentional use disclosure of information for a person not reasonably connected with the exercise of the powers. Existing safeguards include possibilities of disqualification if they used information. You can also take action for breach of privacy, secrecy and confidentiality laws that might apply. In relation to civil activities, it would be a matter for the employer if they had wanted to seek civil damages for a particular matter, but it is a bit hard for me to connect that without knowing what the damages would be.

Richard WELCH: If they wanted to seek compensation through a civil court, nothing prevents them from doing that. The next question then follows on from that. If there is an investigation into misuse of information or data, will the evidence uncovered in that investigation be available to the employer to pursue a compensation claim?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, you are jumping many steps beyond the purposes of this bill. This bill is really about ensuring safe workplaces for workers and employers, making sure that they comply with their obligations to be transparent when there are issues that need to be looked at. As I have said, there are consequences for misuse of information, and you are jumping three steps ahead and are not really asking questions about what the bill is intended to do. You are using quite a narrow prism that you are looking at this legislation through. Coming back to the purposes of this bill and the reason that a particular person or HSR wants to look at information, it is because they are concerned about a health and safety issue. You are jumping to, ‘Okay, well, they’ve asked for it inappropriately. They’ve got secret information. They’re misusing information. Can you get recourse for it?’ It is really five steps away from the purposes of this bill. As I said, the examples that you are referring to are just not that common. HSRs take their job very seriously. It is about health and safety. They are not out to get the employer to act in an inappropriate way that would result in the employer needing to get recourse. It is fundamentally about shoring up our workplaces and making them even safer.

Richard WELCH: No, I think to be fair, when we make law it is not for the best case scenario, it is for the worst case scenario. That is what we should be use casing it against. That is what we should be measuring it against. We want to make sure there are no unintended consequences, and I am just exploring unintended consequences here. The fact is we are locking in additional powers for people to view documents that could be commercially sensitive, that could have commercial damage. We are locking in that power and extending it to health and safety officers, who in the state of Victoria we know have been involved in corruption. We know that. That is why we have got a royal commission going. It is not a hypothetical in that respect at all. It is a genuine scenario. I am not being hypothetical here, I am actually using an existing work case. The scenario I am suggesting is that if there is an investigation into the misuse of data, will whatever information uncovered in that misuse-of-data investigation be available to the employer?

Jaclyn SYMES: I understand that you are the champion of employers, Mr Welch. You and I have had many of these conversations. But what is wrong in the way you framed your question is saying that this is a fundamental change of existing practice. It is not. There is already recourse for employers who have been wronged by something that you think might happen in the way that you have articulated it. This is all about –

Richard Welch interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: Sorry?

Richard WELCH: Health and safety officers did not have access to the documents like they do under this.

Jaclyn SYMES: No, there is no change.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Through the Chair. This is not a conversation.

Jaclyn SYMES: I thought I clarified this right at the start of our conversation. This is a clarification when it comes to access. At the moment HSRs already access documents. It is happening now. This is not changing that. This is making sure it is very clear that the current practice is picked up in modern legislation. Your line of questioning implies that there is some huge change here. This is literally clarification. The only change is the ability to formally copy documents, which as I said, given smartphones these days, is probably already happening. It is very important that we update the statute to fit with current practices.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just a couple from me. I will try and be speedy here. To start more generally, Minister, recommendation 9 of the report into employee representative rights recommends that the government amend the OH&S act to require an employer to allow an HSR or ARREO to inspect and make copies of documents relevant to a suspected contravention. The explanatory memorandum states that this bill is intended to clarify the scope of ARREO’s existing powers and support effective investigation of suspected contraventions by ensuring access to relevant documentary material. Do the amendments in this bill ensure access by ARREOs to relevant documentary material?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, subject to the limitations that Mr Welch and I have gone through in relation to privacy, confidentiality, medical records and the like.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: My last two are just about clause 27 specifically. In May 2023 WorkSafe provided advice that the power to inspect any other thing encompasses documents. Given this existing advice, can the minister clarify if clause 27 gives any further powers to ARREOs to inspect or copy documents relevant to a suspected workplace contravention?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I have attempted to make clear, the access to documents is an existing right. It goes without saying that that needed clarification because it was not specifically called out, so I think that that is a good thing. What is new is the ability to copy them. This is all about ensuring that we provide better support to enable them to perform their function.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just one more, just for the abundance of clarity – I know we are going over a lot of the same ground – will this bill enable an ARREO to require an employer to allow access to and permit the inspection and copying of documents relevant to a suspected contravention?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Puglielli, your clarification is kind of, I think, from a different perspective, but you are both asking the same question. The changes are about the ability to access. There is no compulsion on an employer. For example, if you are a HSR, it is not like a documents motion or an FOI where you can ask for all relevant documents. You have kind of got to ask for something, and the access should be granted if it is relevant to your work. As I said, the most common requests for documents are in relation to assessments, procedures and policies to see what has been going on in the workplace, if they have got concerns – are you complying with what you are supposed to, can we have a look at what you are supposed to comply with. They would not be required to go and do a document search for everything that might be somewhat relevant. You have sort of got to know what to ask for. But again, in custom and practice that is kind of fairly well understood. There is no compulsion on the employer to provide the documents where there are disputes. That is where WorkSafe can help to intervene. And again, to some of Mr Welch’s concerns, where the employer has concerns that the documents would disclose something that is not directly relevant to the investigation from a health and safety perspective or would have identifying information, private information et cetera, they would be appropriate reasons to say no or to provide redacted versions.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister Symes, I invite you to move your amendment number 1, please, which tests your amendments 12, 17 and 30.

Jaclyn SYMES: We are going to be really clear on what we are doing here along the way. My amendment grouping A on the run sheet, which is called ‘Reckless endangerment offences’, is in connection to the changes as a result of the Sentencing Advisory Council’s work. I think people are familiar with that – unless people want me to run through it. Is everyone happy just for me to move that amendment? I just want to be very clear, because there are quite a few amendments. I move:

1.   Clause 1, after line 3 insert –

“(aa) to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026 and the Dangerous Goods Transport Act 2026 in relation to reckless endangerment offences; and”.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: The Greens will be supporting this amendment.

Richard WELCH: The Liberals and Nationals will be supporting this amendment.

David ETTERSHANK: Legalise Cannabis will also be supporting this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Jaclyn SYMES: Let me just take a little bit of time to explain the dust-related diseases amendments. At the outset, I thank the Greens and in particular Mr Puglielli for their constructive engagement in relation to these amendments. What is happening here is that I will be withdrawing amendments 19, 23 and 27. The government will be supporting the Greens amendments 9, 11, 14 and 16. What this effectively does as a package will mean that, in relation to dust-related conditions attributed to occupational dust exposure, there will be a range of amendments that result in a second award of damages for additional diseases related to the same exposure – that is, dust-related diseases. It will restore the common law for that period of 1997 to 1999. It will allow all workers to access a bypass to pre-litigation matters in relation to before they go to the Supreme Court.

The Greens amendments, which I am sure Mr Puglielli can speak to, effectively bring in some transitional arrangements so that existing and new arrangements are very clear. If you have got an existing claim or a new claim, it brings in a statutory review and it ensures that the statute of limitations is removed for all dust-related injuries that are attributable to occupational dust exposure. That is the result of the transaction of amendments. So that is the intention. Mr Puglielli, I will just ask if that is your intention as well?

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Thank you, Minister. Yes. Well said. I want to thank the government for their constructive approach in relation to this and for recognising the opportunity, before we finish this parliamentary term, to get this right. As the minister has outlined, there is a package of amendments here, and I think the minister has quite succinctly summed up what they are. I thank my colleague Kat Copsey for speaking to it a little bit in the second-reading process as well. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Victorian Trades Hall Council for their engagement and input in relation to these matters. I am in your hands, Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Mr Puglielli –

Aiv PUGLIELLI: In case it is of assistance, there will be a number of amendments here where, due to procedure, the government will withdraw and I will move, if that makes sense. Looking at the sheet, amendment number 2 for example would be withdrawn and then the one following we would be seeking to move, if that is of benefit to the house.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are you talking about your own amendments or the government’s amendments?

Aiv PUGLIELLI: No, Ms Symes’s amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Symes is moving amendment 2 at the moment. She said she was going to withdraw 19, 23 and 27. You are just telling me she is withdrawing amendment 2?

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Just to explain a bit further, that is correct, except amendment 2 tests Ms Symes’s amendment 19. So she would have to withdraw this one as well, is my understanding.

Jaclyn SYMES: My intention is to withdraw my substantive amendment, which is amendment 19. Amendment 2 is a test for amendment 19, so therefore I will withdraw amendment 2.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 2, after line 8 insert –

“(iii) to make further provision for the award of provisional and subsequent damages to injured workers with certain dust-related conditions; and”.

Jaclyn SYMES: Consistent with my attempts to concisely say what we are doing, I am supporting Mr Puglielli’s amendment.

Richard WELCH: The Liberals and Nationals will be supporting the amendment as well.

Amendment agreed to.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

3.   Clause 1, page 2, before line 9 insert –

“(iv) in relation to commencing certain proceedings related to serious dust-related conditions without complying with certain requirements; and”.

As I understand it, this is part of the package in relation to prelitigation processes.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: The Greens will be supporting this amendment.

Richard WELCH: We will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, I invite you to move your amendment 4 in your group B.3, which tests amendment 24.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

4.   Clause 1, page 2, line 11, after “accommodation” insert “and in relation to commencing certain proceedings related to serious dust-related conditions without complying with certain requirements”.

I am proceeding with this. It is in relation to the Accident Compensation Act 1985. It mimics the one that we just did, my previous amendment.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: The Greens will be supporting this amendment.

Richard WELCH: The Liberals and Nationals will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We move to the minister’s amendment 5 on her group B.4, which tests amendment 22.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

5.   Clause 1, page 2, after line 11 insert –

“(ba) to amend the Accident Compensation Act 1985 to provide for claims for damages related to employment between 12 November 1997 and 20 October 1999; and”.

This is amendment 5, which is reinstatement of common law rights, so again, it is connected to prelitigation processes.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: The Greens will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Puglielli, I invite you to move your amendment 5.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I move:

5.   Clause 1, page 2, before line 12 insert –

“(bb) to amend the Accident Compensation Act 1985 to make further provision for the award of provisional and subsequent damages to injured workers with certain dust-related conditions; and”.

Richard WELCH: The Liberals and Nationals will be supporting this amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES: Same.

Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, I invite you to move your amendment 7, which tests your amendments 14 and 28.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

7.   Clause 1, page 2, after line 18 insert –

“(iii) to provide for health and safety orders and related matters; and”.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: The Greens will be supporting this amendment.

Richard WELCH: The Liberals and Nationals will be supporting this.

Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, I invite you to move your amendment 8, which tests 15 and 29.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

8.   Clause 1, page 2, before line 19 insert –

“(iv) to provide for the use of impact statements in certain proceedings; and”.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: The Greens will be supporting this amendment.

Richard WELCH: The Liberals and Nationals will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, I invite you to move your amendment 9, which tests 13, 16, 25, 26 and 33.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

9.   Clause 1, page 2, line 20, after “accommodation” insert “and certain benefits for children”.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, we are on to the TAC amendment now in relation to statutory allowances for children who lose parents as a result of a transport accident regardless of their living circumstances.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: The Greens will be supporting this amendment.

David LIMBRICK: I would like to thank the government for their swift action on this amendment. This is a problem that was identified in the TAC inquiry affecting orphan children and their guardians. I think that it was a worthwhile recommendation of the inquiry, and I am happy to see that the government has acted swiftly to rectify this issue.

Richard WELCH: The Liberals and Nationals will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

10.   Clause 1, page 2, line 21, after “consequential” insert “and related”.

This is a consequential formatting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Puglielli, I invite you to move your amendment 6 in group G, which tests amendment 16.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I move:

6.   Clause 1, page 2, after line 23 insert –

“(ea) to amend the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to remove the limitation period for certain causes of action for dust-related conditions; and”.

Jaclyn SYMES: We are supporting this amendment.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (22:46)

Jaclyn SYMES: Consequential. I move:

12.   Clause 2, line 27, after “other than” insert “Part 1A,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

14.   Clause 2, lines 27 and 28, omit “and Part 5” and insert “, Part 5 and Part 5A”.

Amendment agreed to.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

15.   Clause 2, line 28, before “) comes” insert “and Part 5B”.

Amendment agreed to.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

13.   Clause 2, line 27, after “Part 2” insert “, Division 2 of Part 4”.

16.   Clause 2, after line 29 insert –

“(1A) Division 2 of Part 4 comes into operation on 1 November 2026.”.

These amendments are consequential for the TAC improvements.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

New clauses 2A to 2C (22:47)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

17.   Insert the following New Part after Part 1 –

‘Part 1A – Amendments related to reckless endangerment

Division 1 – Amendment of Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004

2A Section 32 substituted

For section 32 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004substitute –

“32   Conduct that endangers persons at workplaces etc.

(1)   A person must not, without lawful excuse, recklessly engage in conduct that places, or may place, another person who is at a workplace in danger of serious injury, serious illness or death.

Penalty:   10 000 penalty units or 10 years imprisonment or both for a natural person;

50 000 penalty units for a body corporate.

(2)   A person must not, without lawful excuse, recklessly engage in conduct that –

(a)   constitutes a contravention of a provision of –

(i)   Division 2, 3 or 4; or

(ii)   this Division (other than subsection (1)); and

(b)   places, or may place, another person in danger of serious injury, serious illness or death.

Penalty:   10 000 penalty units or 10 years imprisonment or both for a natural person;

50 000 penalty units for a body corporate.

(3)   An offence against subsection (1) or (2) is an indictable offence.

Note

However, the offence may be heard and determined summarily (see section 28 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009).”.

Division 2 – Amendment of Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026

2B Conduct in respect of handling of dangerous goods that endangers persons

(1) In section 55 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026, in proposed section 35D(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, after “serious injury” insert “, serious illness”.

(2) In section 55 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026, for the penalty at the foot of proposed section 35D(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 substitute –

“Penalty:   10 000 penalty units or 10 years imprisonment or both for a natural person;

50 000 penalty units for a body corporate.”.

Division 3 – Amendment of Dangerous Goods Transport Act 2026

2C Conduct in respect of transport of dangerous goods that endangers persons

(1) In section 20(1) of the Dangerous Goods Transport Act 2026, after “serious injury” insert “, serious illness”.

(2) For the penalty at the foot of section 20(1) of the Dangerous Goods Transport Act 2026 substitute –

“Penalty:   10 000 penalty units or 10 years imprisonment or both for a natural person;

50 000 penalty units for a body corporate.”.’.

New clauses agreed to; clauses 3 to 13 agreed to.

New part heading following clause 13 (22:48)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

18.   Insert the following New Part heading to follow clause 13 –

“Part 2A – Further amendment of Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013”.

New part heading agreed to.

New clauses 13A to 13G (22:48)

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I move:

9.   Insert the following New Division before Part 3 –

‘Division 1 – Amendments relating to actions for damages

13A Definitions

In section 356A of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 –

(a)   insert the following definition –

“serious dust-related condition means a condition that is –

(a)   a dust-related condition within the meaning of the Administration and Probate Act 1958; or

(b)   an eligible progressive disease attributable or related to exposure to occupational dust;”;

(b)   the definition of serious silica-related condition is repealed;

(c)   in the definition of subsequent action, for “silica-related” substitute “dust-related”.

13B Section 356B amended

(1) In the heading to section 356B of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “silica-related” substitute “dust-related”.

(2) In section 356B of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “silica-related” (wherever occurring) substitute “dust-related”.

13C Only one subsequent award of damages permitted

In section 356C of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “silica-related” (where twice occurring) substitute “dust-related”.

13D Regard must be had to initial award of damages

In section 356D of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “silica-related” (where twice occurring) substitute “dust-related”.

13E Regard must be had to legal costs incurred in initial action

(1) In section 356E(1) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “silica-related” (where twice occurring) substitute “dust-related”.

(2) In section 356E(3)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “silica” substitute “occupational dust”.

13F New section 356G inserted

After section 356F of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013insert –

“356G   InteractionwithAsbestos Diseases Compensation Act 2008

(1)   Despite anything to the contrary in the Asbestos Diseases Compensation Act 2008, that Act does not apply to an asbestos-related cause of action that has not been commenced before the commencement of Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026.

(2)   For the purposes of subsection (1), an asbestos-related cause of action is a cause of action for damages in respect of an asbestos-related condition (within the meaning Asbestos Diseases Compensation Act 2008) that is also a serious dust-related condition.”.

13G New section 631 inserted

At the end of Part 13 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013insert –

“631   Transitional provisions – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 – Actions for damages

(1)   Subdivision 3 of Division 2 of Part 7 as amended by Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 applies to a cause of action for damages in relation to a serious dust-related condition to which that Subdivision applies commenced on or after the commencement of Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026.

(2)   Subdivision 3 of Division 2 of Part 7 as amended by Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 applies to a cause of action for damages in relation to a serious dust-related condition commenced before the commencement of Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 but only if –

(a)   the hearing of the action has not commenced before the commencement of Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026; or

(b)   damages have not been awarded or a settlement has not been reached in that action before the commencement of that Part.

(3)   Subdivision 3 of Division 2 of Part 7 as amended by Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 does not apply to a cause of action for damages in relation to a serious dust-related condition commenced before the commencement of Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 if –

(a)   the hearing of the action has commenced before the commencement of Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026; or

(b)   damages have been awarded or a settlement has been reached in that action before the commencement of that Part.”.’.

New clauses agreed to.

New clauses 13H to 13J (22:49)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

20.   Insert the following New Division before Part 3 –

‘Division 2 – Commencing proceedings without complying with certain requirements

13H Heading to Division 3 of Part 7 amended

In the heading to Division 3 of Part 7 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “asbestos-related conditions” substitute “serious dust-related conditions”.

13I Section 357 amended

(1) In the heading to section 357 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “asbestos-related conditions” substitute “serious dust-related conditions”.

(2) In section 357(1)(a) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “death; or” substitute “death.”.

(3) Section 357(1)(b) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 is repealed.

(4) After section 357(1) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 insert –

“(1A)   This section also applies if a worker may have an entitlement to recover damages in accordance with Division 2 in respect of an injury that is a serious dust-related condition arising out of, or in the course of, or due to the nature of, employment.”.

(5) In section 357(4) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 –

(a)   in paragraph (a), for “subsection (1)(a)” substitute “subsection (1)”;

(b)   in paragraph (b) –

(i)   for “subsection (1)(b)” substitute “subsection (1A)”;

(ii)   for “an asbestos-related condition” substitute “a serious dust-related condition”.

(6) In section 357(7) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, for “the asbestos-related condition” substitute “the serious dust-related condition”.

(7) For section 357(8) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013substitute –

“(8)   In this section –

serious dust-related condition means a condition that is –

(a)   a dust-related condition within the meaning of the Administration and Probate Act 1958; or

(b)   an eligible progressive disease attributable or related to exposure to occupational dust.”.

13J New section 632 inserted

At the end of Part 13 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 insert –

“632   Transitional provision – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 – commencing proceedings without complying with certain requirements

Section 357 as amended by the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 applies in relation to the commencement of proceedings in accordance with Division 2 of Part 7 on or after the day on which Division 2 of Part 2A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 comes into operation regardless of whether the injury in respect of which those proceedings are to be commenced occurred before that day.”.’.

New clauses agreed to.

New clause 13K (22:49)

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I move:

11.   Insert the following New Division before Part 3 –

‘Division 3 – Review of certain amendments

13K New section 620C inserted

After section 620B of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 insert –

“620C   Review of amendments made by Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026

(1)   The Minister must cause –

(a)   a review to be conducted of the operation and effect, during the review period, of the amendments made to this Act or any other Act by Parts 2A, 3A, 4A and 4B of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026; and

(b)   a report of that review to be prepared.

(2)   The review is to be undertaken, and the report prepared, by a person chosen by the Minister for that purpose.

(3)   In choosing the person to conduct the review and prepare the report, the Minister must consult with each Minister who administers any part of either of the following Acts –

(a)   the Administration and Probate Act 1958; and

(b)   the Limitation of Actions Act 1958.

(3)   The person chosen to conduct the review must do so in consultation with –

(a)   the Minister; and

(b)   each Minister who administers any part of an Act referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b).

(4)   The review must examine whether an amendment referred to in subsection (1)(a) has resulted in a provision of an enactment either applying, or not applying, in relation to a person when that ought not to have occurred.

(5)   The review must be completed, and the report given to the Minister, within six months after the end of the review period.

(6)   The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament no later than 14 sitting days after receiving it.

(7)   In this section –

review period means the period –

(a)   beginning on the day after the day on which the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 receives the Royal Assent; and

(b)   ending on the first anniversary of that day.”.’.

Jaclyn SYMES: I think this is the final substantive amendment that completes our package, so I am supporting Mr Puglielli’s amendment.

New clause agreed to; clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.

New part heading following clause 15 (22:50)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

21.   Insert the following New Part heading to follow clause 15 –

“Part 3A – Further amendment of Accident Compensation Act 1985”.

New part heading agreed to.

New clauses 15A to 15G (22:50)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

22.   Insert the following New Division before Part 4 –

‘Division 1 – Claims for damages related to employment between 12 November 1997 and 20 October 1999

15A Heading to Division 8A of Part IV substituted

For the heading to Division 8A of Part IV of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 substitute –

“Division 8A – Actions in respect of certain injuries arising from certain periods of employment”.

15B Actions for damages

After section 134AB(2) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 insert –

“(2A)   A worker or the dependants of a worker may recover damages in a proceeding in respect of an injury arising out of or in the course of, or due to the nature of, employment on or after 12 November 1997 but before 20 October 1999 if –

(a)   the injury is a condition that is –

(i)   a dust-related condition within the meaning of the Administration and Probate Act 1958; or

(ii)   an eligible progressive disease attributable or related to exposure to occupational dust; and

(b)   the injury is a serious injury; and

(c)   the employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury of the worker.”.

15C Actions for damages only in accordance with this Act

After section 134A(2) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 insert –

“(3)   Subsection (1) does not prevent the recovery of damages in a proceeding under this Act or the Wrongs Act 1958, subject to and in accordance with Division 8A of this Part, in respect of injury to a worker arising out of or in the course of, or due to the nature of, employment on or after 12 November 1997 but before 20 October 1999 if –

(a)   the injury is a condition that is –

(i)   a dust-related condition within the meaning of the Administration and Probate Act 1958; or

(ii)   an eligible progressive disease attributable or related to exposure to occupational dust; and

(b)   the employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury of the worker.

Note

See section 134AB(2A).

(4)   Subsection (3) applies despite any time limit applying to proceedings under Part III of the Wrongs Act 1958.”.

15D Heading to Division 9B of Part IV amended

In the heading to Division 9B of Part IV of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “asbestos-related” substitute “certain”.

15E Section 135BB amended

(1) For the heading to section 135BB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 substitute –

“Actions by workers with certain conditions”.

(2) After section 135BB(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 insert –

“(1A)   This section also applies to a worker who may have an entitlement to recover damages in accordance with section 134AB(2A) in respect of injury arising out of, or in the course of, or due to the nature of, any employment on or after 12 November 1997 but before 20 October 1999.”.

15F New section 402 inserted

At the end of Division 20 of Part IX of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 insert –

“402   Transitional provision – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 – employment on or after 12 November 1997 but before 20 October 1999

Section 134A(3) and (4) as inserted by Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 does not apply in relation to a cause of action for damages in relation to a dust-related condition arising out of, or in the course of, or due to the nature of any employment on or after 12 November 1997 but before 20 October 1999 if that cause of action has been finalised and fully determined before the commencement of Part 3A of that Act.”.

15G New Division 21 of Part IX inserted

After Division 20 of Part IX of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 insert –

“Division 21 – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 – Transitional matters

405   Regulations dealing with transitional matters – Part 3A of Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026

(1)   The Governor in Council may make regulations containing provisions of a transitional nature, including matters of an application or savings nature, arising as a result of the enactment of Division 1 of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026, including any repeals and amendments made by or as a result of the enactment of that Part of that Act.

(2)   Regulations made under this section may –

(a)   have a retrospective effect to a day on or after a date not earlier than the day on which the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 receives the Royal Assent; and

(b)   be of limited or general application; and

(c)   differ according to time, place or circumstances; and

(d)   leave any matter or thing to be decided by a specified person or class of person.

(3)   Regulations under this section have effect despite anything to the contrary in –

(a)   this Act or any other Act (other than Division 1 of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 or the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006); or

(b)   any subordinate instrument.

(4)   This section is repealed on the second anniversary of the day on which it comes into operation.”.’.

New clauses agreed to.

New clauses 15H to 15N (22:51)

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I move:

14.   Insert the following New Division before Part 4 –

‘Division 2 – Amendments relating to actions for damages

15H Definitions

In section 135BC of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 –

(a)   insert the following definition –

“serious dust-related condition means a condition that is –

(a)   a dust-related condition within the meaning of the Administration and Probate Act 1958; or

(b)   an eligible progressive disease attributable or related to exposure to occupational dust;”;

(b)   the definition of serious silica-related condition is repealed;

(c)   in the definition of subsequent action, for “silica-related” substitute “dust-related”.

15I Section 135BD amended

(1) In the heading to section 135BD of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “silica-related” substitute “dust-related”.

(2) In section 135BD of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “silica- related” (wherever occurring) substitute “dust-related”.

15J Only one subsequent award of damages permitted

In section 135BE of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “silica-related” (where twice occurring) substitute “dust-related”.

15K Regard must be had to initial award of damages

In section 135BF of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “silica-related” (where twice occurring) substitute “dust-related”.

15L Regard must be had to legal costs incurred in initial action

(1) In section 135BG(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “silica-related” (where twice occurring) substitute “dust-related”.

(2) In section 135BG(3)(a)(ii) and (iv) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “silica” substitute “occupational dust”.

15M New section 135BI inserted

After section 135BH of the Accident Compensation Act 1985insert –

“135BI   Interaction with Asbestos Diseases Compensation Act 2008

(1)   Despite anything to the contrary in the Asbestos Diseases Compensation Act 2008, that Act does not apply to an asbestos- related cause of action that has not been commenced before the commencement of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026.

(2)   For the purposes of subsection (1), an asbestos-related cause of action is a cause of action for damages in respect of an asbestos-related condition (within the meaning Asbestos Diseases Compensation Act 2008) that is also a serious dust-related condition.”.

15N New section 403 inserted

At the end of Division 20 of Part IX of the Accident Compensation Act 1985insert –

“403   Transitional provisions – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 – Actions for damages

(1)   Division 9C of Part IV as amended by Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 applies to a cause of action for damages in relation to a serious dust-related condition to which that Division applies commenced on or after the commencement of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026.

(2)   Division 9C of Part IV as amended by Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 applies to a cause of action for damages in relation to a serious dust-related condition commenced before the commencement of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 but only if –

(a)   the hearing of the action has not commenced before the commencement of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026; or

(b)   damages have not been awarded or a settlement has not been reached in that action before the commencement of that Part.

(3)   Division 9C of Part IV as amended by Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 does not apply to a cause of action for damages in relation to a serious dust-related condition commenced before the commencement of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 if –

(a)   the hearing of the action has commenced before the commencement of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026; or

(b)   damages have been awarded or a settlement has been reached in that action before the commencement of that Part.”.’.

New clauses agreed to.

New clauses 15O to 15Q (22:51)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

24.   Insert the following New Division before Part 4 –

‘Division 3 – Commencing proceedings without complying with certain requirements

15O Heading to Division 9B of Part IV substituted

For the heading to Division 9B of Part IV of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 substitute –

“Division 9B – Actions by workers with certain conditions”.

15P Section 135BB amended

(1) For the heading to section 135BB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 substitute –

“Actions by workers with certain conditions”.

(2) In section 135BB(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “an asbestos-related condition” substitute “a serious dust-related condition”.

(3) In section 135BB(3)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “asbestos-related condition” substitute “serious dust-related condition”.

(4) In section 135BB(4) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, for “an asbestos-related condition” substitute “a serious dust-related condition”.

(5) For section 135BB(8) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 substitute –

“(8)   In this section –

serious dust-related condition means a condition that is –

(a)   a dust-related condition within the meaning of the Administration and Probate Act 1958; or

(b)   an eligible progressive disease attributable or related to exposure to occupational dust.”.

15Q New section 404 inserted

At the end of Division 20 of Part IX of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 insert –

“404   Transitional provision – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 – commencing proceedings without complying with certain requirements

The amendments made to section 135BB by Division 3 of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 apply in relation to the commencement of proceedings under section 134AB or 135A on or after the day on which Division 3 of Part 3A of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 comes into operation regardless of whether the injury in respect of which those proceedings are to be commenced occurred before that day.”.’.

New clauses agreed to.

New division heading (22:52)

Jaclyn SYMES: Consequential to the TAC amendment, I move:

25.   Insert the following New Division heading before clause 16 –

“Division 1 – Supported accommodation”.

New division heading agreed to; clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.

New clauses 18A to 18D (22:52)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

26.   Insert the following New Division to follow clause 18 –

‘Division 2 – Benefits for children

18A Surviving children

(1) For section 59(1) of the Transport Accident Act 1986 substitute –

“(1)   The Commission is liable to pay weekly payments, a death benefit and an education allowance in accordance with this section in respect of a dependent child of a person if –

(a)   the person dies as a result of a transport accident; and

(b)   any of the following apply –

(i)   the child has another parent who is not a dependent partner of the person;

(ii)   the child has another parent who does not wholly, mainly or in part provide economic support for the child;

(iii)   the child does not have another parent.”.

(2) After section 59(3) of the Transport Accident Act 1986 insert –

“(3A)   Despite subsection (3), on or after 1 November 2026, the sum of a weekly payment for which the Commission is liable under subsection (1) or (2) is double the amount that would otherwise be payable under subsection (3)(a).”.

18B New section 59A inserted

After section 59 of the Transport Accident Act 1986 insert –

“59A   Surviving children – education allowance

(1)   The Commission is liable to pay an education allowance in accordance with this section in respect of a dependent child of a person who dies in a transport accident if the child is not entitled to an education allowance under section 59.

(2)   The education allowance payable under subsection (1) in respect of a dependent child is –

(a)   the same as the amount that is payable in respect of a child under section 59(6)(a); and

(b)   payable to the responsible person for the child for the benefit of the child until the child attains the age of 18 years.

(3)   In this section –

responsible person has the same meaning as in section 59.”.

18C New section 132AA inserted

After section 132 of the Transport Accident Act 1986 insert –

“132AA   Regulations dealing with transitional matters – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026

(1)   The Governor in Council may make regulations containing provisions of a transitional nature, including matters of an application or savings nature, arising as a result of the enactment of Division 2 of Part 4 of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026, including any repeals and amendments made by or as a result of the enactment of that Division.

(2)   Regulations made under this section may –

(a)   have a retrospective effect to a day on or after a date not earlier than the day on which Division 2 of Part 4 of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 receives the Royal Assent; and

(b)   be of limited or general application; and

(c)   differ according to time, place or circumstances; and

(d)   leave any matter or thing to be decided by a specified person or class of person.

(3)   Regulations under this section have effect despite anything to the contrary in –

(a)   this Act or any other Act (other than Division 2 of Part 4 of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 or the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006); or

(b)   any subordinate instrument.

(4)   This section is repealed on the second anniversary of the day on which it comes into operation.”.

18D New section 236 inserted

After section 235 to the Transport Accident Act 1986 insert –

“236   Surviving children

(1)   Sections 59(3A) and 59A apply in respect of a dependent child of a person who dies in a transport accident, regardless of when the transport accident occurred.

(2)   Despite subsection (1), if the transport accident occurred before the commencement day, the Commission is not liable to pay any amount under section 59(3A) or 59A in respect of any period occurring before the commencement day.

(3)   In this section –

commencement day means the day on which Division 2 of Part 4 of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 comes into operation.”.’.

New clauses agreed to.

New clauses 18A and 18B (22:53)

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I move:

16.   Insert the following New Part after Part 4 –

‘Part 4A – Amendment of Limitation of Actions Act 1958

18A New section 23AB inserted

After section 23A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958insert –

“23AB   No limitation period for certain dust-related conditions

(1)   No limitation period applies in relation to a cause of action for damages for injury to a worker, whether the cause of action is brought by the worker or the dependants of a deceased worker if –

(a)   the action for damages is an action to which –

(i)   Part IV of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 applies; or

(ii)   Part 7 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 applies; or

(iii)   Part III or VB of the Wrongs Act 1958 applies; and

(b)   the injury to the worker is a dust-related condition within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Administration and Probate Act 1958.

(2)   This section applies despite anything to the contrary in section 5 or section 40(a) and (b).”.

18B Saving

In section 40 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 for “Despite” substitute “Subject to section 23AB, despite”.’.

New clauses agreed to; clauses 19 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 (22:53)

David ETTERSHANK: I move:

1.   Clause 27, line 24, omit ‘at the place;”.’ and insert –

‘that is –

(i)   kept at the place; or

(ii)   accessible from an electronic device at the place;”.’.

2.   Clause 27, after line 24 insert –

‘(1A) After section 89(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 insert –

“(1A)   The authorised representative may request the employer who has, or a person who on behalf of the employer has, the management and control of the work at the place to allow access to any documents referred to in subsection (1)(bb).

(1B)   The employer who has, or a person who on behalf of the employer has, the management and control of the work at the place must comply with a request under subsection (1A).”.’.

This is a very simple amendment. To use the words of the minister in response to Mr Welch, she said that it is important that we update the statute to reflect contemporary settings. I think contemporary settings probably includes PCs. All this does is extend the rights of health and safety reps and ARREOs to be able to access files as they would a paper document. The minister has gone to significant lengths already to explain the safety net that is in place that precludes malpractice, including, obviously, the presence of an inspector and the requirement for notice. This amendment is consistent with the White review, and it is also consistent with the existing federal law. I will not go any further. I think I have discussed this in my presentation, so I commend the amendment.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: From the advice that the Greens have received, we see this to be a beneficial amendment moved by Legalise Cannabis, and we will be supporting it.

Jaclyn SYMES: Thank you, Mr Ettershank, for bringing the amendment to the chamber, but as we have indicated in our response to the White review, further policy work and stakeholder consultation is desirable before legislative change, and we would want to do that before we were in a position to support your amendment.

Richard WELCH: The Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 28 to 37 agreed to.

New clauses 37A to 37H (22:56)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

28.   Insert the following New Part after Part 5 –

‘Part 5A – Further amendment of Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 – health and safety orders

Division 1 – Amendment of Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004

37A New definition inserted

In section 5(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004insert the following definition –

“health and safety order means an order under section 137(1);”.

37B Section 136 repealed

Section 136 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 is repealed.

37C Health and safety order

(1)   In the heading to section 137 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, for “Release on the giving of a health and safety undertaking” substitute “Health and safety order”.

(2)   In section 137(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 for “up to 2 years and make an order for the release of the offender giving an undertaking with specified conditions” substitute “up to 5 years and order that the offender is subject to the conditions included in the order”.

(3)   In section 137(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 –

(a)   for “An undertaking must specify the following conditions – “ substitute “A health and safety order must include the following conditions – “.

(b)   in paragraph (a) omit “during the period of the adjournment”;

(c)   in paragraph (b), for “adjournment” substitute “health and safety order”.

(4)   In section 137(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 –

(a)   for “the court may impose on an offender who is an employer special conditions that the offender” substitute “the court may specify in a health and safety order one or more special conditions that the offender”;

(b)   in paragraph (c), for “Authority.” substitute “Authority; and”;

(c)   after paragraph (c) insert –

“(d)   undertake a specified project for the general improvement of occupational health, safety and welfare within the period specified in the health and safety order.”.

(5)   At the foot of section 137(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 insert –

“Note

In relation to the undertaking of an offender see also Part 3.”.

(6)   Section 137(4) and (5) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 are repealed.

(7)   In section 137(6) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, for “undertaking” substitute “health and safety order”.

(8)   In section 137(7) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, for “an order under this section” substitute “a health and safety order”.

37D Section 138 substituted and new section 138A inserted

For section 138 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 substitute –

“138   Variation or contravention of health and safety order

(1)   The following persons at any time while a health and safety order is in force may apply to a court for variation or cancellation of the health and safety order –

(a)   the offender;

(b)   the Authority;

(c)   the Director of Public Prosecutions.

(2)   On application under subsection (1), the court –

(a)   may vary or cancel a health and safety order if satisfied –

(i)   that the circumstances of the offender have materially altered since the health and safety order was made and as a result the offender will not be able to comply with any condition of the health and safety order; or

(ii)   that the circumstances of the offender were wrongly stated or were not accurately presented to the court or the author of a pre-sentence report before the health and safety order was made; or

(iii)   that the offender is no longer willing to comply with the conditions of the health and safety order; and

(b)   may deal with the offender for the offence or offences with respect to which the health and safety order was made in any manner in which the court could deal with the offender if the court had just found the offender guilty of that offence or those offences, having regard to the extent to which the offender has complied with the health and safety order.

(3)   Notice of an application under subsection (1) must be given –

(a)   to the offender; and

(b)   to the Authority, if the sentencing court was the Magistrates’ Court;

(c)   to the Director of Public Prosecutions, if the sentencing court was the Supreme Court or the County Court.

(4)   The court may order that a warrant to arrest be issued against the offender if the offender does not attend before the court on the hearing of the application.

138A Contravention of a health and safety order

An offender subject to a health and safety order must not contravene the health and safety order unless the offender has a reasonable excuse.

Penalty:   500 penalty units for a natural person;

2 500 penalty units for a body corporate.”.

Division 2 – Consequential amendments to Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026

37E Section 198 amended

In section 198 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026, for “Before section 136” substitute “Before section 137”.

37F Section 199 amended

In section 199 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026, for “before section 136” substitute “before section 137”.

37G Section 200 repealed

Section 200 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026 is repealed.

37H Heading to section 201 amended

For the heading to section 201 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026 substitute –

“Health and safety order”.’.

New clauses agreed to.

New clauses 37I to 37O (22:56)

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, this is related to the Sentencing Advisory Council advice and related amendments. I move:

29.   Insert the following New Part before Part 6 –

‘Part 5B – Further amendment of Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 – impact statements

Division 1 – Amendment of Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004

37I Definitions

In section 5(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 insert the following definitions –

“impact statement means a statement referred to in section 134A;

medical report means a report referred to in section 134D;”.

37J New Division 1A of Part 11 inserted

After Division 1 of Part 11 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 insert –

“Division 1A – Impact statements

134A   What is an impact statement?

(1)   An impact statement is a statement that –

(a)   is in respect of an offence against this Act or the regulations; and

(b)   contains any information described in subsection (2); and

(c)   is in the form of –

(i)   a statutory declaration; or

(ii)   an affidavit; or

(iii)   sworn or affirmed oral evidence.

(2)   The information that may be contained in the statement is the following –

(a)   information relating to a risk –

(i)   that is to the health, safety or welfare of any person; and

(ii)   to which the offence relates;

(b)   information relating to the eventuation of a risk described in paragraph (a);

(c)   information relating to how any person was impacted, directly or indirectly, by –

(i)   a risk described in paragraph (a); or

(ii)   the eventuation of a risk described in paragraph (a); or

(iii)   the offence.

(3)   A reference in subsection (2)(c) to how any person was impacted refers to –

(a)   how the health, safety or welfare of any person was impacted (including by the person suffering injury, loss or damage); and

(b)   any other way in which any person was impacted.

(4)   An impact statement that is in the form of a statutory declaration or an affidavit may include photographs, drawings or poems or other material that relates to any of the matters set out in subsection (2).

Note

Under section 134D, a medical report may be given with an impact statement.

134B   When court may allow person to give impact statement

(1)   A court that finds a person guilty of an offence against this Act or the regulations may allow a person to give an impact statement to the court in respect of the offence for the purpose of assisting the court to determine –

(a)   what sentence to impose for the offence; or

(b)   whether to make an order under Division 2 in respect of the offence (and if so, the content of that order) –

if the court is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.

(2)   Nothing in subsection (1) limits or otherwise affects the ability of a person to make a victim impact statement under the Sentencing Act 1991.

(3)   An impact statement given in accordance with subsection (1) may be given on behalf of another person if –

(a)   that other person is under the age of 18 years; or

(b)   the court is satisfied that the other person is incapable of making the statement because of mental illness or for any other reason.

134C   Admissibility

(1)   A court that receives an impact statement may rule as inadmissible –

(a)   the whole or any part of the statement; or

(b)   the whole or any part of a medical report attached to the statement.

(2)   It is the intention of Parliament that in interpreting and applying this section, courts have regard to the following –

(a)   an impact statement allows a person to give information described in section 134A(2);

(b)   an impact statement is not inadmissible merely because it contains subjective or emotive material.

(3)   A court may receive the whole of an impact statement, or an attached medical report, despite –

(a)   an objection being taken to the statement or report (or to part of the statement or report); or

(b)   the statement or report containing inadmissible material.

(4)   If the court receives an impact statement, or an attached medical report, that contains inadmissible material, the court, in sentencing the offender –

(a)   is not to rely on the material that the court considers to be inadmissible; and

(b)   need not specify which of the material is not being relied on.

134D   Medical report

(1)   A person who gives an impact statement to a court may also give to the court, along with that statement, a report on medical matters concerning that person (or, if the statement is given on behalf of another natural person, that other person).

(2)   The report –

(a)   must be –

(i)   in writing; and

(ii)   made and signed by a medical expert; and

(b)   may include a document that the medical expert intends should be read with the statement.

(3)   A document may be included under subsection (2)(b) regardless of whether –

(a)   it was in existence at the time the report was made; or

(b)   the medical expert obtained it, or caused it to be brought into existence, at a later time.

(4)   In this section –

medical expert has the same meaning as in Division 1C of Part 3 of the Sentencing Act 1991;

medical matters has the same meaning as in Division 1C of Part 3 of the Sentencing Act 1991.

134E   Distribution of written materials

(1)   A person who is to give an impact statement to a court in the form of a statutory declaration or an affidavit must give a copy of the statement to the prosecutor a reasonable time before sentencing is to take place.

(2)   A person who is to give a medical report to a court along with an impact statement must give a copy of the report to the prosecutor a reasonable time before sentencing is to take place.

(3)   As soon as practicable after a prosecutor receives a document under subsection (1) or (2), the prosecutor must –

(a)   file a copy of the document with the court; and

(b)   give a copy of the document to –

(i)   the offender; or

(ii)   the legal practitioner representing the offender.

134F   Examination of person who gives impact statement

(1)   If a person gives an impact statement to a court, the court may call the person to give evidence.

(2)   If a person gives a medical report to a court, the court may call the medical expert who made the report to give evidence.

(3)   The court may call a person to give evidence under subsection (1) or (2) at the request of –

(a)   the offender; or

(b)   the prosecutor.

(4)   A person called to give evidence under subsection (1) or (2) may be cross-examined and re-examined.

134G   Witnesses

(1)   A person who gives an impact statement to a court may call a witness to give evidence in support of any matter contained in the statement or a medical report given along with the statement.

(2)   A witness called to give evidence under subsection (1) may be cross-examined and re-examined.

(3)   Any party to the proceeding may lead evidence on any matter contained in the impact statement or medical report.

134H   Reading aloud of impact statement

(1)   A person who is to give an impact statement in the form of a statutory declaration or affidavit may request that the court provide for a specified part of the statement to be –

(a)   read aloud or displayed in open court in the course of the sentencing hearing by –

(i)   the person making the request; or

(ii)   a person chosen by the person making the request who consents and who is approved by the court for that purpose; or

(b)   read aloud in open court in the course of the sentencing hearing by the prosecutor.

(2)   If a request is made under subsection (1), the court must grant the request with respect to each part of the impact statement that –

(a)   is specified in the request; and

(b)   is admissible; and

(c)   is appropriate and relevant to the determination of what sentence to impose (or whether to make an order under Division 2, and if so, what the contents of that order are to be).

(3)   The court may direct the person who made the request, or the person who is to read aloud or display the specified parts of the impact statement, as to the parts of the statement in respect of which the request is granted in accordance with subsection (2).

(4)   Nothing in this section prevents the presiding judge or magistrate from reading aloud any admissible part of an impact statement in the course of a proceeding.

134I   Alternative arrangements for reading aloud of impact statement

(1)   If a court grants a request under section 134H for the reading aloud of any part of an impact statement, the court may direct that alternative arrangements be made for that reading aloud.

(2)   Without limiting subsection (1), the court may direct that arrangements be made –

(a)   permitting the impact statement to be read aloud from a place other than the court room by means of an audio visual link that enables communication between that place and the court room;

(b)   using screens to remove the person reading the impact statement from the direct line of vision of the offender;

(c)   permitting a person who is –

(i)   chosen by the person reading the impact statement; and

(ii)   approved by the court for this purpose –

to be beside the person reading the statement while it is read aloud for the purpose of providing emotional support to the person reading the statement;

(d)   permitting only persons specified by the court to be present while the impact statement is read aloud;

(e)   requiring legal practitioners not to robe.

(3)   A direction under subsection (1) may be given, varied or revoked –

(a)   on the application of –

(i)   the person who is to read the impact statement aloud; or

(ii)   the prosecutor; or

(b)   on the court’s own motion.

(4)   For the purposes of this section, the reading aloud of an impact statement includes the display of material included in it.

Note

See section 134H(1)(a).

134J   Alternative arrangements for witnesses

(1)   If a person is called to give evidence under section 134F or 134G, the court may direct that alternative arrangements be made for the examination, cross-examination and re-examination of that person.

(2)   Without limiting subsection (1), the court may direct that arrangements be made –

(a)   permitting the person to be examined, cross-examined and re-examined from a place other than the court room by means of an audio visual link that enables communication between that place and the court room;

(b)   using screens to remove the person from the direct line of vision of the offender;

(c)   permitting a person who is –

(i)   chosen by the person being examined, cross-examined or re-examined; and

(ii)   approved by the court for this purpose –

to be beside the person referred to in subparagraph (i) for the purpose of providing emotional support to that person;

(d)   permitting only persons specified by the court to be present while the person is being examined, cross-examined or re-examined;

(e)   requiring legal practitioners not to robe;

(f)   requiring legal practitioners to be seated while examining or cross-examining the person.

(3)   A direction under subsection (1) may be given, varied or revoked –

(a)   on the application of –

(i)   the person called to give evidence; or

(ii)   the prosecutor; or

(b)   on the court’s own motion.”.

37K Heading to Division 2 of Part 11 amended

In the heading to Division 2 of Part 11 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, for “Sentencing for offences” substitute “Additional sentencing orders”.

37L New Division 3A of Part 15 inserted

After Division 3 of Part 15 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 insert –

“Division 3A – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026

188A   Impact statements

Division 1A of Part 11 does not apply for the purposes of sentencing an offender for an offence of which they were found guilty before the day on which Division 1 of Part 5B of the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026 comes into operation.”.

Division 2 – Related amendments to Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026

37M New sections 194A to 194K inserted

After section 194 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026 insert –

‘194A   Heading to Division 1A of Part 11 repealed

The heading to Division 1A of Part 11 of the Principal Act is repealed.

194B   New Part 13.1A heading inserted

Insert the following heading before section 134A of the Principal Act –

“Part 13.1A – Impact statements”.

194C   What is an impact statement?

(1)   For section 134A(1)(a) of the Principal Act substitute –

“(a)   is in respect of –

(i)   an offence against this Act or the regulations; or

(ii)   a contravention of a civil penalty provision; and”.

(2)   For section 134A(2)(a)(i) of the Principal Act substitute –

“(i)   that is to –

(A)   the health, safety or welfare of any person; or

(B)   property involved with the handling of dangerous goods; and”.

(3)   In section 134A(2)(a)(ii) and (c)(iii) of the Principal Act, after “the offence” insert “or contravention”.

194D   When court may allow person to give impact statement

(1)   In section 134B(1)(b) of the Principal Act, for “Division 2” substitute “Part 13.2”.

(2)   After section 134B(2) of the Principal Act insert –

“(2A)   A court that is considering whether to make a civil penalty order in respect of a contravention of a civil penalty provision may allow a person to give an impact statement to the court in respect of the contravention for the purpose of assisting the court to determine whether to make the civil penalty order (and if so, the content of that order) if the court is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.”.

(3)   In section 134B(3) of the Principal Act, after “subsection (1)” insert “or (2A)”.

194E   Admissibility

In section 134C(4) of the Principal Act, after “in sentencing the offender” insert “or determining whether to make a civil penalty order (and if so, the content of that order)”.

194F   Section 134E amended

(1)   In the heading to section 134E of the Principal Act after “materials” insert “– sentencing”.

(2)   In section 134E(1) of the Principal Act, for “court” substitute “court, in accordance with section 134B(1),”.

(3)   In section 134E(2) of the Principal Act, after “impact statement” insert “given in accordance with section 134B(1)”.

194G   New section 134EA inserted

After section 134E of the Principal Act insert –

“134EA   Distribution of written materials – civil penalties

(1)   A person who is to give an impact statement to a court, in accordance with section 134B(2A), in the form of a statutory declaration or an affidavit must give a copy of the statement to the Authority a reasonable time before sentencing is to take place.

(2)   A person who is to give a medical report to a court along with an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(2A) must give a copy of the report to the Authority a reasonable time before sentencing is to take place.

(3)   As soon as practicable after the Authority receives a document under subsection (1) or (2), the Authority must –

(a)   file a copy of the document with the court; and

(b)   give a copy of the document to –

(i)   the person in respect of whom the Authority seeks that the court is to make a civil penalty order; or

(ii)   the legal practitioner representing that person.”.

194H   Examination of person who gives impact statement

For section 134F(3) of the Principal Act substitute –

“(3)   The court may call a person to give evidence under subsection (1) or (2) at the request of –

(a)   if the impact statement is given in accordance with section 134B(1), or the medical report is given along with a statement given that way –

(i)   the offender; or

(ii)   the prosecutor; or

(b)   if the impact statement is given in accordance with section 134B(2A), or the medical report is given along with a statement given that way –

(i)   the person in respect of whom the Authority seeks that the court is to make a civil penalty order; or

(ii)   the Authority.”.

194I   Reading aloud of impact statement

(1)   In section 134H(1)(a) of the Principal Act, for “sentencing hearing” substitute “relevant hearing”.

(2)   For section 134H(1)(b) of the Principal Act substitute –

“(b)   read aloud in open court in the course of the relevant hearing by whichever of the following applies –

(i)   the prosecutor; or

(ii)   a legal practitioner representing the Authority.”.

(3)   For section 134H(2)(c) of the Principal Act substitute –

“(c)   is appropriate and relevant to whichever of the following applies –

(i)   the determination of what sentence to impose (or whether to make an order under Part 13.2, and if so, what the contents of that order are to be); or

(ii)   the determination of whether to make a civil penalty order (and if so, what the contents of that order are to be).”.

(4)   After section 134H(4) of the Principal Act insert –

“(5)   In this section –

relevant hearing means –

(a)   in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(1), the sentencing hearing; or

(b)   in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(2A), a hearing in the proceeding in which it is given.”.

194J   Alternative arrangements for reading aloud of impact statement

(1)   In section 134I(2)(b) of the Principal Act, for “vision of the offender;” substitute “vision of –

(i)   in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(1), the offender; or

(ii)   in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(2A), the person in respect of whom the Authority seeks that the court is to make a civil penalty order;”.

(2)   For section 134I(3)(a) of the Principal Act substitute –

“(a)   on the application of the person who is to read the impact statement aloud; or

(ab)   on the application of –

(i)   in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(1), the prosecutor; or

(ii)   in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(2A), the Authority; or”.

194K   Alternative arrangements for witnesses

(1)   In section 134J(2)(b) of the Principal Act, for “vision of the offender;” substitute “vision of –

(i)   in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(1), the offender; or

(ii)   in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(2A), the person in respect of whom the Authority seeks that the court is to make a civil penalty order;”.

(2)   For section 134J(3)(a) of the Principal Act substitute –

“(a)   on the application of the person called to give evidence; or

(ab)   on the application of –

(i)   in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(1), the prosecutor; or

(ii)   in the case of an impact statement given in accordance with section 134B(2A), the Authority; or”.’.

37N New sections 242A and 242B inserted

After section 242 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026 insert –

‘242A   Heading to Division 3A of Part 15 repealed

The heading to Division 3A of Part 15 of the Principal Act is repealed.

242B   New Part 17.3A heading inserted

Insert the following heading before section 188A of the Principal Act –

“Part 17.3A – Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Act 2026”.

37O New Part 17.4 inserted

In section 243 of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Dangerous Goods) Act 2026, for “Division 3” substitute “Division 3A”.’.

New clauses agreed to; clause 38 agreed to.

Long title (22:57)

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, it is consequential. I move:

30.   Long title, after “to amend the” insert “Dangerous Goods Transport Act 2026 in relation to reckless endangerment offences, the”.

Amendment agreed to.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, consequential. I move:

31.   Long title, omit “in relation to guarantees and supported accommodation”.

Amendment agreed to.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

32.   Long title, omit “Accident Compensation Act 1985 in relation to supported accommodation” and insert “Accident Compensation Act 1985”.

Amendment agreed to.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

34.   Long title, omit “in relation to the powers of representatives and coercive conduct”.

36.   Long title, after “consequential” insert “and related”.

Amendments agreed to.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, back to the TAC. I move:

33.   Long title, after “the Transport Accident Act 1986 in relation to supported accommodation” insert “and certain benefits for children”.

Amendment agreed to.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I move:

21.   Long title, before “and to make” insert “, the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to remove a limitation period for certain actions”.

Amendment agreed to; amended long title agreed to.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Jaclyn SYMES: Pursuant to standing order 4.08, I declare the sitting to be extended for 1 hour.

Reported to house with amendments, including amended long title.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (23:00): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

I just would like to put on record that we made that slightly difficult for the table office, and Viv, as always, did an amazing job, which enabled us to get through that quite efficiently, so thank you to Viv for her work and to the clerks for their advice to guide us through that. We got some really good, important work done tonight. I thank the Greens, Mr Ettershank and Mr Welch for their engagement. I thank Trades Hall and those officials for their engagement and Minister Dimopoulos’s office.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (23:00): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on motion:

The 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 amendments.