Mr PALLAS (Tarneit)  — I am pleased  to  rise to speak in  opposition to this bill.  What  we  have  heard  once  again  today  is  an attempt  to justify  an unreconstructed dash for cash. This  is a smash-and-grab job from a fainthearted and fiscally feeble government that refuses  to  own  up  to its obligations and responsibility to govern.

If you believe the minister who has just addressed this chamber, the reason this state needs this ridiculous attempt to undermine the effective management of the Victorian WorkCover Authority (VWA) is effectively because of  the carbon tax. I have not seen so much carbon dioxide emitted in this place for a long time. This is a government  that spends its life trying to absolve itself of responsibility for the decisions it makes. We have seen revenues in this state’s budget rise by over 4 per cent. That means that this is a government that has more revenue than any other government in  this  state’s history, but of course this government is still incapable of managing the books.

Let us talk a little bit about good management.

Good management is demonstrated by the sorts of things that were done when Labor was in government and when  it oversaw the management of the VWA. If  you want a demonstration of  a belief  in job  creation, look  at what we did when  average premiums for the Victorian WorkCover Authority were 2.22 per cent in 2004-05 and they were reduced progressively through six premium reductions down to 1.338 per cent. They are in fact the lowest average premiums  in the  nation. The benefits that are provided are of course amongst the best.

Victorians  would be  proud to  know that  we have the safest workplaces  in the country.  Victoria’s  workers compensation premiums  are the lowest.  That  is a matter of  pride,  but  that  pride  does  not  come  from essentially trying to separate the  management responsibilities  of the Victorian  WorkCover Authority from the consequences of doing so — and those actions do have consequences.

You  simply cannot take almost half a billion  dollars out  of an  authority the principal  responsibility  of  which is to look after the welfare of workers and ultimately to ensure  that  their welfare is  being  adequately managed so  that business is not encumbered by unrealistic cost imposts.

Essentially what we have is a government that is moving progressively to a point where  the  Victorian   WorkCover   Authority’s   capacity  to  manage  will  be compromised. It is not me saying  that; it is the former  chair of the Victorian WorkCover Authority,  James MacKenzie, who in  an opinion piece published in the Australian Financial Review  of 28 February made  a number of  observations that are important  for us  to bear in  mind. He  said that  the Baillieu  government either  does not understand or simply does not care about  the  consequences  of taking these  sort  of  funds  out  of the Victorian WorkCover Authority — $500 million out of a fund that no Victorian government has ever  contributed to  and which has been funded entirely by Victorian employers.

Let us put that into context. Here is money being taken by the state to line its own  coffers from  an authority  that  was  never  at  any  stage funded  by the Victorian government. Employers are having  their funds — money put towards the protection and benefit of their employees — plundered by a state government. We hear that  the intention is that that will not lead to a consequential reduction of entitlements, and we  take the minister at her word today that that  will not be  the  case. But I  hope  it  is not just  a  lot  more CO2 coming  from  this government, because if  it is, the  practical consequences are that  workers and ultimately employers will suffer.

Page 1514

I  also  want to draw the attention  of  the  house to the comments made by  the former chair  of  the Victorian WorkCover  Authority. He described  the  move of taking  this  money out, which is described by the government  as  a  consistent dividend policy, as extraordinary. He said:

  Let’s consider  what this will  mean for Victorian workers  and employers. The  money that will now go to  the  government  will  affect WorkSafe’s ability to  remain fully funded, and it will place it in the middle of party politics.

  Off the back of strong OHS —

that is occupational health and safety —

  and  claims  management  outcomes, will WorkSafe continue to recommend premium  reductions or benefit increases, as it has over the past decade, or will it be  swayed by the impact these decisions will have on government dividends?

That is part of  the  folly  of  this  policy initiative, because it effectively infects  the  proper  administration  of the Victorian WorkCover Authority  with considerations   that  are  extraneous   and  have  never   been  part  of   the administration and management of this great fund.  It is a fund that until today every Victorian could have been  proud  of because they knew that whatever money was coming in, whatever contributions employers made, was being put towards  the stated  statutory  purposes of protecting  workers  and  ensuring  that  injured workers were provided with adequate care.

I will finish with further comments made by Mr MacKenzie:

  The  Baillieu  government   is  understandably  keen  to  prove  its  economic  credentials, but it would be wise to think twice about its approach.

Given Mr  MacKenzie’s track  record as chairman of a fund that has proven itself to  be great, both in terms of the benefits  it provides to workers and in terms of it continuing consistently  to reduce the burden  upon employers through  its capacity  to  provide a  premium  quality level of  protection while continually reducing the level of obligation on and input from employers, these are apposite words. They are  words that we should  listen to with a fair  degree of respect. This is not some party political apparatchik out there shouting from the rafters that here we have  a  conservative government reverting back to type. That would be the sort of thing I would say.

This is a man who has  demonstrated through his management of this fund that the government should be very careful and conscious of the practical effect of these decisions, which will be to  politicise the  fund and ultimately put at risk its good  management and  the welfare of working people. On that basis I  oppose the bill, and I do not wish it a speedy passage.

See Tim’s speech in Hansard here.