CPSU needs your help to produce a Senate submission about dangerous changes the Government is planning to make to Commonwealth health, safety and compensations laws. The changes suggested in the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill will remove the right of Commonwealth employees to claim compensation for injuries sustained: during lunch and other breaks, travelling to or from work, participating in sporting activities at lunch time.
CPSU National Secretary Stephen Jones believes the changes are a cost cutting exercise which place employees at risk. "Currently, workers have the peace of mind that if an unfortunate accident occurs after they leave for work, they will be covered by workers compensation.
"If these new laws are passed, employees will think twice about going out for walks or kicking a footy around with their mates at lunch time. They'll have to stay holed up in their office if they don't want to be liable for any accidents."
CPSU are also lobbying the ALP, the Democrats and the Greens for a commitment that the parties will repeal the unfair laws if they gain power in Parliament.
CPSU wants your views: Your union wants to include the experiences and views of our members in the Senate submission. Tell us what you think about the changes that are being forced through. Have you ever received workers compensation for a journey claim in the past? How do you think the changes will affect you? Will the way your local MP votes in this Bill change affect your vote in the next Federal election?
Email us your comments or post them on our blog. 
8 comments:
I haven't heard much about these changes, but I am concerned about what costs I'd be up for if I did get injured on the way to work or at lunch. This is just one more safety net that the Government is trying to take away from its workers.
I have known a few people who have had substantial motor vehicle accidents on the way home from work. Their rehabilitation would have been greatly compromised if they had not had worker's compensation. This is another area where the burden of risk is being shifted to individuals and our responsibility to look after one another as a society is being eroded. As always, it will be those on lower incomes who disproportinately pay the price (but I think that ALL of us need to have this type of protection)
I work for Centrelink. If a customer wants to take a swing at me after work or down the shops at lunchtime, does that mean I wont be covered? I ask because I have had workmates to whom this has actually happened. They were only in that position because they were doing their jobs.
I have had an accident on the way to work and have received much help in medical costs and sick leave, but I have had much stress in getting it, dealing with the insurance company doctor and having to get lawyers involved. Frankly I would have preferred to go through TAC as then I wouldnt be judged as a person on "workers comp" and have people at work knowing my business.
I live in the country & over the last 20 yrs have had 3 car journey claims through hitting wombat/kangaroo/P plate driver who stopped dead in front of me in 100km zone. All were relatively minor, but they did affect my work capacity due to neck/shoulder/arm injuries. All were not covered by NSW motor vehicle insurance (2 animals, 1 my fault technically.) I was able to have diagnosis (xrays etc) & treatment (physio/acupuncture etc) & get back to work much more quickly than if I had not been covered as I would not have been able to pay for private treatment and would not have been acute enough for public hopsital/outpatient treatment. It is directly in the employer's interest to get me back to work ASAP, as in rural areas getting temp workers to replace sick professional staff is very difficult. I also have the issue of injuries on lunch breaks - in the small rural town I live in, I frequently run into clients on my walk down the street, & there is a "grey area" as to whether I am at lunch or at work, if I have to deal with a query en route. If myself & a client get hit by a passing semi trailer while I am technically "at lunch" - would I be covered?
In reply to the comment about having lunch with clients.
This is good example of why the Government should keep all breaks covered to avoid confusion.
With the new laws coverage would probably depend upon how a situation like this was dealt with in agency policy but it is extremely unclear at this point as to the Government's intention.
The changes the Government is planning to make to Commonwealth health, safety and compensations laws make a mockery of the Government's supposed commitments to getting and keeping people in work and encouraging them to keep physically, mentally and socially fit (e.g. to reduce health and social security costs).
Post a Comment