Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Bill 2026

Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council | Second reading debate
22 September 2026

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):

I rise to make a contribution on the Workplace Legislation Amendment (Accident Compensation and Other Matters) Bill 2026, which makes amendments to several bills encompassing Victoria’s workers compensation and occupational health and safety framework. It enables self-insured employers to use regulated surety bonds as an alternative to bank guarantees.

Currently, self-insured employers must provide bank guarantees to ensure workers compensation liabilities can be met if the employer becomes insolvent. Surety bonds provide greater flexibility and liquidity for employers while preserving protections for workers if their liabilities are transferred to the WorkCover scheme. It makes several governance and administrative changes relating to the chair of WorkSafe and other operational matters.

The bill implements reforms stemming from Eugene White’s independent review of employee representatives, which considered whether the powers, functions and support provided to authorised representatives of registered employee organisations and health and safety representatives under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 are still effective in terms of delivering improved health and safety outcomes for workers.

That review made 17 recommendations to improve the effectiveness of employee representation, but unfortunately only four of those are acquitted in this bill. The bill improves the ability of health and safety representatives to identify and resolve OH&S matters, enabling them to inspect and make copies of documents relevant to alleged contraventions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, a topic I will return to shortly. The operation of existing privacy, secrecy or confidentiality provisions under other laws will still continue.

It also gives health and safety reps greater authority to investigate breaches when found onsite and to provide a notice of suspected contravention. It enhances certain administrative functions for multi-employer designated work groups on sites where multiple employers operate side by side. Unions are supportive of these reforms. They have long advocated for better access to information and stronger powers to help workers raise safety concerns before injuries occur.

The bill introduces offences relating to coercion in respect to nomination and election of health and safety reps, restricts the misuse of information obtained through occupational health and safety powers and prohibits the live streaming or publication of photographs and recordings obtained in the course of exercising those powers. We welcome these changes, and we commend the government for bringing this bill before the Parliament.

The bill, however, does not fully implement the recommendations of the Independent Review of Employee Representatives report, particularly around access to workplace documents relevant to suspected contraventions. We have some amendments which will strengthen and authorise representatives’ power to inspect documents. I ask that these amendments be circulated now.

The amendments firstly clarify that electronic records and documents can be accessed rather than being restricted to documents that are actually physically located on the site. This will broaden access to documents relevant to suspected contraventions so representatives can more effectively investigate safety concerns and ensure that employers cannot avoid compliance with an authorised representative’s request for documents simply because that information is stored digitally or offsite rather than in hard-copy form.

This makes perfect sense, because I am sure people have heard that there is actually now a greater reliance on digital documents in the modern workplace – I know; surprise, surprise – yet suddenly they become privileged simply because they are electronic. This is a deliberate oversight and one that the government is well aware of. Despite government assertions to the contrary by the minister, recommendation 9 of the independent review recommended:

That the Victorian Government amend the OHS Act to:

• require an employer to allow an HSR or ARREO to inspect and make copies of documents relevant to a suspected contravention that are:
• kept at the workplace or are accessible from a computer at the workplace
• not kept at the workplace, subject to notice given during work hours at least twenty-four hours but no more than fourteen days before entry

The amendments also establish the right of authorised representatives to require employers to produce relevant workplace documents and create an obligation on the employer to provide access when requested. This mandate is entirely consistent with Mr White’s recommendations.

The OH&S act still maintains the protection that an authorised representative may only do things reasonable for the purposes of inquiring into a suspected contravention, and in the case of a dispute, either the employer or the representative may call to arrange a WorkSafe inspector’s attendance, so employers retain their protection.

Listening to Mr Limbrick’s assertion – and I am sorry, I missed Mr Welch’s contribution in total, but I believe they were in common – I would go so far as to suggest that it is panic-mongering to make the assertion that this bill or these amendments should not go ahead because of alleged corruption in the construction division of the CFMEU. That division makes up a small percentage of the construction workforce, which in turn makes up a small percentage of the overall workforce.

To suggest that because there is alleged corruption by a small number of people – and it is alleged – these protections should not apply to all workers, including workers that are not in unions, and that is the majority of workers, and let us recognise that many health and safety reps are not actually in unions, to suggest that because of that tiny question, though it is a current and very important question, no-one should have these protections, is outrageous, especially given this vision that has been painted of a CFMEU construction division health and safety rep coming in unannounced and rampaging through a company’s IT system.

The reality is a request is required in advance and it needs to define what is being sought. And most importantly, if either the health and safety rep or the employer are concerned about the circumstances of that request, either can request that an inspector be present. That is the reality – that is the law – and to pretend that this is opening up some Wild West frontier is, frankly, outrageous and insulting to the community’s intelligence.

Our amendments merely enliven recommendation 9 and bring Victoria into line with the existing Commonwealth work health and safety laws. We have heard from the minister and others this preposterous notion that there may be ‘unforeseen circumstances’. That federal legislation has been in place for some time; unforeseen circumstances have had the opportunity to be seen.

To suggest that that is not the case is, I am afraid, gratuitous. In that context, we suggest that there is nothing mysterious or unknown or dangerous about extending this right to electronic records. This is a simple change and one that the government should have brought itself or at least should have agreed to after discussions with a range of stakeholders, including Trades Hall.

I would indicate that we are also supporting the amendment being moved by Mr Puglielli to broaden the provisions for the award of damages to injured workers with certain dust-related conditions to ensure that these workers have fair and efficient access to compensation.

The bill also clarifies that neither the TAC nor WorkSafe is liable to fund specialist disability accommodation under the NDIS, resolving what the government describes as an unintended overlap in the legislation. As an aside, the government’s handling of the transition of disability supports from the federal NDIS scheme to the states has been, frankly, a shambles.

It has been incredibly stressful for parents and carers of people with a disability, who have been largely left in the dark about how the changes to the scheme will impact them. They are exhausted, they are overwhelmed by these proposed changes and will most certainly be the ones filling the gap left by the reduction in services – but I do digress.

That said, the bill seeks to introduce positive changes to worker safety and representation. As I said, we will be supporting this bill and our amendments will serve to strengthen this bill. I commend both to the chamber.

[Council divided on bill]

[Bill passed 22 votes to 13]