Seacarescheme– ReformstoWorkHealth
andSafetyandWorkers’Compensation
Submission
[NAME REDACTED]
Pleaseprovideyourfeedbackonthe Government’sproposedreformstothe Seacarescheme onthe followingpages.
Headingsareprovidedforeach ofthe key Seacarereformpriorities.Asummarypage isalso providedupfrontifyouwish to summarise yourviews acrossthe reformpriorities.
It isnotnecessarytocompleteallsections.Unusedheadingsmay be leftblank.
DearSirs.It hasbeen broughttomy attentionby theAssociationofMarineParkTourism Operatorsthat the Department ofEmployment hasreleased forcomment proposedreformsto theAustralianGovernment’sSeacareWorkersCompensationand WorkHealthand Safety scheme and that the proposedreformscould impact ourbusiness.I note that you have requestedsubmissionsbe made online.Areviewofthe documenthighlightswhat can onlybe describedasa fundamentalchange forourbusinesseswithoutany consultationwith usasone ofthe largestbusinesseswithin ourindustrysectorifthe proposedreformpackage becomes law.It isourhopethat thisisunintended and the departmentisnotseekingtodramatically expand the reachofthisschemeand coverbusinesseshistoricallycoveredunderstatebased programs.Theapplicationofthisschemetoourindustrysectorwouldhavesignificantcost impact and wouldresultin significantcostincreasesforourcustomersand inevitablemany businessesclosing.AtthisstageI am notawareofany in-depth consultationwith our
companyorourmajorindustry association.
Historicallythe Seacareschemehascoveredemployeesemployedoncommercialvessel engaged in interstateand internationalshipping.It hasneverappliedtoourvesselswhich operatesolelywithin the Queensland/GreatBarrierReefregion.Areviewofthe proposed reformhighlightsthe new proposalseekstoosubstantiallyexpand itscoverageby now includingallvesselsthat operateoutsideof“coastalwaters’which it describesas 3 nautical miles fromshore.
Bydefinitionthiswouldthen capturethe entireTourismFleetoperatingwithin the Great BarrierReefMarinePark.Thisisofsignificantconcerntousand we wouldobjectstronglyifit isthe intention to now apply this scheme to ouroperation.I findit veryobjectionablethat any governmentbodywouldseektoimposesucha significantcostlychange onbusiness without consultation.
[REDACTED]
I am notawarethat at any stageouroperationshavebeen coveredby any workers compensationschemeotherthan the Queenslandbasedscheme. It wouldbe a significant financialimpostofourbusinesstohavetoadministermultipleprogramsforourstaff.
I have providedno commentonthis area as we have had no consultationand it isnot reflectiveofthe WH &Sissueswe faceacrossouroperations.Todate ourengagement in WH
Smattershasbeen predominantlyat a statelevel.Movingpartsofouroperationtoa federaljurisdictionwould place an unacceptable burdenon ourcompany.Thefinancial modellingpresentedhasnotincludedourindustry.
Thisisnotreflectiveofouroperationorindustry
Wehavehadnohistoricinvolvement andnoconsultation inrespect tothispoint.If thisprogramwasappliedtousitwouldrepresentasignificantincreaseincostsforouroperation. Thefinancial modellinghasnotincludedourindustryandseems reflectiveofhistoric coverageonly.
ThereferencetoCoastalwatersdefinedto3 nauticalmilesneedstobe deletedfromthe text asthissubstantiallyexpandsthe coverageofthe schemewithoutany consultationwith businessesand the 1000’sofvesselsthat operatewithin the GreatBarrierReefregionalone.
Coverageneedstorevertback tohistoricalinterpretationwhich isvesselsinvolvedin interstateorinternationaltradeorcommerce.Havingnotbeen involvedin the conversationI am unawareofthe detailsofthe longstandingissuesregardingcoverageofthe scheme referredtoonpage 9 ofthe document.I wouldhavethoughtthe reviewbodywouldhave soughttoaddressthe longstandingissuesreferredtospecificallynotsimplylooktoexpand the coveragetoincludesectionsofthe marineindustrynotpreviouslycovered.Particularly for sectionsofthe industrythat donotappeartohavesignificantissueswith theirexisting WorkersCompensationarrangements.Thedefinitionofinvolvedin “interstateor
international trade orcommerce”wouldseem fairlyclear to me.
Asindicated withoutany consultationit isdifficulttounderstandwhat the longstanding issues are. Other alternate wouldbe
1 excludesalltourismvesselsup to70 Nauticalmilesfromthe scheme
2 excludeTourismvesselsup to70 Nauticalmilesoperatingsolelywithin the GreatBarrier
ReefMarinePark
3 Change the coveragedefinitiontoread“coversallAustralianvesselsand allforeignvessels with a majorityAustraliancrew,engaged in interstateorinternationaltradeorcommerce that arenotundertakingRestrictedOffshoreOperationsasdefinedin the NationalStandards ForCommercialVesselswithin the watersofa singleState orterritoryand immediately adjacentAustralianwaters”.
[inserttext]