Division
Luke Hartsuyker As I was saying before the adjournment, before the Aucote decision the Seacare scheme was understood to apply to around 330 ships. Following the decision, the Seacare scheme could cover as many as 11,000 ships or perhaps more. Whereas the Commonwealth was responsible for regulating workers compensation and work health and safety for a small proportion of the maritime industry before the decision, it now has responsibility for the vast majority of the industry. This represents a massive cost shift from the states to the Commonwealth. The bill therefore seeks to restore the balance of Commonwealth and state coverage of workers compensation and work health and safety for seafarers that has existed since 1911. To effectively achieve this, the bill applies retrospectively to any injury, loss or damage suffered by any employee on or after the commencement of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act in 1993. Past claims will not be disturbed. This approach ensures that there is certainty as to what a seafarer's appropriate workers compensation rights are and have been. The bill does not seek to change what has been believed to be the workers compensation entitlements and work health and safety protections of seafarers. Let me make it clear: it is not about interfering with the ability of seafarers to make a workers compensation claim or to receive workers compensation entitlements. This bill is about providing certainty and ensuring seafarers have proper protections in the short term to deal with the Federal Court decision. More broadly, governments over an extended period have not brought forward reform in this space. The government is giving urgent but careful consideration to the recommendations of the Stewart-Crompton review of the Seacare scheme, including those to clarify the coverage of the scheme or delink the scheme from the Navigation Act. The government will consult with all industry participants on the nature of the reforms ahead of the
House of Representatives, 2015-03-24. affirmative: ayes 82, noes 51.
Question
Luke Hartsuyker As I was saying before the adjournment, before the Aucote decision the Seacare scheme was understood to apply to around 330 ships. Following the decision, the Seacare scheme could cover as many as 11,000 ships or perhaps more. Whereas the Commonwealth was responsible for regulating workers compensation and work health and safety for a small proportion of the maritime industry before the decision, it now has responsibility for the vast majority of the industry. This represents a massive cost shift from the states to the Commonwealth. The bill therefore seeks to restore the balance of Commonwealth and state coverage of workers compensation and work health and safety for seafarers that has existed since 1911. To effectively achieve this, the bill applies retrospectively to any injury, loss or damage suffered by any employee on or after the commencement of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act in 1993. Past claims will not be disturbed. This approach ensures that there is certainty as to what a seafarer's appropriate workers compensation rights are and have been. The bill does not seek to change what has been believed to be the workers compensation entitlements and work health and safety protections of seafarers. Let me make it clear: it is not about interfering with the ability of seafarers to make a workers compensation claim or to receive workers compensation entitlements. This bill is about providing certainty and ensuring seafarers have proper protections in the short term to deal with the Federal Court decision. More broadly, governments over an extended period have not brought forward reform in this space. The government is giving urgent but careful consideration to the recommendations of the Stewart-Crompton review of the Seacare scheme, including those to clarify the coverage of the scheme or delink the scheme from the Navigation Act. The government will consult with all industry participants on the nature of the reforms ahead of the
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.