Released this month by Safe Work Australia, the ‘Comparison of Workers’ Compensation Arrangements’ in Australia and New Zealand 2025 report has landed at a moment when the cleaning and facilities management sector continues to grapple with high rates of manual handling injuries, chemical exposure incidents and labour hire complexity. Now in its 30th edition, the biennial publication sets out how workers’ compensation schemes operate across every Australian state and territory as well as New Zealand, comparing coverage, benefits, return to work provisions, dispute resolution and cross-border arrangements as of 31 December 2025.
For an industry built on a highly mobile, often casualised and frequently outsourced workforce, the findings carry particular weight. Cleaning contractors regularly deploy staff across multiple sites and, in some cases, across state lines, meaning the jurisdiction in which an injury occurs can change what a worker is entitled to. A cleaner injured while lifting equipment in Sydney does not necessarily receive the same benefits, wage replacement period or access to common law damages as a colleague performing the same task in Melbourne or Auckland.
Why coverage differences matter for cleaning operators
Facilities management and cleaning businesses operating nationally are among those most exposed to the patchwork, the report reveals. Because each jurisdiction sets its own thresholds for coverage, average weekly earnings calculations and impairment benefits, a national contractor administering claims across several states must navigate an entirely different set of rules in each one. This is compounded by the sector’s reliance on labour hire arrangements, where questions of which entity bears responsibility for a claim, the host business or the labour hire provider, can already be a source of dispute before jurisdictional differences are even considered.
Return to work provisions are another area where the report flags meaningful variation. Given that cleaning and hygiene roles are physically demanding and often involve repetitive strain, effective and timely return to work pathways are critical to preventing long term disengagement from the workforce. Jurisdictions differ in how they define suitable duties, how long an employer must hold a position open and what obligations apply to labour hire hosts, all of which shape how quickly an injured cleaner can resume paid work.
Cross-border arrangements and the mobile workforce
New Zealand’s inclusion in the comparison is particularly relevant given the number of facilities services groups that operate across both sides of the Tasman. The report’s examination of cross-border arrangements addresses what happens when a worker based in one country is injured while working in the other, an increasingly common scenario as cleaning and FM providers consolidate contracts across trans-Tasman portfolios. Understanding these provisions in advance, rather than discovering the gaps at claim time, gives operators a clearer basis for structuring their workforce and insurance arrangements.
Dispute resolution processes also vary considerably, with some jurisdictions favouring internal review mechanisms and others directing disputed claims straight to independent tribunals. For an industry where claims volume is comparatively high due to the physical nature of the work, the speed and cost of resolving disputes has a direct bearing on both worker outcomes and employer premiums.
Safe Work Australia has confirmed the full report is available to download from its website, alongside past editions dating back to the comparison’s earliest years. For cleaning and FM businesses managing a distributed or interstate workforce, it offers a timely reference point for auditing current claims handling practices against what each jurisdiction actually requires.
