HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-05-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Return to Work (COVID-19 Injury) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:44): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Return to Work Act 2014. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:45): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Return to Work Act to deal with the current COVID crisis. South Australians, and Australians more broadly, deserve credit for the way they have handled the COVID-19 emergency. We have avoided many of the worst impacts that the disease could have wrought upon us. The horror stories from overseas serve as a reminder of what may otherwise have happened in our country and our state.

One of the greatest lessons of this emergency is that in times of trouble we need to help each other. That is exactly what this bill seeks to do, by helping workers who contract COVID-19 whilst at work in areas that place them at high risk. In simple terms, this bill builds on longstanding provisions in workers compensation law that deal with presumptive conditions. Under standard workers compensation arrangements a worker must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that an injury occurred at work to access support under the scheme. With presumptive conditions, more than two dozen of which are included in schedules 2 and 3 of the Return to Work Act, the onus of proof is reversed.

For the group of workers included in this bill and in those presumptive conditions in schedules 2 and 3 already in the act, they would be able to access workers compensation if they contracted COVID-19 or the various diseases or conditions listed in schedules 2 or 3 if it could not be proven they had contracted it somewhere else. The workers who would be covered by this legislation are in two groups: specific occupations and specific workplaces that potentially put the workers at higher risk of COVID-19.

We do not pretend to know precisely who will be at higher or lower risk in the future, so the bill allows for these groups to be changed by regulation. As a starting point in the bill the occupations include passenger aviation, police and emergency services and passenger transport. The workers may be in locations that in the course of a shift or a roster their job qualifies them for support because of the workplace. The prescribed workplaces in the bill include: hospitals and surgeries; aged care; childcare and kindergartens; pharmacies; supermarkets, delis and convenience stores; petrol stations; and schools.

These workplaces must remain open, even during major emergencies, and there are a significant number of people coming and going. Workers in these places, whether customer-facing managers or after-hours cleaners, all face higher risks and we believe should be supported. This bill includes some important safety measures. It makes it clear for the avoidance of doubt that this bill does not create any other liability beyond those included in the Return to Work Act. It also includes a provision so that employers who are insured under the scheme may recover any costs from the scheme. This is intended to prevent premium increases for specific employers or industries that may experience a higher incidence of COVID-19 related claims than others.

The opposition announced the intention for legislation on 2 April, and a very similar bill was introduced into the other place at the time. I note that the Greens have very similar legislation for this chamber. Obviously this is not the time to debate it, but I do note that, despite a few technical differences, they both seek to remedy the same thing and have a common goal: they both seek to protect workers who are at a high risk of contracting COVID-19, and this should be commended.

With regard to the differences, this bill applies to all people in certain workplaces, not just in customer-facing roles, as I said; for instance, cleaners. This is particularly important for people like after-hours cleaners who come into contact with surfaces and disregarded items that could be a source of infection even if they do not come face-to-face with customers. The Labor bill also differs at the point at which compensation may be paid, either from diagnosis or from the point of isolation.

It is disappointing that the government has not indicated support for this type of bill and the protection that is being proposed by both Labor and the Greens. The state government has shut down numerous industries while telling other workers in critical areas that they have to work. This is understandable in the circumstances, but at the same time they were trying to cut back the days we sat in parliament. Also at the same time, the government has been attacking the conditions of workers on the front line, a number of whom would be covered under this legislation.

We have heard in recent times a discussion about the government seeking to remove clauses from enterprise agreements that protect workers from job cuts and privatisation, workers who are in fact in forward-facing customer roles on the front line. It is almost incomprehensible, when these workers include people like hospital orderlies, those who sterilise hospital equipment and those who provide disability and aged care. In the midst of such an emergency, we need those critical workers to be confident about coming to work on these high-risk areas. Employers need to be confident that their workers will be on the job. The community needs to know that they can rely on these services.

It is possible that this proposal may incur some cost on the scheme of the corporation, but it is important that all of our institutions contribute and share the load. We hope that this legislation will rarely if ever be needed and that we come out on the other side in a post COVID-19 framework and that this legislation will have little work to do then. But, at the current time and if it returns and spreads, it is critical that we do all we can to protect workers who serve and protect us.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. D.G.E. Hood.

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