Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3422 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

time with another company for 12 weeks. Well, I reckon they should be covered by workers comp, and I reckon they should be contributing to the pool. Why shouldn't they? They are employees in the ordinary meaning of the word. They are workers, or they should be workers, and if they are not covered under the provisions that are currently in the legislation then the legislation is inadequate and it needs some help. That is why the 80:20 rule ought to be included.

The 80:20 rule is a simple test that everybody will understand. The provisions in the legislation which describe what a worker is are less easy to understand and would serve some employers to form a view that they can get out of it, and for some employees to think that their employers are legitimately getting out of it. Mr Speaker, this creates a coverall which makes it very clear to everybody.

When this matter was being examined we called ACT WorkCover, a reasonably influential and sensible group in the ACT who know a little bit about these sorts of things. They said, "It would certainly make the deemed worker definitions more clear and take away some of the greyness, because at the moment it is by case precedent. Every time we take it to court we get a little bit more precedent, but it is difficult in each case so it takes time." The government will say, "Well, we will build some of that case precedent into the legislation," but not all of it, and this helps to clear up the matter entirely.

The Insurance Council of Australia, who have been contributors to this debate all the way along, noted the benefits of the 80:20 rule, not only for the efficient operation of their business but also for the viability of the scheme. The council noted that this would significantly improve the insurers' chances of obtaining full declaration from an employer who regularly employs subcontractors with a subsequent benefit to the scheme and premium pool. That is what the Insurance Council said. It is not unusual for an insurer to receive a declaration showing one full-time employee. However, during the year four or five claims may be lodged from different workers, probably subcontractors.

The CFMEU also indicated support for the 80:20 rule, so we have a cross-section there. We have the government, the insurers and the unions saying the 80:20 rule is a good idea as a classification test regardless. Of course, the committee went on to recommend that the 80:20 rule be adopted for incorporation into the Workers Compensation Act 1951.

The government will say, of course, "We have upgraded; we have picked up all the case precedent," as I said before, but nothing is clearer then putting a rule on it like 80:20. Of course, the government will say that that will widen the umbrella. If it does, that is good, because it will prevent people using the exploitative individual contract to create the impression that workers are businesses. They are not. You may recall that in my speech when this legislation first came to this place I drew attention to the history of workers compensation and how, in the end, it was seen to be socially just to cover workers for their workers compensation and to provide benefits for them.

MR SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

MR BERRY: I think I can speak a couple of times.

MR SPEAKER: You have a second opportunity.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .