The Abbott Government has sold this reform as a no-brainer, alleging that the bill merely implements the recommendation of four independent reports commissioned by previous governments to expand the national workers' compensation scheme. This is simply not true. While these reports each advocated greater harmonisation between the state and territory workers' compensation schemes, and the expansion of the national scheme, none of them – other than that of the Productivity Commission – provided unequivocal support for expansion. The Taylor Fry report argued that expansion of the national scheme would lead to a "regulatory vacuum" unless important safeguards were established. The Hawke report recommended the establishment of a "more robust regulatory framework". And the Hanks report identifies a number of positive, concrete recommendations to improve the national scheme. Not one of these perspectives finds a place in the current reform agenda. It is not just misleading, but also blatantly untrue for the Federal Government to represent this bill as merely implementing the recommendations of four reports. The other central plank of the government's message is that the bill is a pro-business piece of reform, cutting costs for multi-state employers who have to comply with different schemes in each of the states and territories.

The vast majority of businesses will actually be worse off, as only multi-state employers can move to the national scheme. This reduces the premium pool of the other schemes, leading to increased premiums for the small and medium sized businesses that remain. This issue of higher premiums is why each of the state and territory governments made submissions to the Senate against the bill. The former Campbell Newman Government estimated that 138,000 Queensland small businesses would be worse off, with many of these unable to absorb premium fluctuations from a premium pool reduced by $250 million. It's also why the Howard Government, in 2004, refrained from touching this reform. The Howard Government knew it would lose its core small business constituency, who would be disadvantaged through higher premiums. Another fundamental problem with the current plan is that the scheme regulator, Comcare, is ill equipped to cope with the national scheme's expansion. The McKell Institute report warns that Comcare could potentially be responsible for 67 times its current workload capacity, despite already conducting far fewer workplace interventions than its state and territory counterparts, and its investigators issuing far fewer improvement and prohibition notices.

Comcare's inspectorate is also poorly structured. The state and territory schemes have greater sophistication and specialised practices around high-risk industries. Moreover, while Comcare's inspectors are organised in the capital cities, with less capacity to monitor geographically disparate areas, state regulators organise inspectors in regional and industry teams. Taking the Beaconsfield mine example, if the current bill had been in operation then, Comcare investigators based in Melbourne could not have reached the mine before the first commercial flight into Hobart, followed by a 40 minute drive to Launceston. This would have been 10 hours after the mine's collapse. State mine inspectors, based in Hobart, were able to reach the mine within four hours. As this example shows, an expansion of Australia's national workers' compensation scheme brings with it many challenges. The fundamental question must be whether a national workers' compensation scheme can operate effectively in Australia. The McKell Institute report, like the four aforementioned reports, agree that a nationally consistent framework for workers' compensation is a desirable policy goal. It's also an objective most stakeholders agree with. But it should not come at the expense of workplace safety or the viability of Australian businesses. While the Parliament should unequivocally reject this bill, the good news is that we don't have to go back to the drawing board. Cumulatively, the Taylor Fry report, the Hanks report and the Hawke report provide a template for how a nationally consistent framework can be achieved. What we need now is a bipartisan approach that draws upon this work to develop a national scheme that produces a system that appropriately compensates injured workers and efficiently manages their return to work.

Dr Joanna Howe is a senior lecturer in Law at the University of Adelaide and author of the McKell Institute report, Unsafe and Unfair: A Critique of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014.