Page 536 - Week 02 - Thursday, 9 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
employers when often the so-called ailment had no bearing on what their employment was all about.
As was identified in a particular current affairs program—it may not be the fount of all authoritative knowledge but in this case it was pretty good; they went into 24 doctors surgeries—in many instances, people were getting certificates for all sorts of so-called injuries or claims that often related to a social commitment that they had to deal with. It certainly behoves the Australian Medical Association also—and I hope the minister might engage in some dialogue with them—at some point to lift their game in providing some leadership to their members to bring an end to some of these unacceptable practices.
Non-declaration also to employers by employees of prior injuries is standard. If the injury recurs, the employer is required to bear the cost. Workers compensation authorities claim that non-declaration of prior injury can void a claim but this rarely, if ever, applies. Privacy, discrimination and other laws effectively prevent employers from investigating whether a prospective employee has prior injuries. This stops employers having proper control over their work risk, yet they must bear the cost of claims.
In summary, the existing workers compensation and occupational health and safety schemes directly increase operating costs. I suggest that they do so to an extent that needs to be tackled by this government and by the minister. They dampen productivity and constrain business success.
Further, the key national priority that is targeting safe working arrangements and compensation for genuine injuries across Australia is clearly compromised, for the reasons I have outlined. The culture in the workplace and the laws need to be changed to ensure that every individual involved in work is held responsible and liable for the things they control. I am not saying employers are without blame in this situation. Obviously there are many cases where that has also occurred. But only through this process can Australia drive towards truly safe work environments.
As I said earlier, the minister is in a special position to correct the unreasonable and costly bias in the present arrangements. It behoves the minister to tackle the issue of workers compensation costs, to review what is going on and ensure that we get the ACT back on a competitive basis in terms of those premiums. The challenge that is before us here is to reverse this trend in Canberra where it is seen as not a great environment in which to do business because of these costs. Investment is forgone and jobs evaporate because of the OH&S and workers compensation rorting that has occurred.
Certainly let me take this opportunity in summarising or in concluding to highlight the fact that dovetailing with this approach on workers compensation is also an unhealthy interest on the part of the territory government to work out more and more ways of catching contactors. I have acknowledged that this particular set of measures can be defended—and it is appropriate—but I am regularly troubled that there is an underlying theme that comes through in the territory’s legislation that seeks to bring independent contractors under more and more scrutiny. Whether it be through inspecting records, as we discussed the other week, or through other means, I believe that the double-whammy effect of having very high workers compensation premiums and trying to lock in contractors more and more and trying to classify them as employees has many downside
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .