HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-04-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Coronavirus

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (15:18): My question is to the Minister for Health and Wellbeing. Can the minister explain how doctors, nurses and paramedics who are treating COVID-19 patients and who contract COVID-19 themselves can access workers compensation if they need to take time off work or incur medical costs? Have any groups representing public health workers raised these issues with the Minister for Health and Wellbeing? Are the Minister for Health and Wellbeing's agencies doing anything specifically to address any concerns?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:19): As the minister responsible for workers compensation issues, a number of groups have raised issues in relation to workers compensation, because, I think, last week the Labor Party announced that they were going to introduce legislation that has caused considerable alarm across the business community in South—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am just saying that where the groups have raised issues, because that particular bill, as I understood it, included some public sector workers but also—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: The question wasn't about the bill. It was about hospital workers.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will answer the question, Mr President. It was in relation to workers compensation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Point of order.

The PRESIDENT: Sit down, please, Treasurer.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Relevancy: this wasn't about any particular bill or businesses. This was a very specific question about public health workers.

The PRESIDENT: However, the Treasurer can answer the question as he sees fit. Treasurer.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I can understand why the member wouldn't like me to—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —highlight some of the issues that have been raised publicly in relation to the Labor Party's announced position on workers compensation in relation to COVID-19 as it relates to both public sector and private sector workers. There is one bill that the Labor Party has indicated that covers—traverses—both public sector workers and private sector workers. I have been contacted by a significant number of people in relation to the implications of that for business and industry. I won't spend too much time during this question time in relation to that, because there will be other opportunities to indicate publicly the concern that has been raised in the business community and in the private sector about those aspects of the bill.

As it relates to the public sector—and it's not just nurses, obviously; it's other members of the public sector—the position is that this issue having been raised by the opposition, I have sought advice from ReturnToWorkSA and from Treasury in relation to how we manage workers compensation issues. Whilst it is in the very early stages, so far no evidence has been provided to me, as the responsible minister, of major concerns with workers compensation for nurses and other public servants in relation to the treatment of workers compensation issues for COVID-19.

As this debate continues, I would welcome receiving evidence from the Police Association or the teachers union or the nurses federation about any deficiencies, as they might see it, in the current treatment and claims in relation to workers compensation for COVID-19. As I said, thus far I have not been provided with evidence that there are particular issues in relation to the way the issues are being managed at the moment.

In terms of the public sector, in relation to looking after people who are either socially isolating because they are being tested and they have to be socially isolated or, for example, who have COVID-19, the government's provisions in relation to treatment of its public sector workers are extraordinarily generous compared to the private sector. Indeed, there are some in the unions in the private sector urging employers to follow some of the provisions that we have made for public sector workers in relation to issues related to COVID-19.

In terms of whether the government would amend legislation, we have said that at this stage we haven't seen an argument to convince us to do that. There is considerable concern about what the potential cost might be in relation to that. We also need to see what evidence there might be in relation to whether there are any deficiencies in the way the workers compensation scheme treats people. Thirdly, as it relates to the Return to Work scheme, in the discussions I have had, it would seem sensible to take actuarial advice as to what the implications might be in relation to any change along the lines that have been flagged by the Labor Party and, indeed, others.

All that seems very sensible to me as the minister responsible, and I would propose to follow that particular course if the debate was to continue, that is, to ensure that we had actuarial advice. Ultimately, the cost of any particular additional benefits, if additional benefits are to be provided to workers compensation, has to be paid by somebody, and those particular groups or individuals need to be aware of what the potential costs might be, should the parliament move down a particular path or not.

However, the precursor to that is that there should be evidence to indicate what the problems are with the current scheme and the current arrangements and how it might be. I guess if the position the Labor Party or others were to move towards, that is, that it not be all encompassing, as they indicated they were going to do last week, and limited to just one or two categories, how you then limit it to those one or two categories.

We saw in relation to the workers compensation scheme changes a year or two ago, which related originally just to police officers, and which, through a series of negotiations, enterprise agreements and other changes, under the former government was extended from not just police officers but to a whole variety of other employment groups, because people said that if it is good enough for police officers to have this protection then why shouldn't everybody else.

So the question would be for the opposition, if they say just provide additional benefits for nurses, for example, why wouldn't you provide it for doctors, why not teachers, why not police, why not correctional services officers, why not officers who work in residential care facilities? There is a whole variety of public sector officers who would say why should an additional benefit be provided just to nurses, as important as they are? Our public sector workers who work with people with disabilities and a whole variety of other groups—prisoners, etc.—are nevertheless doing very important public sector work as well.

The issue is how you distinguish one particular employment category from the others. All of those issues are very difficult and it is one of those issues on which the parliament, in our view, should take advice before it moves pre-emptively too quickly down a particular path.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT