High Court may lead to workers comp discrimination: HREOC

High Court may lead to workers comp discrimination: HREOC

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission has noted that the High Court decision in Attorney-General (Vic) v Andrews (2007) HCA 9 upheld workers’ compensation laws allowing large companies to opt out of compulsory state schemes. This decision may have unintended consequences for workers in same-sex relationships according to Human Rights Commissioner Graeme Innes AM.

Under the Commonwealth workers’ compensation scheme, the same-sex partner of an injured or deceased employee is not entitled to workers’ compensation, whereas state workers’ compensation schemes do provide this protection.

“An opposite-sex partner of an employee covered by a federal workers’ compensation scheme has the security of knowing that he or she will be financially supported if his or her partner dies or is injured on the job. A same-sex partner has no such security,” Commissioner Innes said.

“The Comcare system should change to give people in same-sex relationships the same workers’ compensation coverage protecting opposite-sex couples.”

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is currently finalising the report of the National Inquiry into Discrimination Against People in Same-Sex Relationship regarding Financial and Work-related Entitlements (Same-Sex: Same Entitlements).

The Inquiry covers discrimination against same-sex couples and families in several areas of federal law including:

employment laws (personal and parental leave, workers’ compensation, travel entitlements for federal employees)
tax laws
social security and veterans’ entitlement laws
Medicare and PBS Safety Nets
superannuation laws, and
aged care laws.

Link to HREOC

Decision in Attorney-General (Vic) v. Andrews

Request an Appointment
Fill in the form below to find out if you have a claim.
Request an Appointment - Stephen Page
Things to Read, Watch & Listen

Why adoption has become “institutionally invisible” in Queensland

Queensland’s child protection system is facing an urgent and deeply troubling question: why are children who cannot safely return home being left in state care for years, often moving from placement to placement, without genuine consideration of adoption? The recent Child Safety Inquiry has put that question squarely on the table. Its findings are confronting.… Read More »Why adoption has become “institutionally invisible” in Queensland

Queensland sperm donor family limits explained

  Queensland’s new sperm donor family limits were meant to provide sensible safeguards for children conceived through donor treatment. Instead, Queensland Health has adopted an interpretation that appears to split a female same sex couple into two separate families. That position is difficult to reconcile with the law, common sense, and the lived reality of… Read More »Queensland sperm donor family limits explained

South Australia surrogacy agreements: are they unlawful?

South Australia takes a distinctly narrow approach to surrogacy agreements. The issue is not simply whether a proposed arrangement is altruistic, or whether everyone involved has acted with the best of intentions. Under the Surrogacy Act 2019 (SA), the first question is whether the arrangement falls into the category of a lawful surrogacy agreement. That… Read More »South Australia surrogacy agreements: are they unlawful?

Family Law Section Law Council of Australia Award
Member of Queensland law society
Family law Practitioners Association
International Academy of Family Lawyers - IAFL
Mediator Standards Board