Bills

Police (Return to Work) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 October 2015.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:38): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to speak to the second reading of this legislation. In introducing the legislation, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, amongst other points, gave the following explanation as to why he was seeking to amend the Police Act rather than the return to work legislation which had been introduced into parliament only in the last 12 months or so. Let me quote the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. He said:

The key point, I believe, and the very strong argument for amending the Police Act, is that police officers have the only occupation where they are bound to enter dangerous situations. Workers in every other occupation can choose not to enter a situation where their personal safety could be placed in jeopardy.

The advice we have received is that police are different in how they are employed. Unlike traditional jobs, where someone enters a contract of employment, once police are sworn in, they are in an entirely different category to any other worker. In fact, once a police officer has been sworn in, they are effectively on duty 24/7. If they see certain situations, they are duty bound to act and they have sworn to commit to that situation, no matter what.

In supporting that argument I have a recent letter, I think to all members (or certainly to all members of the Legislative Council, I suspect), dated 16 November this year, signed by the President of the Police Association, Mark Carroll. On behalf of the Police Association, Mr Carroll makes the following comments, under the heading of 'Brokenshire Bill':

Never throughout the months of our lobbying and campaigning have we claimed police to be of a superior status. We do insist, however, that police perform a unique role with vastly different responsibilities from those of other workers. Police are not only the front-line, but also the last line, when it comes to the protection of their community. They swear or affirm one of the most powerful oaths of office so as to elevate the public welfare above their own.

In cases in which other emergency service workers are able to stand back from a life-threatening presence, police cannot. They must and do act. That compels them to work in and witness scenes of the worst horror, such as murders, child abuse and fatal road crashes. They must also confront armed offenders, live with threats from criminals and criminal gangs, such as bikies, and they are a favoured target of the terrorist. Indeed, the Weekend Australian reported just days ago that police have become the target of choice for Islamic State jihadists in the west.

Three Australian Police Commissioners told the paper that their officers were in the crosshairs of radicals inspired by Islamic State. In just the last two days we have again seen the destructive force of terrorism take innocent lives and devastate multiple areas of Paris. Police make no complaint about the onus on them to face perils for other people. They go into their careers with their eyes open, and accept the danger as part of the job. The one thing they do demand, and certainly deserve, is fair and reasonable compensation when they suffer injuries in service to the rest of us. No one wants to think of police officers hesitating to respond to crisis situations because they fear financial ruin if they suffer injuries. Any public policy that creates that fear and hesitation is simply a bad public policy.

I have quoted both those statements from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and the Police Association President at length to indicate why the parliament has been asked to consider amendments to the Police Act as opposed to the return-to-work legislation. It is clear that the Police Association, and the Hon. Mr Brokenshire as the mover of the legislation, have accepted the unique nature of the work of police and police officers in our community. As important as many other occupations are, what the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is putting to the parliament (and obviously supported also by the Police Association) is that the occupation of the police is unique and different from all other occupations in the way that they have so described.

The Liberal leader, Steven Marshall, has put on the public record on a number of occasions the Liberal Party's position. He first addressed in broad terms the introduction of the legislation at the annual meeting of the Police Association some number of weeks ago now when he attended that particular meeting, as he has done on a regular basis since he became Liberal leader. On that particular occasion let me quote what he said to the Police Association:

One key issue that the parliament will be considering in the months ahead that is of key interest to Police Association members is the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's bill proposing amendments to the return-to-work scheme for police officers. The bill was introduced into parliament last week, and I understand there are some amendments that may be made to the bill prior to its further debate. The opposition will be giving serious consideration to the proposals over the coming weeks.

While the details in the bill need contemplation (and that will take place once we have had a chance to confirm what the final proposal looks like), I would offer a few comments on the principle. Due to the dangers you face in your every-day jobs it is understandable that you would want a scheme in place to support you in case of serious workplace injury. The types of injury, both physical and psychological, that police officers are exposed to are often different to those faced by the community at large in their day-to-day roles. As Liberals, we are committed to a sustainable return to work scheme. That does not mean neglecting the unique needs of those who put their lives on the line to protect the community. We would like to see a scheme that balances the unique risks you face with the need for a long-term and sustainable scheme.

That was the initial response from the Liberal leader to the Police Association—an entirely reasonable position to adopt very soon after the introduction of the legislation into the parliament. The Liberal leader has indicated on a number of other public occasions since then that the position of the Liberal Party will ultimately be determined, as is always the way in the Liberal Party, by the Liberal parliamentary party room, which met on Monday of this week. On Monday evening, Steven Marshall, Liberal leader, released the following press statement, which I think was distributed Tuesday morning:

Liberals support fairer compensation for injured police officers

The State Liberals have thrown their support behind SA police's campaign to receive a fair deal on workers compensation and will vote for the Brokenshire Bill when it comes before State Parliament.

'Our police put their lives on line to protect the community and they deserve to be properly looked after when they are injured at work,' said State Liberal [leader] Steven Marshall.

'Jay Weatherill needs to recognise the unique dangers and challenges police face at work and ensure fair levels of compensation for police officers injured in the line of duty.'

Further on in that release—I will not read all of it:

'Policing is a unique, challenging and dangerous job and we should be providing our police officers with the support they need [if] they get injured doing their job.

The State Liberals support the principle that police officers such as Senior Constable Alison Coad, Senior Constable Brett Gibbons and Senior Constable First Class Brian Edwards, deserve higher levels of compensation than they are currently provided.

The Weatherill Labor Government's decision to oppose this legislation demonstrates their lack of understanding and compassion for our police officers.'

Liberal leader Steven Marshall, on behalf of the entire Liberal team, as of Monday of this week, put on the public record the Liberal Party's support for the principles behind the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's legislation. What we have seen over the last few days and weeks, I guess, is a government's response which I think many people in the community have characterised as arrogant and as completely misjudging the community view on this issue.

In referring to that, I want to again refer to the letter from Mr Carroll on behalf of the Police Association, who takes strong exception to a number of the claims that have been made by Premier Weatherill and minister Rau in relation to this particular issue. This is the letter dated 16 November this year to members of parliament. The first point that Mr Carroll makes refers to a number of statements that Premier Weatherill had made to the media which the Police Association believes to be inaccurate. Let me quote the statement in the letter:

Comments the media drew from Premier Jay Weatherill after the meeting struck the Police Association as inaccurate. Point 1.

Then there is a quote as to what Premier Weatherill said:

'Where were they [the association] when these laws were turned into legislation?' he asked. 'I mean this is something which they say that they agitated. It was agitated very faintly.'

The fact was that the association left the government in no doubt as to what the legislation would do to police. We raised our unmistakable opposition directly with Mr Weatherill more than 12 months ago at the 2014 Police Association Annual Conference which he and other parliamentarians attended.

Before a room packed with association delegates and a media throng, I myself made that opposition abundantly clear to him—face-to-face.

I said then that, were the bill to become law, it would overwhelmingly disadvantage police and may lead to hesitant police responses to critical incidents.

I also said that it was neither 'fair' nor 'reasonable' for police who had to 'put themselves in harm's way to protect the community'.

My final 'perspicacious' word on the issue was that the association had no intention of sitting idly by without challenging these unjust laws.

And, subsequent to the conference, we continued to lobby parliamentarians and agitate through the media, correspondence with the government, and public statements in various fora.

Point 2

'They're entitled to withdraw their labour,' Mr Weatherill said of police. 'That's something that we (the government) support.'

The reality is that police do not enjoy the right to strike and have never, since the 1838 establishment of the SA police force, taken that action.

SA police officers are too strongly committed to their community to consider a tactic such as the withdrawal of their labour.

To the Police Association, the political endorsement of strike action by police would seem bizarre.

Point 3

"There's no rational basis on which we could carve out a separate (compensation) system for police…' Mr Weatherill insisted. 'None of that exists in any other state anywhere in the commonwealth.'

One clear example of a separate system exists in Western Australia, where the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act does not cover police.

WA police officers receive entirely different treatment because their compensation system, under the (WA) Police Act, is industrially based.

Point 4

'The idea of creating a separate set of rules for police compared with other workers has no precedent across the nation,' Mr Weatherill said.

Examples of different sets of rules for police lie in the Southern State Superannuation Act, the Police Disciplinary Tribunal and some interstate commissions against corruption, such as the former OPI in Victoria.

And, after the 2010 shooting of two police officers in the northern suburbs, the parliament passed legislation designed specifically—and only—for police.

In the Criminal Law Consolidation Act now is the offence of shooting at a police officer.

It stipulates that a person who discharges a firearm intending to hit a police officer, or being reckless as to whether a police officer is hit, is guilty of an offence.

Previous action

In 2011, Mr Weatherill was a member of the cabinet when it took action vastly different from its position on the return-to-work legislation.

It agreed to the provision of a special income protection superannuation benefit for any police officer injured as a result of criminal action directed at the police officer.

This benefit arrangement ensured that any police officer injured as a result of criminal action was not financially disadvantaged.

But, now, the return-to-work legislation Mr Weatherill has endorsed does precisely the opposite to police officers.

Expectation

Among other comments Mr Weatherill made to journalists was that 'we expect their expenses (those of Brett, Alison and Brian) will be met in the future'.

However, if they are not deemed seriously injured workers under the Return to Work Act, they will have no entitlement to wage maintenance after two years. At that point it will cease, irrespective of time they might or might not have had off work.

And their entitlement to the coverage of medical expenses will end after three years.

From 2018 onward, for the rest of her, life Alison Coad will have to find the money for the medication she requires for relief from her painful oral herpes. Today, that cost is more than $400 a month.

Alison, Brett and Brian are not the only examples of police officers adversely affected by the return-to-work legislation. There are many more.

That is one example of where the Police Association have responded strongly to claims being made by Mr Weatherill. We saw in The Advertiser on Monday of this week under the headline 'Rau and police in row over compo':

A war of words has erupted between the state's Attorney-General and the police union over claims used in their campaign against workers' compensation reforms which he says are 'incorrect'.

John Rau has accused the Police Association of South Australia of misrepresenting the support being provided to the face of the campaign, Senior Constable Brett Gibbons, under the new Return to Work scheme.

Writing in today's Advertiser, Mr Rau says the unions' campaign was built on 'shaky foundations'.

Last night, the Police Association hit back at Mr Rau, saying the union had 'fought long and hard to make the Government see the abyss into which the act plunges injured police officers'.

The article then goes on to detail the extent of the disagreement between the Police Association and minister Rau over his article which was headed, 'I want to set the record straight. Injured workers aren't worse off', John Rau, SA Attorney-General. Without reading the whole of his contribution, he says:

Some claims in their advertising—

that is, police advertising—

are simply incorrect.

He then goes on to argue the case. Finally, we saw yesterday, sadly, the Attorney-General liken the discussion and debate on this particular issue to a Monty Python skit. I know some Labor members were very concerned to hear the Attorney-General liken this debate about a most serious issue to a debate from a Monty Python skit. As I said, there are many other examples, and I will not waste the time of the second reading debate in detailing them all, but there are three clear areas where the government, in particular through minister Rau and Premier Weatherill, have sadly misjudged the community mood, and certainly the police view of the importance of this particular legislation, and I think there are many other examples which could have been given as well.

As with all legislation, we have consulted widely on this legislation. The community and police response did not require too much active engagement from Liberal members who have reported receiving numerous contacts from community members and members of the police force, and those associated with members of the police force actively urging the Liberal Party to support the Brokenshire legislation.

A general summary, without going into the detail of the views of other unions and organisations like Voices of Industrial Death, has been that if this particular legislation is to be supported then it needs to be extended either to certain other unions or, in some cases, to everybody again. A number of them have stated, 'Well, we indicated our concerns at the time, and if it's to be altered for the police, then the parliament should alter it for either a wider group of unions or occupations, or should broaden it to everyone.'

The third broad category is, essentially, the employer organisations, and I think almost without exception the view of the employer organisations has been strongly opposed to the legislation and has urged the parliament and the Liberal Party to not support the legislation.

As the Liberal leader, Steven Marshall, has indicated, in our discussion on Monday we resolved to support the legislation. As Steven Marshall indicated in his press release to which I have referred, he made a number of important points and referred to the issue that police were a unique occupation. He also referred to the fact that the state Liberals supported the principle that police officers (such as the three who have been highlighted in the campaign) did deserve higher levels of compensation than they are currently provided.

The Liberal Party position is that we will be supporting the second reading of the legislation, and supporting it on the basis that we support the principle that Steven Marshall has outlined in his public press statement and public utterances, and that is that the type of cases that have been highlighted in the Police Association's advertising do merit high levels of compensation than are currently being provided. And that is the essential principle.

The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, as I understand it in response to some criticisms from the government, has flagged some amendments which in his view seek to limit the applicability of his legislation to police officers. As I understand the criticism which was being made by the government, and which the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has agreed to, is that he was wanting to provide compensation to the types of cases that have been highlighted in the police campaign but that there were many other examples where police officers might be accessing compensation where they had been injured in their office, for example, if you have tripped over a cable or fallen off your chair, a whole variety of other workplace accidents which are not particularly applicable to the dangerous situation a police officer confronts with a criminal or a suspected criminal in the community.

However, whilst we will support the amendments in the interests of enabling the debate to proceed, our initial legal advice is that the amendment from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire does not successfully draw that distinction. The words that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has indicated will be in his amendment are: 'must be an injury that is directly related to the execution of a prescribed police officer's duty in the protection of the community'. Some legal advice to us is that that is a legal minefield, a lawyer's playground and that ultimately that particular amendment and phrase would be successfully argued by lawyers as covering a much wider group of injured officers than the group that are featured in the police officers' campaign.

The Liberal Party, in supporting the second reading and the amendments the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is moving, is doing so in supporting the general principle as outlined by Steven Marshall but we are not locking ourselves into the precise wording of the bill or the amendment from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. As the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has indicated anyway, for this legislation to be successful ultimately the government is going to need to agree to it or some version of it in the House of Assembly and it would be at that stage where debate could be entered into as to whether or not the first attempt at an amendment to distinguish between the types of cases that have been highlighted in the public campaign can be adequately quarantined from a whole variety of other workers compensation cases which are not being featured as part of the advertising campaign from the Police Association. Certainly, our initial legal advice is that there would need to be a much tighter amendment to the legislation in that particular respect.

The other issue, as I said, which is an important principle for the Liberal Party, is that we are not locking ourselves into the precise nature of the drafting. The government has argued, and we think there is some validity to at least this aspect of its argument, that the end result of this particular bill, even with the amendments, is that, in essence, it is not returning the police officers to the old WorkCover scheme, it is actually taking, in some respects, the best elements of the old scheme and the best elements of the new scheme and constructing a whole new scheme. So, it is not returning, as I think some aspects of the second reading explanation of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire referred to; that is, returning it to the original arrangements.

There are a number of technical areas, and I only raise a couple, that ultimately, if the government is going to come to the table in some sort of sensible discussion about this, would need to be debated at that particular stage. One is in relation to the issue of work capacity reviews. Under the old scheme there was the capacity for work capacity reviews because you did have the capacity to continue with income maintenance and medical expenses. The new legislation, of course, cuts off the access to income protection and medical expenses. That was one of the trade-offs in the legislation; that is, there used to be work capacity reviews, they were removed and the income maintenance and medical expenses were limited at the time period of two years and three years, as has been outlined.

The issue is going to be—and it is certainly the advice that has been provided to us—that as a result of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's bill, in essence, the police would have ongoing access to income maintenance and medical expenses, and they also would not be subject to any work capacity review at any stage. So, how that is meant operate—again, this is an example where the best elements of one scheme have been retained and the best elements of a new scheme have been put together in a completely new scheme. It is not returning it to the old arrangements.

There have also been some questions raised with us—and I know that there is an attempt at an amendment from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire to the issue of lump sum payments. Some of the advice that the opposition has received from the government seems to conflict with some of the intentions from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire in this respect. That is, the advice the opposition has received from the government is that the end result of this particular bill would be that certain police officers in certain circumstances would have ongoing access to medical expenses and income maintenance and, for some of those with between 5 per cent and 29 per cent whole person impairment, they would also have access to both the loss of use lump sum payment of up to $150,000 and the economic loss lump sum payment of up to $350,000 which was based on future medical expenses and income being lost.

I know the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's advice is that at least part of that is tackled by the second of his amendments and I guess when we come to it he can outline that. The advice from various government representatives to the opposition is that that is not actually the case in relation to all of that and ultimately, as I said, if the government comes to the table to discuss this, the issue would be who is correcting this? Is the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's view of the amendments correct or is the government and Return to Work SA's view of these amendments correct?

Clearly, to have a situation where police officers were given ongoing access to medical expenses and income protection, and they also got the lump sum payments as well, would not in our view be a reasonable position. The arrangement under Return to Work SA was that workers did not get access to the ongoing medical expenses and income protection but in lieu of that certain injured workers got access to significant lump sum payments. So, it was an either/or position. The issue is, as a result of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's bill, would certain officers be getting access to both? I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire sought to cover off that particular situation. As I said, the advice being provided to Liberal Party members was that that is not the case.

They are just two issues; there are many others. Clearly when you get into something as complicated as workers compensation arrangements and the final details of the scheme, you would require detailed legal advice. The Liberal Party's position, as Steven Marshall has publicly outlined on our behalf, is that to ensure this matter can continue to progress and to support the unique nature of the operations of police we will be supporting the second reading. We will support the two amendments that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has outlined and we will also support the third reading of the legislation.

The other issue I should put on the record in terms of the Liberal Party's support, wearing my hat as the shadow treasurer, is the Liberal Party's position, which we understand from discussions with the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is supported by the Police Commissioner and the Police Association, that any additional cost for these changed benefits will be met from within the existing SAPOL budget. I know in my discussions with the Hon. Mr Brokenshire he certainly indicated that that was his understanding of the situation should his legislation be successful, and I think that was even before he moved the two amendments. So it would certainly be the case, with the original drafting of the bill and his endeavours to limit the scope of it by way of his amendments, in relation to any amended legislation that passed the parliament.

With that I indicate, as Steven Marshall has done publicly on a number of occasions since Monday this week—and I think again today, in his absence, the deputy leader, the member for Bragg, indicated it at a public rally—the Liberal Party's support for the legislation and its passage through the Legislative Council.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:10): This bill, as members are well aware, was introduced by my Family First colleague the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. It is very unusual for both of us to speak on the same bill, something that has not happened very often in what must be our eight years of working together in this place now; in fact, I can think of probably less than five, or something in that order, occasions when we would speak on the same bill. However, occasionally something comes along that is so important, where feelings are so strongly held by each of us, and, indeed, by our party as a whole, that it is appropriate for both of us to make a contribution on that bill.

At the outset I say what I think is obvious to all; that is, that I personally very strongly support the bill that my colleague the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has introduced. With this in mind I rise today in support of the Police (Return to Work) Amendment Bill 2015. As my colleague the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has highlighted in his second reading speech, this bill seeks to provide fundamental entitlements to our most heroic members of the community who are injured in the course of their prescribed duty.

This bill provides injured police officers continuing income and medical support beyond the two and three year cut-off periods, as defined under the Return to Work Act. These proposed provisions are critical for South Australian police officers. As I am sure members would appreciate, the working conditions of a police officer are unlike any other occupation. It is a unique job, and with that should come unique rights and unique protections. The Right to Work provisions are simply insufficient, as they currently stand, to genuinely compensate officers for injuries where their conditions reach beyond that of the legislated time frames.

The terms of employment and the duties which police officers undertake can be distinguished from other occupations, and are distinguishable from even other emergency services workers. Sections 25 and 26 of the Police Act highlight this specifically, requiring police officers to be sworn in by oath, which then formally enters them into an agreement to serve the South Australia Police. What also comes with this sworn oath is the obligation to serve and protect our community, of course, but, critically, to put the safety of others before their own. No other profession requires this.

As the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has already pointed out, police officers are compelled to act and respond to dangerous situations, risking serious injury and even death in some circumstances. Members of the South Australia Police are regularly exposed to danger in their work for the benefit of the community. Despite this, the support which the Return to Work Act provides to our state's officers is very limited, and is insufficient as it currently stands. This is a failure within a legislative framework, an oversight, and simply not acceptable to me or to Family First.

What this bill seeks to achieve is not novel, we are not seeking to set a precedent here. As the Police Superannuation Act proves, police officers are already rightfully recognised as individuals who operate under extraordinary working conditions, which entitles them to unique legislative rights and protections. Similarly, previous legislation passed through this house has also recognised the importance of other emergency services workers and afforded them the necessary legislative protections specific to their quite unique roles.

Previously the government, to its credit, introduced compensation for firefighters who are diagnosed with cancer, and rightly extended that compensation to volunteer firefighters. Recognising the unique nature of policing is, in principle, no different to recognising and creating special compensatory provisions for MFS and CFS officers and volunteers, as the government has previously done. Hence there is precedent for additional compensation of workers under special unique circumstances, as is the South Australian police force.

As we have seen with recent media reports, the injuries which police officers have suffered in the course of their prescribed duty can be horrific. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire told the story of Senior Constable Brett Gibbons, whom I had the pleasure of meeting today. He was actually shot in the face, requiring several major surgeries. Disgracefully, Senior Constable Gibbons would potentially not meet the 30 per cent bodily impairment threshold under the current Return to Work Act. This is unacceptable.

We also learnt of Senior Constable Alison Coad who now suffers chronic mouth ulcers from contracting an incurable virus whilst responding to a violent altercation. The senior constable may not receive continuing protection under the current return-to-work legislation. These are just two examples and yes, of course, there are many others but it is important to note that both of these individuals have publicly supported this bill, as no doubt members would have seen.

Indeed, other cases that have been brought to my attention are equally horrific. In one case which occurred earlier this year, an officer was contaminated by gas and has had damage to their internal organs. Under the current return-to-work provisions this officer's income support would cease in June 2017 and coverage of medical expenses would be cut off in June 2018. These cut-offs would occur irrespective of whether that officer returns to work or has no capacity to work. Again, this is absolutely unacceptable.

Moreover, the extent of the damage to the officer's internal organs is unknown and, because of that, it is unclear exactly how much the officer would have to pay in medical expenses beyond the cut-off period—pay out of their own pocket. This uncertainty alone, I am sure, would be a source of much stress to the officer which would only serve to inhibit their recovery, and you can imagine the impact on their family.

As exemplified by these cases and countless others, the Return to Work Act causes grave injustices for many of these injured police officers. As such, Family First strongly supports this bill and, indeed, it is a Family First bill. Mark Carroll, the President of the Police Association, has recently publicly supported the bill as well. Mr Carroll states:

The entire community stands to gain from the confidence it will give frontline police in their decision-making.

I could not agree more. Can you imagine a society where police officers hesitate before entering into a critical situation for fear of the retributions or financial consequences? Mr Carroll goes on to state:

No one would want to see police officers hesitating to respond to high-risk incidents because they feared on-duty injuries could ruin them financially.

Mr Carroll raises a very good point. Our police officers need—indeed, they deserve—peace of mind so that they can continue to serve and protect our communities without constraints, without concerns about the financial impact of their split-second decisions. Regarding the duty of police officers to risk their own lives for the safety of others, Senior Constable Brett Gibbons had this to say:

You don't have time to think about things like that…it's a life or death situation and you have to act then and there.

The senior constable was referring to the financial repercussions of on-the-job injuries. You don't have time to think about it, he said; you simply have to act. We as a parliament must recognise the important role played in the community by South Australia Police—the vital role, the integral role. The courage of officers who undertake dangerous employment for the greater good should never be penalised; indeed, it should be rewarded.

Failing to support this bill would be to deny the protections which our police officers fundamentally require in order to properly carry out their duty. I ask the members of the council to support these amendments which have been presented by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire under the Family First name and which will provide our state's police officers the protections they rightly deserve. I strongly support this very important bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:18): I rise on behalf of the Greens today to make our contribution to the Police (Return to Work) Amendment Bill 2015, and indicate that the Greens will be supporting this bill. I will talk further to the amendments as they are moved.

We would like to thank the president, Mark Carroll, and the secretary, Tom Scheffler, from the Police Association of South Australia for meeting with me to discuss this important piece of legislation that we have before us. I was happy today, as well, to speak on the steps to a 1,000-plus strong crowd and I certainly commend Mark Carroll's powerful words. He puts a compelling argument and he certainly put a compelling argument to me in discussions of this bill that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has brought before this chamber today.

The bill proposed by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire seeks to amend the Police Act 1998. The bill extends the payment period for income maintenance and medical treatment for police officers with no work capacity or with limited work capacity. Currently under the Return to Work Act an injured worker who has not been categorised as a seriously injured worker will have their weekly payments terminated after two years, and their medical payments will cease after three years.

The Greens raised our strong concerns during the debate last year and clearly stated then, as we do now, that we oppose this new definition of a seriously injured worker.

The bill before us inserts a new schedule 1A into the Police Act, which allows injured police officers to receive ongoing payments for income maintenance and for medical treatment. The cases of injured police officers have played a significant role in increasing the community's understanding of this situation that injured workers are now finding themselves in when dealing with what is, we believe, a draconian piece of legislation.

It is incredibly powerful of police officer Alison Coad, Senior Constable Brian Edwards and Senior Constable Brett Gibbons to share their personal experiences. I commend them for their bravery and I note that the words today at the rally were that they do not want to be called brave: they simply want justice. Hopefully, we are here today to give them justice.

As members in this place are aware, police officer Alison Coad has been left permanently harmed with painful oral herpes—an incurable virus—after a spitting incident which occurred in Whitmore Square in 2003. Coad and her partner attended a potentially violent disturbance at Whitmore Square, when they spotted a knife-wielding man in a heated argument with a young woman. Coad and her partner faced aggression from the man and had to use pepper spray. I would like to quote the case from the Police Journal:

That sparked the woman into a rage against the police officers, who then had to spray and cuff her as well. But even cuffed and sitting upright on the ground, with her eyes watering and nose running, she continued to rant and swear at Coad. Still, Coad knelt down next to the woman and set about spraying her face with water to give her relief from the effects of the OC spray. The woman offered no thanks. Instead, she suddenly and noisily hoicked up a "full-on ball of sputum" from deep in her throat, leaned forward and spat it directly at Coad.

No police officer should have to put up with this sort of act of assault. It was a tragic incident and one that a police officer should not have to face in their daily line of duty but, of course, they do. Coad, under this legislation, will have her weekly payments cease in two years' time, and medical payments terminated in three years—2018, just in time for the next state election, I do note.

One of the issues the Greens raised in this place when we debated the return-to-work legislation was just how unfair that 30 per cent whole person impairment threshold is, and how it is an unrealistic threshold imposed on injured workers. We raised at the time that WorkCover figures at that point in the debate indicated that, of the 1,070 workers with a whole person impairment in 2010-11, only 17 would be considered to be entitled to ongoing compensation.

In other words, less than 2 per cent would be eligible for ongoing compensation, and the rest of those injured workers would not be included in the new scheme. We argued that the vast majority of seriously injured workers under the government's new definition would not be deemed to be seriously injured despite the significance of their injuries. There has now been a lot of media coverage on the issue of police officers having those payments extended.

The Greens support the bill before us in this chamber, but we indicate that we have been working with the unions and other stakeholders and we will seek to move amendments to the Return to Work Act. I would like to take this opportunity now to talk about the impact that the Return to Work Act has had on all workers, many of whom have contacted my office. A police officer who also volunteers with the SA Ambulance Service has asked me to share his case and so I read out the letter now that he sent to my office:

For the purpose of this debate I would like to be kept anonymous. However, I would like to share my story as both a Police Officer and an Ambulance officer and the risks that I face in both my roles.

I graduated from the South Australian Police Academy in June 2014, and was permanently appointed as a South Australian Police Officer in November this year.

In that time I have been fortunate in terms of not having suffered any serious injury while at work and have only had to use a 'tactical option' (capsicum spray, baton, etc.) on one occasion, when a number of teenagers who were under the influence of alcohol punched the windscreen of our police car and then tried to punch me as well.

As a Police officer, I have had near misses when on one occasion while assisting a young female who suffered a mental illness and needed to be brought to the hospital after she suffered cuts to her wrist. The young woman then tried to punch me in the face, which I only just narrowly missed. Whilst in my role as a police officer, I have witnessed and have been called to several incidents where hospital staff, ambulance staff have felt threatened or felt in danger in some way.

I have also been volunteering as an Ambulance Officer within the SA Ambulance Service since 2013. In this time I have attended a number of calls made to assist people with a mental health related illness, as well as people with communicable diseases or drug habits.

In this time I have again been very lucky in not having experienced an incident where I have been assaulted or injured, but I have had a male in the back of the ambulance threaten to urinate on me if I did not let him out of the ambulance. This male was given assistance by the Ambulance officer after he threatened to commit suicide. It was only when the police, who were in the ambulance with me on this occasion, stepped in and prevented this male from continuing to remove his pants that prevented him from doing so.

Fortunately, I have not been injured while on duty. I have heard so many scenarios of unsafe conditions from my colleagues about the risks involved in our jobs. I can say that ambulance officers do not have capsicum spray or a baton to carry whilst on duty.

I am worried that if I was to be injured as an ambulance officer, I won't be able to meet the 'seriously injured' definition. I am also concerned for my colleagues who are ambulance officers, who I know suffer a serious injury and are about to get cut off their weekly payments. I hope my experiences can help members of parliament understand the risk of injury we are likely to incur in our daily jobs.

Another paramedic, who worked previously as a registered nurse, has written to my office, and I would like to take the chamber's time to read his letter, as follows:

I am 43 years old, married with two children and have been employed in the health sector for over 20 years. I spent adolescence in St John's cadets and seniors prior to becoming a Registered Nurse for 14 years, then becoming a Paramedic in 2004. I am writing this letter to you in desperation of highlighting the disadvantages that have been placed on injured workers within the emergency services.

I applaud the push to increase the level of care required regarding injured SAPOL officers. SAPOL are a unique workforce with unique skills and qualifications. As such, if they were/are to be injured whilst on duty to the point of not being able to return back to full-time work, they deserve to be financially supported until retirement or until they find another career (if not in a position with their previous employer) with the same award conditions. SA Ambulance Service is ALSO a unique workforce with unique skills and qualifications. We as an industry are twice as likely to be seriously injured in the line of duty compared to our Police Force colleagues. The current policy and arrangements mean devastation for those who are injured to the point of not being able to return to operational work and end up losing their career.

I speak to you as one of these workers currently unable to perform my qualification due to injuries as a result of a stretcher collapse with a patient on board. My injury occurred in September 2012, and resulted in 3 disk bulges with nerve impingement. As a result I suffer chronic pain and limitation to daily activities, including a permanent limp due to one of my legs constantly giving way. This obviously was not the case prior to the injury. The situation is made worse because I am a country career Paramedic.

The resultant injury has meant delays in getting specialist appointments because of locality and hesitancy/resistance of some specialists not wanting to see WorkCover patients due to not being paid within a reasonable span of time (a separate issue). The injury has meant a loss of my career, one I was good at and wanted to further develop, and one in which I saw myself retiring from one day. The impact of this injury has meant major changes in my daily ability to attend even the most basic of tasks or chores, both personal, parental and domestic, and has put my relationship with my wife and children at the risk of falling apart. The primary reason for all of this is financial loss and uncertainty.

We moved from Adelaide 8 years ago to the country (1 acre property) for a number of reasons, primarily because the working conditions and rewards were better than what it was within the metro area of Adelaide. SA Ambulance dangled a very enticing carrot to any staff to move out to the country as it was hard to find staff and families willing to make such a big move, unless they grew up in the area and/or had family or social support networks there. The bonus was that I could provide for my family as the primary income earner, as my wife had recently had a back injury herself and was unable to work full time.

The incident occurred through a minor miss in communication, and the human reaction of instinctively trying to prevent someone from falling. The result was instant and painful. The pain got worse over the next hour and resulted in my having to go off shift. Since that time I have dealt with 24 hour a day pain that peaks on movement and even when trying to sleep, pain which was so sharp and intense that the simple action of reaching for a drink while sitting down resulted in my dropping of the drink due to the intensity of the pain. I have had X-rays, CTs, MRIs, Physiotherapy, Neurosurgical Specialists, Pain Specialists, Clinical Physicians, Psychologists, Psychiatrists and minor surgery.

Now that pain did subside fractionally, but it took years of physio, massage, medications and injections into the spine and all of that only reduced the level of pain less than half. It could be said that the treatment received over the last 1-2 years has been more maintenance than proactive. It had immediate impacts on my home life, being unable to attend chores I would have done with ease previously. Everything from sweeping, laundry, mowing lawns, pruning bushes, chopping wood (a country heating necessity), renovations, cleaning gutters, driving, shopping and more were all severely impacted or had to be ceased.

Personally I could no longer do piggy-back rides for my kids, help training with kids sports, take them four wheel driving (a long standing passion and hobby) and even my levels of normal childhood mucking around dropped as my sleep was permanently altered and broken, meaning I was tired and grumpy far more than I wanted to be or ever was.

Personally, the injury has also taken its toll on my relationship with my wife and has meant that 3 years after the injury, I have now spent 2 and ½ of those years not able to sleep in 'our' bedroom. Part of this was due to poor sleeping ability due to pain or fear of being bumped in the back, but more devastatingly the inability to be intimate (due to pain and injury limitation) with my wife. The stress of the injury itself and the financial burden it placed on the family was and is something I fear and have the hardest time dealing with. This has led to periods of depression and anxiety and weight gain—something else WorkCover is unwilling to address other than to refer me to a Nutritionist—I have one Bachelor and the equivalent to another degree in health and 23 years in health, I think I know how to modify my own diet to reflect the calorie usage post-injury.

Household items have been sold, either due to not being able to use them now because of my limitations (further dropping level of independence) of the injury, or because being on 80% income and out of pocket expenses have caused and will now cause even more financial hardship (financial advice of a possibility of losing our home within 5 years, 3 years after the income support from WorkCover would cease).

No work related injury should cause this much devastation to a family for something beyond the injured person's control. The hit to one's pride and independence is something that can never be understood unless you have been in a similar situation, but to have colleagues volunteer their own time to help you out by doing YOUR gardening, and house maintenance is both depressing and deeply heart-warming. I prided myself on being able to do so much around the home and with the family, that to have the need for others to do what I should be able to do is shattering to one's spirit. The fact is I can't be the person I was before and that's hard to take some days.

What makes this worse is being told by the Government that it is changing the goal posts (more than likely because of a minority of rorters) which means I only get 2 years of income support (at 80%) and 3 years of support for medications and treatment. After this, I am on my own. Because of my injury, I can't stay within SA Ambulance as a Paramedic, and, as a result of SA Ambulance being under SA Health and under the same cost cutting knife as other health agencies, plus being out country, my chances of staying with my employer are next to nil. Nor is there any opportunity for them to be able to provide any positions for an injured worker, thereby retaining trained staff and having that feeling of still being valued or wanted. If I had lived in the Adelaide metropolitan area when this injury occurred I would have had more of a chance at access to many more working opportunities than what ALL country career staff have available to them currently.

Because of this, and the uniqueness of our skills and qualifications, there is nowhere for me to go. SAAS can't even employ someone to separately look after those injured to the point of not being able to return to previous employment. I have been through 8 injury managers or senior return to work consultants, some have been good and tried their best under the circumstances, but when more than one of them admits to there not being enough resources/personnel/time to devote to people in my situation of not being able to return to work, where does that leave me?

How am I supposed to feel when the company I've given my all to doesn't have the ability to look after me during my injury process and why isn't there any occupational opportunities planned for such staff, especially considering the amount of money they have spent in training us?

I am left without a career, financial stability and will probably lose my home…and family due to the financial and personal stress this injury has caused and is leading to. I have been assessed as having a whole person injury level of 20%, just far enough below the 30% (as part of the changes brought in the 1^st of July this year) that I don't qualify for income support until retirement—something I feel is desperately unfair to those industries that are employed to support, defend and protect everyone else, and those industries hardest to find lateral job opportunities to those who can't remain with their previous employers.

We didn't ask for these injuries, nor the heartache and lifelong impacts these injuries WILL have to health, family and career prospects, but to, at the very least, have some financial support up to what we were receiving prior to the injury, it would be nice to see the Government care about us the same way we have cared for ALL of our patients/public/citizens. One of my closest friends (also in health) suggested I have been displaying PTSD symptoms/behaviours—I think that's a distinct possibility, but because WorkCover can only assess the PRIMARY injury cause and not the subsequent injuries/illnesses, I am left to deal with it the best I can, well the best I hope I can.

There is so much more I could go into it's hard to think of, and write it all, in one letter. I just appeal to you to do the best you can to make changes to the current system so that those of us injured and in financial distress, have something to look forward to other than disappointment.

Kind regards

Former Paramedic/RN.

Another case that has been brought to my attention is that of a registered nurse who has also worked as an ambulance officer. She has shared her story and would like this chamber to hear it. She says:

I was a registered nurse for a couple of years. As a Nurse I was spat on, had my wrist sprained, was punched in the head by an elderly patient with dementia, verbally assaulted and threatened with violence. Most of my colleagues have had to be escorted to their car at the end of the shift due to threats they received while doing their job.

As an Ambulance officer, I have been chased with a baseball bat, had a psych patient with a knife in the back of the ambulance after being reassured by the hospital security that the patient had been checked for weapons. I have had patients try to touch me inappropriately in the back of the ambulance.

I have suffered from my neck injury since 2009. I have been on countless medications so that I can continue to undertake daily tasks. The Spinal Fusion that I currently have was a result of the lost sensation in my left hand and arm. I have received medical advice which says that my injury will deteriorate over my lifetime.

I can no longer go back on the road as an ambulance officer as I am restricted with how much physical work I can do as I still have pain in other regions of my spine and suffer from constant headaches and neck and shoulder pain. Losing my job as an ambulance officer has been awful. I loved it and I went through a rough time mentally when I was told I couldn't be one any more.

Now I work in an office on reduced pay. I am a very positive person and have started to bounce back but it has been a long and emotional journey. Knowing I will need further treatment post the two year mark and I won't be covered is very stressful. I'm a single mum with kids and have great support from my ex-husband who is also an ambulance officer. I have also had a lot of support from my family but this is a frightening prospect not being supported after two years when my payments cease.

I have been informed that this worker's injuries have been calculated at 28 per cent whole person impairment. Despite the pain, the suffering and the continuous stress, this worker is not defined under our laws as a seriously injured worker. My office has received many more examples of injured workers in our state who are struggling with the current laws. Ambulance officers have been stabbed, punched and spat on, and one of these ambulance officers was hit by a paving rock. Ambulance officers have been exposed to bodily fluids, including blood and vomit, and are exposed to both diseases and violence while on duty.

The Greens understand the high-risk job and that the trauma faced by paramedics in a four-day shift cycle is more than what most people will face in their whole life. When faced with aggression and violence, these workers are expected to simply defuse the situation. I have also been advised that nurses often face these situations in their daily jobs. They report being sexually assaulted while looking after patients and they have been spat on and also exposed to bodily fluids.

While we do not want to see in our state a situation such as the one the Law Society has pointed out will exist if we continue to cater for one section of the workforce, we will support this bill today. We hope it is the first step. We hope that the government reflects on its flawed and draconian return-to-work legislation and ensures not only that they support police officers who support and protect us but that they support all workers—as the Labor Party, indeed, was formed to do. I would like to quote the President of the Law Society from The Advertiser earlier this week, Monday 18 November, who said:

What of police officers who are injured during the course of an office job? A case could be made for all police officers given their service to the state. So too could a strong case for exemption be argued for other emergency services workers such as ambulance drivers and firefighters. Again, the same interesting arguments arise for those employed by emergency services authorities but are not at obvious risk of peril when injured.

I note that the Law Society has provided some interim advice by way of a press release issued on the 16^th of this month. We sought an opinion, as often happens, from the Law Society on Mr Brokenshire's bill, but given the speed with which this debate has progressed, they were unable to provide that. However, I would like to share with the chamber before my concluding comments that Law Society statement entitled, 'Law Society provides clarification on workers compensation debate.' It reads:

Given the recent debate around workers compensation laws, which have been brought into focus by an SA Police Association campaign, the Law Society wishes to clarify some points about the operation of the Return to Work Act, which came into effect on July 1 this year, and to make some general comments.

Under the new workers compensation scheme, only injured workers assessed as having at least 30 per cent whole person impairment (WPI) would be eligible for weekly payments until retirement and ongoing medical support. Any injured worker under that threshold will be entitled to weekly payments for a maximum of two years and medical expenses for a maximum of three years. That was not so under the previous scheme.

There is provision under the Act for an interim assessment and determination of workers' injuries. Where this occurs, the worker would continue to receive entitlements. However, as the name suggests, it is only interim in nature and is expected to be uncommon because most injuries will be capable of a final assessment within two years. There is no difference in the entitlement during the first two years for either weekly payments or medical expenses between those who are ultimately assessed as seriously injured (i.e. at least 30% WPI) and those who are not.

There is ongoing uncertainty for injured workers who have an interim assessment of being seriously injured until the final assessment is undertaken.

Injured workers who are not treated as seriously injured can apply to have the medical costs covered beyond the maximum three-year period only for surgical treatment and only where appropriate notice is given to ReturnToWorkSA before the end of the usual entitlement period to claim medical expenses. While the maximum period is three years it may be as little as 12 months.

The maximum lump sum for economic loss is $350,000. However, to be eligible for this lump sum, the worker must be aged 25 or younger, in full-time employment when the injury occurred, and suffered a WPI of 29 per cent. The vast majority of entitlements, where they do apply, will be dramatically less than that.

While the old workers compensation scheme was in need of reform, and particularly in relation to its administration, the Law Society does not consider the new scheme to be more generous. In fact, for many workers with significant injuries, their entitlements will be reduced. Even those assessed as seriously injured may get less compensation for permanent impairment because of changes to the way in which the percentage of impairment is required to be assessed.

The Government has noted that the changes implemented have resulted in a reduction in premium for employers from 2.75 per cent to 1.95 per cent. Return to work rates after four weeks and 12 months have not materially changed following the implementation of the new scheme. The issue always has been and remains the level of benefit for those who have not been successfully returned to work within 12 months. The Society believes that the reduction in benefits to many workers in that category has contributed to the reduction in premium for employers.

It is important that a workers compensation scheme treats all injured workers fairly and consistently.

We agree with that. We opposed the threshold of 30 per cent when the government introduced it, and the debate was held in this place a year ago. We will continue to support workers in this bill today and in any bill that comes before us to ensure that seriously injured workers are, indeed, given appropriate, fair and just workers compensation.

The Greens are listening to the voices and stories of all injured workers, and we have heard the police officers' voices loud and clear today in this debate, and I am very heartened to see this chamber support those voices, as I expect the vote will be in the affirmative. But the Greens will be, and always have been, a voice for workers, and we will stand up for injured workers every bill, every time.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:44): I take the floor to indicate that Dignity for Disability will support the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's initiative with this bill, and we thank him for it. We also thank the Police Association for briefing my office on its campaign to improve the rights of police officers in the case of injuries caused in the line of their work.

Dignity for Disability would also like to note, as other members have mentioned, the significant safety challenges that many other emergency workers face in their workplaces or in the line of their duties and through no fault of their own. Whether you are an ambulance officer, as the Hon. Ms Franks has pointed out, an emergency department nurse or a mental healthcare nurse, to name just a few, or I even think of my own mother, not strictly an emergency services worker but a registered nurse in aged care who regularly deals with patients who may be confused due to dementia or PTSD, for example, there are other professions that face specific challenges of personal safety and welfare.

I think those need to be treated just as seriously, but particularly those more emergency related professions that I mentioned: mental healthcare nurses and ambulance officers, for example, who can and do face violence or the risk of violence, illness and injury in the course of their duties on a regular basis, despite taking the usual precautions, because the people they are treating might be unwell, under the influence of drugs (including alcohol), or perhaps experiencing significant trauma due to stress due to a violent situation, for example, or a health condition.

So, while we do support these measures to further protect police officers who are injured in the line of their duties and certainly thank them for the service they provide to the community, we, like many other parties, want to remember and better serve and better protect those other workers who also face significant risks in the line of their duties and therefore look forward to working constructively with the government and all other parties to make sure that all members of our community who work hard, who put their safety and wellbeing on the line to protect others, are also protected. With that brief contribution, at this stage I indicate Dignity for Disability's support for this bill.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:47): I rise to make a brief contribution on the bill and to indicate my support for it. There would not be many people out there who would disagree with the sentiment that police officers are often put in danger due to the nature of their job. This is not contentious. The fact of the matter is that all workers should feel safe in the knowledge that there are systems in place to support them should they be injured at work. They should not have to stress about medical bills or future care. They should not have to apply on a case by case basis for special consideration based on their circumstances.

The changes the government made to the WorkCover scheme saw injured workers severely disadvantaged. When the government introduced the changes to the WorkCover scheme, the Independents and minor parties in this place knew that the changes would mean a raw deal for injured workers. We are starting to see the results of those unfair changes now. The two cases involving police officers, Senior Constables Alison Coad and Brett Gibbons, highlighted by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire certainly demonstrate this. I support the bill, not because I believe police officers should be singled out as a unique class of workers but because it is a step towards rectifying the fundamentally unfair changes made by the government.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (17:48): I rise to give my perspective on the amendment bill. In my first speech to this parliament I made a commitment that I would advocate for retail and hospitality workers. Just last sitting week, I spoke about workers in retail and hospitality who are mainly low paid workers. The workforce is made up predominantly of casuals, young people, migrants and women. The majority of these workers, many honourable members would agree, are people who I would say are doing it tough in our society. They probably live from pay week to pay week.

In that speech I made it clear that I was very disappointed with the Productivity Commission which saw fit to target this group of workers and recommend that their Sunday penalty rates ought to be reduced. I question how the Productivity Commission could determine that one group of workers' time spent with their children on a Sunday is of more value than that of workers in other sectors.

The Hon. Robert Brokenshire is 100 per cent correct when he details the level of risk that police officers take on when they join the force, and it is perhaps far greater than for workers in other industries. However, there are other workers in other industries who do face significant amounts of risk on the job. Notwithstanding all this, it is incumbent on any insurer to ensure that regardless of how injuries have occurred in accordance with an insurer's level of cover, like for like cover is provided for like for like injuries.

There will clearly be envy felt, for example, by a person who perhaps works in a simple office job but somehow managed to sustain similar injuries to that of a police officer in the line of fire. These examples may be rare but it must be considered in this debate. The ultimate aim of work injury insurance cover is to ensure that workers are appropriately looked after at a level set by their level of capacity.

One example of what I am trying to pinpoint here is found with a lady whom I will not identify but is happy for me to tell her story. Let me call her Anne. Anne used to work at various hotels. She was the subject of three hold-ups in her work. The last of these was in 2007 and involved two shotguns. One was real, the other was a replica. As a result of these hold-ups, and particularly the last one, she has post-traumatic stress disorder.

Anne is still largely housebound. She fears going out. Unfortunately, on many occasions, seeing strangers also triggers memories of the hold-up. Anne suffers from sleeplessness and has intrusive thoughts about the hold-up. She has been receiving psychiatric and psychological treatment for many years. She has been unable to work but will nevertheless need to try to find work somehow.

I am told that Anne would not be regarded as seriously injured under the new Return to Work Act, so Anne has to settle her claim on the basis of a redemption calculated by reference to the fact that she would be cut off from weekly payments on 1 July 2017 and cease entitlement to medical expenses on 1 July 2018. Anne told me she does not begrudge the police or anyone else; however, she says, 'What about me and everyone else like me?'

In his contribution to the chamber, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire explained that police officers have the only occupation where they are duty bound to enter dangerous situations. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire argues that workers in every other occupation can choose not to enter a situation where their personal safety could be placed in jeopardy. I have to respectfully disagree with the latter line of argument that workers in every other occupation can choose not to enter a situation where their personal safety could be placed in jeopardy.

Did Anne, of whom I spoke earlier, who had been held up on three separate occasions, choose to enter that situation? What about people working in petrol stations, or in small local delis that are open for long hours? Many of these workers work long hours, often alone. I do not think there is much choice in serving someone who you believe is a genuine customer who then pulls out a hidden firearm from underneath their jacket.

There is no doubt that the choice lies with a person when they choose to work in a certain industry, and this is a difficult choice that our state's police officers have had the courage to make when they have commenced their careers with the force. Amongst all this, I am aware that we need to do everything possible, as members of parliament and as legislators, to ensure that we do not pass laws that discourage people from thinking of joining the police force or other emergency services providers, from pursuing their lifelong dreams.

I understand the Police Association's frustrations in their campaign to get better working conditions for their members. I also want to defend other unions' positions on this matter as well. At the time of the passage of the current workers compensation scheme many unions were concerned, for better or worse, about the reforms made then. Like the police union, they too expressed their concerns in various ways.

I would like to congratulate the Hon. Robert Brokenshire for raising this very important matter. He is a very good member of parliament and he sees the unfairness in the system; however, at this point in time I will not be voting for the second reading, but I do hope that the police union and the minister continue their open dialogue so that an acceptable outcome can be reached. Like the Hon. Tammy Franks' stories about other injured workers, I also want to put on the record that lowly paid workers in retail and hospitality should also be considered for similar conditions, because they too deserve to be looked after.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (17:57): I rise to make sure that my position on this particular bill is recorded, and I congratulate the Hon. Robert Brokenshire for bringing it forward and thank the Hon. Rob Lucas for outlining the Liberal Party's position quite strongly. I am very proud of our position with regard to our police because, like the Liberal Party, I believe that our police, in the difficult task that they undertake, are absolutely unique. As Mark Carroll said, they are the first line and the last line and everything in between, and our society would not function without the fabulous police force that we have.

I note the Hon. Tung Ngo's speech. Obviously it was a very difficult speech for him to give, and I know that he has danced around the issue, but the reality is that our police are unique and they absolutely deserve our support. As far as the other particular issues he talked about go, I believe they are matters for another day. I suspect the government will not support this bill, and I also suspect that it will not call 'divide', which is why I want to be on the record to make sure that the many lifelong friends I have in the police force know that I, and the Liberal Party, are absolutely in lockstep with the Hon. Robert Brokenshire in supporting the bill. I wish it a speedy passage.

Bill read a second time.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:45.