HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-06-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Return to Work (Employment and Progressive Injuries) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 April 2024.)

The Hon. R.B. MARTIN (16:43): This bill proposes important reforms to South Australia's workers compensation scheme. Through the changes it puts forward, we aim to embed greater support for workers who are ready to return to work after an injury, as well as to make our system fairer for a greatly deserving cohort of workers; that is, victims of dust diseases and terminal illnesses.

For quite some years, we have been hearing from our unions and their peak bodies, among others, that reform in this area is needed. This bill is the result of that broad consultation, which was not only with unions, of course, but with a number of stakeholders, including ReturnToWorkSA, members of the legal profession, peak businesses and self-insured bodies.

Because of my own background, because of how important strong unions are for South Australian workers, now as ever, I do want to pay particular tribute to the SDA and branch secretary, Josh Peak, who have demonstrated passion and wisdom in their contributions to the discussion around these reforms.

Under the Return to Work Act, employers in South Australia have a duty to support injured workers who are able to return to work by providing them with suitable employment involving duties that are appropriate for them to undertake so far as is reasonably practicable. Supporting workers' return to suitable duties after an injury is not only good for the South Australians who are returning to work, it reduces financial cost to the scheme and therefore to the taxpayer and it helps to bring down employer premiums. Doing things correctly reduces instances of re-injury whilst enabling people to earn the living that they deserve and to contribute to their workplaces in a way that is safe and appropriate for them.

We should acknowledge that this is not an easy way of law and life to get exactly right, and there have been challenges in various aspects of our scheme. Section 18 of the Return to Work Act 2014, for example, has not worked as well as it ought to have done, and that is what brings us to this discussion. I understand the Select Committee on the Return to Work SA Scheme received a range of submissions and heard evidence from a range of witnesses. The committee has heard that unions and workers find the scheme frustrating and difficult to navigate. They have heard that matters are slower to resolve than they ought to be, leading to delays in outcomes for workers.

The committee heard that some requests for suitable employment are met with unreasonable delay or obstruction. The SDA told the committee that one of the most significant issues is offers of meaningless employment; that is, workers going back to work and assembling boxes that do not get used or stacking things on shelves that do not need to be there. This can then lead to further injury, particularly psychiatric injury, as the worker is deprived of their dignity.

When a worker is ready to return to work to perform suitable and appropriate duties, they need to be supported to do so. It is in everyone's interests for that to be a shared goal and a shared purpose. That is why this bill strengthens the duty of employers to provide suitable employment to workers returning to work after injury. It also makes improvements to dispute resolution processes.

Some of the changes include giving the South Australian Employment Tribunal the power to make payback orders in the event they find an employer has failed to provide suitable employment to an injured worker; requiring labour hire providers and host employers to cooperate to return injured workers to work; enabling an injured worker to be redeployed to a different part or division of a large self-insured employer; making sure a worker's return to work plan cannot be changed to move them to a different employer without their agreement; and closing technical loopholes which have made it more difficult for injured workers to seek suitable employment.

The bill before us also makes changes in another very important area, and that is towards ensuring that victims of dust diseases and terminal illnesses have fair access to compensation. We know that the need for strong laws in this area remain significant and relevant. New cases of disease arising from exposure to asbestos alone are still being identified in their hundreds each year. In our legislative efforts in relation to engineered stone, this government's intention is to stop disease arising from exposure to respirable crystalline silica from becoming common in the way that asbestos-related disease became.

Under the Return to Work Act, a worker who suffers from a dust disease may have their income support calculated based on their level of earnings at the time of their exposure, rather than at the time when they ceased work. Because dust diseases tend to have a long latency, it could be years or even decades between when a worker is first exposed to dust and when illness compels them to cease work. Their wages are likely to have been substantially lower at the time of the exposure. Having a worker's income support based on the wages at the time they cease work due to illness or at the time of their exposure will enable a fairer reflection of the financial loss they experience as a result of their illness.

Finally, under current arrangements, there are loopholes in the impairment assessment system which may create barriers for workers with a terminal illness to receive an assessment that will be awarded with a lump-sum compensation. This bill seeks to resolve that issue. The fact is we may never have a perfect system. It is a difficult area of law and policy and there is always a balance to be struck in making the system work appropriately for all who engage with it, including workers, employers, the legal profession and others. It is important to get it right.

The changes proposed in the bill before us aim to make a substantial, positive difference in the experience of people who navigate and use our system, especially workers who are greatly deserving of a system which meets their needs and operates in their interests.

I thank all who contributed to the development of this bill and participated in the significant process of consultation that informed it. It represents another step in the Malinauskas Labor government's efforts to bring positive change to the lives of South Australian workers and, in particular, those who have been let down for too long by the system that we are working to improve. I am proud to commend the bill to the chamber.

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

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