During Senate Estimates, I questioned the Minister and Department about the long-overdue review of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (Comcare).
The report, delivered back in September 2025 with 124 recommendations, made one thing crystal clear: the 36-year-old Act is so outdated that there is “no option but to redraft the current legislation.”
Yet, months later, the Minister’s repeated answer to crucial questions on implementation, return-to-work duties, and preventing psychological harm caused by claims management was simply: “The government is considering the report.”
We are still months away from even seeing an exposure draft. Bureaucracy cannot drag its feet when injured workers are paying the price.
Safety shouldn’t be a compliance box. It’s a moral and strategic imperative.
I also spoke with Comcare about workplace health and safety. Cutting corners doesn’t create a competitive edge. It leads to tragedy, ruined lives, massive penalties, and destroyed businesses.
I shared a definition of safety I developed 30 years ago: “Safety is the state of being in which people are conscious, aware of and successfully manage, and feel accountable for the potential for injury and loss.”
True safety requires accountability at every level, especially from the top. A safe, highly engaged workforce isn’t just the right thing to do morally, it builds a stronger, more productive nation.
I’ll keep pushing to ensure our workplace laws are reformed quickly and effectively.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: I thank the witnesses for appearing. Minister, a comprehensive review of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act has a date of September 2025. The review says: ‘Change is urgent. It is now time to deliver long overdue reform.’ On what date did you receive the final SRC Act review, and on what date were you first briefed?
Senator Walsh: The review was released publicly in December 2025. Is that enough information for you at this point?
Senator ROBERTS: When did you first receive the final copy?
Senator Walsh: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Mr Duggan: I can help there. The final report was delivered to government on 25 September 2025.
Senator ROBERTS: What day were you first briefed, Minister?
Senator Walsh: I am the minister representing Minister Rishworth, so the secretary may be able to assist.
Mr Duggan: I’ll need to take the precise date on notice, but I imagine it would have been within a very short period of 25 September.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could put it on notice, please.
Mr Duggan: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the minister decided to accept the review in full or in part?
Senator Walsh: The government released the report in December, and the government is considering the recommendations and findings of the report.
Senator ROBERTS: So the answer to the question, ‘Do you have an implementation plan?’ would be no, not yet?
Senator Walsh: The government is considering the report.
Senator ROBERTS: What about a recommendation-by-recommendation response table? Have you got one of those?
Senator Walsh: The government is considering the report.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you approved further consultation?
Senator Walsh: There is work going on around the report. The secretary spoke to that earlier and can speak to that again.
Mr Duggan: We undertook some target consultations in March through April of this year. The intent is to consult further in the second half of this year to inform the response to what was a very comprehensive report with 124 recommendations. It’s a complicated area so, as you can imagine, we want to make sure that we do that work thoroughly before we provide advice to government on its response.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Secretary. Do you have opening and closing dates for consultation?
Mr Duggan: Do you mean for the consultation that has occurred, or the consultation that is to occur?
Senator ROBERTS: The consultation that will occur.
Mr Duggan: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Will it include an exposure draft bill or clauses? If not, what exactly is being consulted?
Mr Duggan: We are a couple of steps away from being at the point of an exposure draft of legislation. So at this stage we are consulting for the purposes of informing our advice to government on the policy and programmatic design. That would include advice on any changes required to legislation. Following on from that, the process would be legislative drafting instructions and an exposure draft, et cetera. We’re several steps away, so I can’t give you a definitive answer to that question.
Senator ROBERTS: So the consultation is to develop the legislation changes, if any?
Mr Duggan: If any, that’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: The review explicitly says the extent of changes means, ‘no option but to redraft the current legislation.’
Mr Duggan: Yes, I am aware of that. So as we work through the 124 recommendations and our advice to government, were we to reach the same conclusion, then a legislative package would accompany our advice.
Senator ROBERTS: What time frames are you looking at—I know it’s early days—for redrafting and introduction of the legislation?
Mr Duggan: I gave evidence earlier that we are working through this. Again, there is a lot to work through, but we are working through it through the second half of this year with the intent of being in a position to provide comprehensive advice to government before the end of the year. Questions of the timing of introduction of any legislation, and the timing of any announcements around the way the scheme would work in the future, are questions for government and not something that the government has made a statement on at this point.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the single biggest issue holding things up?
Mr Duggan: I don’t think there is a single biggest issue. I referred to 124 recommendations in a very complicated area, the need to work through that rigorously and to consult broadly to make sure that we get right our advice to government.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you accept the review’s principle that the scheme must cause no harm, and that harm caused by interacting with the scheme should be prevented or reduced?
Senator Walsh: The work of the Comcare scheme is about assisting people. There should be no harm in relation to the scheme. In relation to all of this work, we commissioned the review. The review covers a whole range of issues around governance and usability and entitlements. We want the scheme to be focused on the people who need assistance through it, and that was the focus of the review. I repeat that the government is considering the recommendations. The secretary has laid out a time line for the department to consult around the recommendations. The act is almost 40 years old—
Senator ROBERTS: and complex.
Senator Walsh: and there hasn’t been substantial reform of it, so this review is comprehensive. There are, as the secretary has said, 124 recommendations. The department is working to consult on those recommendations and provide advice to government.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Will you implement the review’s position that step-downs—lighter duties— should not apply where the employer has refused or been unable to provide suitable duties?
Senator Walsh: In relation to any recommendations of the review, the government is considering the review.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you legislate enforceable employer return-to-work duties, including the duty to provide suitable work, with consequences for noncompliance?
Senator Walsh: All answers around the review and review recommendations are that the government is considering the review.
Senator ROBERTS: The review notes that the claims process can negatively affect health and recovery outcomes. Do you accept that poor claims management can cause or worsen psychological harm?
Senator Walsh: The government is considering the review.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I knew these things 40 years ago. There’s no gotcha in this one; all right? I just want to reassure our constituents, because we’ve had constituents come to us with problems. Surely you can acknowledge that the claims process can negatively affect health and recovery outcomes.
Senator Walsh: As I said, in establishing the review, the government wanted to make sure that the scheme is centred on the people that it is there to assist and that it is fit for purpose to be focused on the people that it’s there to assist. You said you’ve been focused on this issue for a number of years. The act is 36 years old. It hasn’t been reformed. There are a lot of recommendations. The secretary has outlined the process which the department is following to assess the recommendations. We’ll provide advice to government.
Senator ROBERTS: I know that 40 years ago we learned that selected duties or light duties—whatever you want to call them; I prefer ‘selected duties’—can be highly significant in getting people back to work, fully back to work, and getting them back to work quickly. That’s better for their mental health and their physical recovery at times. That’s why I’m interested in that. Will you implement or consider, or do you recognise, the review’s approach of trauma informed claims management, enforceable service standards and public reporting?
Senator Walsh: You’re asking me these questions, Senator, as you are entitled to do—
Senator ROBERTS: From our constituents. Senator Walsh: I welcome your questions. I’m just wondering whether some of them may relate to current practices of Comcare and whether Comcare would like to assist in some of the answers about how you approach these issues, if you’re happy with that, Senator.
Mr Radford: I’ll ask Mr Vivian-Taylor from our claims division to join us at the table, if that’s all right, Minister.
Senator Walsh: Yes.
Mr Vivian-Taylor: We do some trauma informed training for our claims managers. That’s what we do in claims management at the moment.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ve finished my questions of the minister. Mr Radford, you were talking about Cleanaway with Senator Dolega. In my experience—and I use this strategically—safety has moral benefits. Safety has personal responsibilities and personal benefits. It also has economic benefits. What is the level of understanding in industry generally, and within Comcare, that safety can be used to improve a business—not just the moral, personal and safety benefits but the economic and business benefits?
Mr Radford: I agree with your proposition, Senator. I can’t speak for industry, in terms of the level of industry knowledge, but certainly at Comcare we are of the view that safer workplaces, by and large, are more productive workplaces. You have a more engaged workforce—
Senator ROBERTS: Lower turnover.
Mr Radford: Lower turnover, higher retention. We, as the regulator, focus very heavily on the human cost of unsafe workplaces, as you would expect. There is no doubt that safe, fulfilling work is a huge benefit to workers. As you mentioned earlier, it has a significant, positive impact on their mental health. It also has a very positive impact, as I mentioned earlier, on productivity. From my engagement with industry, in both this role and previous roles in this space, I know that the vast majority of employers want other employers to do the right thing, because employers that cut corners on health and safety are probably also cutting corners in other areas in terms of their regulatory responsibilities. The majority of employers want to know that someone is not getting an unfair or competitive advantage by essentially not adhering to their responsibilities under workplace health and safety laws. As I said, I can’t speak specifically for industry, but from my engagement with industry and industry leaders and industry representative groups, by and large, they want everyone to do the right thing so that it is a fair and even playing field. It obviously supports the economy.
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to pick you up on something you said there—that people who take shortcuts on safety have an economic advantage. That’s what you’re implying—
Mr Radford: No, I said—
Senator ROBERTS: I believe it’s wrong.
Mr Radford: No. People can think that, if they take shortcuts, they can get a profit gain.
Senator ROBERTS: They think that, but they don’t, because they end up hurting the business.
Mr Radford: They end up hurting the business. As I said in evidence—I think prior to you joining, Senator— we certainly take the view that no profit or productivity improvement is worth the price of a human life. I think the majority of employers also think that way, but, unfortunately, there are those who think they can cut corners. The Cleanaway matter was resolved last week, on top of the very significant human cost of two people losing their lives and two people being seriously injured. Cleanaway has now been fined $1.1 million as a result of its failure in the training of the truck driver involved. That should send a very clear message that cutting corners has human consequences. It also has economic consequences for any company that thinks it can get away with it.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps, if Cleanaway had been more enlightened in its management, it wouldn’t have had the fatalities and it would have had a better bottom line.
Mr Radford: I can’t speak to their balance sheet, but in my experience no good ever comes from a serious injury or a fatality in the workplace.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s taken for granted. What I’m getting at is that just improving safety can be a strategic advantage, leading to reducing costs, increasing productivity and increasing profitability.
Mr Radford: Yes. I agree.
Senator ROBERTS: To what extent do people in the industry accept that? Is it still limited?
Mr Radford: As I said, I can’t speak for industry. Certainly, a large part of Comcare’s role is to educate industry and the economy more broadly about the benefits of safe work and the benefits of having a highly engaged, safe workforce, whether that’s physical safety or psychological safety. The more engaged your workforce is, the safer your workforce is and the higher your productivity is likely to be.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you make a comment on this. This is a definition of safety that I developed 30 or 40 years ago: safety is the state of being in which people are conscious, aware of and successfully manage and feel accountable for the potential for injury and loss. Do you agree?
Mr Radford: I would agree, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s about accountability all the way throughout an organisation.
Mr Radford: Through the whole supply chain, through all of the activity. I agree, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Everyone’s responsible for safety, but the senior people have the ultimate responsibility.
Mr Radford: Yes. Under our legislation and the work health and safety laws right across Australia, everyone does have responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe workplace. But ultimately the responsibility at the highest level rests with those who have control of that workplace, and the workplace is controlled by the managers and the leaders of that enterprise.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.
Mr Radford: Thank you, Senator.
