Ms BURNET (Clark) – Thank you, honourable Speaker. I rise as Greens spokesperson on workplace relations to support the bill. I have some questions and I hope the minister will be able to answer those in her summing up.
The Greens support the Asbestos‑Related Diseases (Occupational Exposure) Compensation Amendment Bill 2024. I note that the bill introduces changes recommended in the 2020 review as well as some outstanding recommendations that were held over from the 2017 review. There has been quite a long turnaround, particularly in relation to the 2017 review.
Given the cruelty of the condition under the broad umbrella of asbestos‑related diseases, can the minister please explain the delay, because any delay is certainly an unwelcome delay for sufferers and their families? I note the points that Dr Broad has made and Mr O’Byrne, and I will talk to those as we go through as well, because a lot of those are points I would like to talk to as well, but specifically to the amendments, address the fact that if the medical panel disagrees with the opinion of an impairment assessor, they are only able to refer the matter to another impairment assessor. They extend the claim eligibility for claimants and family members to costs in relation to support services. They provide for reimbursement of medical costs directly related to a successful claim. They enable the tribunal to make alternative apportionment of claims to family members other than according to the standard provisions under the act if a family member is aggrieved by that appointment.
They require the Asbestos Compensation Commissioner to pay the claimant’s review costs when a claimant is successful and an error of law is made by the medical panel. They allow for the funds from the Asbestos Compensation Fund to be used for professional training and public education. As Mr O’Byrne and Ms Dow have raised, there is concern in relation to how that might be spent and how that might dip into the compensation that is meant for workers, as this is a workers compensation scheme.
Finally, the last amendment absolves a claimant from the responsibility to repay funds when their compensation is incorrectly calculated. All those amendments are good and the recommendations are well reflected in those amendments in the bill before us.
All these matters are supported by the Greens, just as the Greens gave tripartite support for compensation for asbestos‑related diseases under the act when the Independent for member for Franklin was minister. The Asbestos Compensation Scheme is something the Greens supported from the outset, and the work of the Asbestos Compensation Commissioner and their team to resolve issues should be noted.
The scheme has provided support and compensation to those workers, however, compensation for diseases that can be a chronic burden, like a ticking time bomb, is a significant challenge for those workers and their families.
Let us look at the financial burden of disease. Of the 68 claims in the five-year period, from the last report in the review done by Gillam and Chandler, 51 were successful. $22.48 million was spent over five years on lump sum payments to successful claimants – both medical and, sadly, funeral costs – and of the total spent over the last five-year review period, no weekly benefits were administered.
One would have to be a good money manager to eke out the lump sum compensation paid, and one wonders how effective this lump sum compensation might be over the long term for an average lump sum payment of $440,940.
There are categories of payment and a level of payment for an imminently fatal case. According to the 2021-22 annual report:
“A person with an asbestos‑related disease and less than two years life expectancy is entitled to lump sum compensation at $351,043. If the person is less than 80 years of age, they are entitled to an additional age-related benefit of up to a maximum of $351,043. All reasonable expenses related to the disease are paid for up to a maximum amount.“
I understand from discussions in the briefing and this afternoon that medical costs are met up to a ceiling as well over an extended period.
“All reasonable medical expenses related to the disease are paid for up to a maximum amount. In 2021, this was $121,890. Beyond this amount, the Commissioner must review the case.“
Incidentally, I note that of the medical practitioners registered to review asbestos-related claims, only one female practitioner is part of that. It may be a gender imbalance the minister wishes to improve upon.
Ms Ogilvie – I will do my best.
Ms BURNET – Thank you. The Greens and I welcome that the review found strong support for the scheme and that it is operating efficiently and in a timely manner. The review makes a range of positive comments about the operation of the scheme. However, I ask the minister to update the House on the government’s actions in response to one of the findings of the review that does not necessarily relate to legislative reform.
The review noted that there is some evidence that knowledge of the scheme may not be reaching all potential claimants. It is the point that Dr Broad raised. Is this something that is being worked on by the government?
There is also the issue of secondary exposure, which was raised in several submissions to the review but, unfortunately, has not been picked up by the act.
Although not covered in this bill, in the changes, I will briefly discuss the issue of compensation for secondary exposure, which was raised in the review and in a number of submissions to the review. Finding 10 of the Chandler-Gillam review states:
“Whilst fully sympathising with the concerns raised, the reviewers have strong concerns about extending the scheme beyond workers as currently defined. It would represent a significant change from other workers compensation schemes, including in other jurisdictions. However, the reviewers encourage the state government to consider the issue of secondary exposure in the context of asbestos exposure in the wider community.“
This was brought up in the submission by the Asbestos Free Tasmania Foundation. I will quote from their submission at points 8 and 9 because I think it is important that we have this on the record. It is something the government could consider because for those workers who may carry or may not carry the disease, if there is any secondary exposure to perhaps their spouse – traditionally, there have been women who have sometimes contracted the disease with or without their spouses contracting it as well. Why is it that they cannot get any compensation?
I understand that this is a compensation scheme for workers but – what a surprise – it is women who are probably most likely exposed, or have been exposed over many years. I have been speaking to Laurie Appleby, whom members of the House know very well from Beulah, and working over many years on this issue. However, I digress. I will just read from the submission from Asbestos Free Tasmania Foundation:
“On the issue of secondary exposure, Asbestos Free Tasmania (ATF) urges the review to give this serious and favourable consideration. The most common issue is where workers exposed to asbestos carry those fibres home on their clothing which is subsequently handled and cleaned by their partner, most commonly their wife. This could range from waterside workers who carried hessian sacks of asbestos on their shoulders, to workers in the Goliath cement factory, where high levels of airborne fibre were normal for many years, to workers that install, maintain or repair asbestos-containing machinery and materials.
“This exposure has led to cases of asbestosis and mesothelioma in those women who face even greater difficulty in establishing a common-law claim than those directly exposed. In a case known to AFTF, the victim declined to make public statements but was exposed to asbestos fibres through washing the clothes of her husband, a Goliath Cement employee, and now must be hooked up to an oxygen tank to be able to breathe. Another is suffering from asbestosis and recently had a stroke and needs help.
“This issue has possibly the greatest pertinence to Goliath Cement workers and their families as that company was aware for many years of the risks its workers took. Goliath is known to have taken advice from the notorious James Hardie Company in how to handle public comment about asbestos hazards but left its workers unprotected for decades. It is reasonable to see a home-based or otherwise employed partner poisoned by asbestos in the same terms of the worker carrying the fibres home. They are both victims of employer negligence.“
To my way of thinking, it is such a travesty that women are often subject to this. They are not represented by employee bodies and yet they have been exposed and suffer. They would have to make claims through the courts, which is exactly what the compensation scheme does so well to avoid. It takes the burden of somebody with disease, in particular, and their family, to not have to pursue it through courts.
With a latency of disease of 30 to 60 years from initial exposure, asbestos-related diseases – the result of a deceitful, recalcitrant industry privy to the knowledge of the fatal nature of exposure and its legacy, as Mr O’Byrne has said – has devastating impacts on lives of the victims, their families and workmates. I understand the reviewers’ reservations about extending the scheme to cover secondary exposure, given that the scheme is funded by levies applied to workers compensation premiums. However, I would like the minister to consider how this might be addressed in the future, and sooner rather than later. We know how devastating this disease is on families and victims.
This still leaves those suffering from asbestos-related diseases caused by secondary exposure with no option for redress but to navigate through the civil court system, where they must demonstrate that there was no other potential cause for their disease than their exposure to the primary asbestos victim. That is if the workplace that caused their illness is still around, which is not always the case, given the long latency period for asbestos-related diseases. Why is it that people should endure the same things this scheme does so relatively efficiently for workers just because they are not classified as workers?
We have just heard through the Matter of Public Importance, the speeches recognising the trailblazing MP for Franklin, Fran Bladel, who died late last year. She was a true fighter for equality, especially women. I think Fran would be interested in hearing how we could try and seek justice in this case as well. I suspect many of these women may not be deemed a worker and many cannot organise in a workplace because they have received this exposure at home. It is simply not acceptable. Whilst they may not be in paid work, they are working, running a household and washing their husband’s asbestos‑contaminated clothes. Why should they not be compensated? Why is it so, and why should they suffer the long, drawn-out civil law court system this compensation scheme bypasses? This needs redress.
Even the review noted that the financial impact of the scheme would not be great if secondary exposure was included. We need to determine how we are going to address this as a parliament, given the small number of claims that would be likely to be made. The Greens would like to establish certainty and see the number of Tasmanians who have asbestos‑related diseases caused by secondary exposure.
It was very difficult to get some of this this information in relation to asbestos‑related deaths. It is something that I will be pursuing. I would like a guarantee that the minister will look to address this legislative gap so that individuals suffering from asbestos‑related illnesses are considered for compensation.
Ms Ogilvie – I have your question. I will do it in summing up.
Ms BURNET – In relation to other dust‑related diseases, the review also raised the issue of including other dust‑related diseases in the scheme, which occurs in other jurisdictions. I note that the final report from the National Dust Diseases task force was tabled in 2021. What progress has the government made since then to provide compensation for those with other dust‑related diseases?
Ms Ogilvie – Sorry, just repeat that one. What was that?
Ms BURNET – What progress has the government made since 2021 when the National Dust Diseases task force report was tabled to provide compensation for those with other dust‑related diseases?
Finally, I acknowledge the work of many people who have worked tirelessly over many years for justice for victims of asbestos‑related disease. They are victims of a mendacious industry that went ahead knowing full well of the implications of their disease. I acknowledge the work of Laurie Appleby. I acknowledge the work undertaken by people like Simon Cocker, who has been involved in Asbestos Free Tasmania for many years. I also thank those people who spoke to me in preparation for this second reading debate, whose husbands are suffering a cruel, insidious illness, and I recognise the impacts that this has on families.
I am very pleased that this bill looks to address some of the support required in a psychological capacity for family members, and there is so much more that can be done. This review is really important. It would be good if it was done in a timely manner and it will be up to the next review very soon.
I commend the amendments that have been raised in this bill, but also would like to see justice for those other people who are not captured by this compensation scheme.
