Workers Compensation

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (15:31): I have been involved in workers compensation for the last 30 years as a plaintiff lawyer representing injured workers and as a mediator, conciliator and arbitrator and decision-maker in disputes involving injured workers. On that basis, I can at least lay some claim to having a working knowledge of workers compensation legislation and practices. Even so, I do not presume that I am abreast of all aspects of workers compensation legislation and, in that respect, consult with people in the community who do have that specialised knowledge, including injured workers, unions, lawyers and doctors.

The Treasurer, on the other hand, who has responsibility for the portfolio of industrial relations, appears not to have any deep appreciation or understanding of workers compensation legislation and how it impacts on workers' lives. He has on many occasions in this chamber stated that he is not a lawyer. Clearly, knowledge of the legislation is not a strong point with the Treasurer. What appears to be the Treasurer's specialisation is inflaming and protecting issues and disputes that involve workers, whether they be frontline workers or public sector employees. Ambulance officers, nurses, health professionals, teachers, catering and cleaning staff—to mention a few—have all been involved in disputation and protracted negotiations with the Treasurer.

But by far the most critical area of expertise the Treasurer appears to lack is that of workers compensation legislation. The Treasurer has now sought to try his hand at making changes to the guidelines for permanent impairment assessment. These guidelines are utilised by doctors to determine the nature and extent of a worker's level of injury for the purposes of lump sum compensation. The changes currently being considered are major in terms of their scope and effect and will directly impact upon entitlements afforded to injured workers under the current workers compensation scheme.

More importantly, the changes that are currently being proposed, contrary to the rhetoric, are extensive and will significantly reduce entitlements and supports available to workers who have suffered injury or disease. Under the current Return to Work Act, the Treasurer has the authority to make changes to the permanent impairment assessment guidelines with limited consultation. The issue is: does that authorisation enable the Treasurer to make significant wholesale changes to the guidelines without any parliamentary scrutiny and certainly without consulting all the major stakeholders?

Significant changes were passed in 2014 to the then workers compensation legislation. These changes were sweeping, extensive and had lasting implications for both the health of the workers compensation scheme and entitlements and benefits payable to injured workers. By the same token, when those changes were promulgated it would never have been envisaged that subsequent ministers could use their powers and authority to make further extensive changes without proper consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.

The last time major changes to the legislation were contemplated it resulted in extensive debate and consultation with all parties affected by the legislation. Further, changes made were openly debated and not rushed through in a short time frame of weeks, some eight months out from the next state election, as is occurring presently.

The Treasurer has highlighted an agenda to make sweeping changes in a very short time frame and without regard to the disastrous effects that these changes will have upon injured workers. I have been contacted by workers, unions, doctors and lawyers who in unison are all concerned with these changes. As have many other members, I have received extensive submissions on the proposed changes. I have received no submissions from anyone who sees these changes as necessary, fair or appropriate in the circumstances.

The specialists, either doctors or lawyers, understand and believe that these changes will lead to greater disadvantage for injured workers, precluding them from a process, thus working to undermine fair and proper assessment of their level of disability and entitlement for compensation for that disability.

Further concerns are the rushed manner in which these decisions are being promulgated with short time frames for consultation of a matter of weeks and with no attempt by the return to work corporation to have any meaningful exchange or debate. The government's sheer lack of regard for transparency has hit a new high, sneakily making fundamental changes to impairment assessment guidelines as if no-one would notice. Well, I am here to tell the Treasurer that we have noticed, and unlike him we will oppose the changes that leave workers worse off.