PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION: ANNUAL REPORT

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:41): I move:

That the 2010-11 annual report of the committee be noted.

The committee has an important role to play in investigating matters relating to the administration of the state's occupational health, safety and compensation legislation and other legislation in relation to these matters, including the performance of the WorkCover Corporation.

The occupational safety, rehabilitation and compensation committee differs substantially from other committees. While a number of factors are identical to all standing committees of parliament, the key difference with this committee is that the members are not remunerated. Thus, the members' dedication to the work of the committee is noteworthy. Each member has given a significant amount of time to the committee's business and worked well collectively for an important cause.

The committee tends to be issue focused and its level of activity fluctuates, depending on the existence of topical matters. After the 11^th report of the committee was tabled in 2007, the committee entered into a time of relative inactivity. During the extensive time when the reforms to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act were implemented, there was a resulting period of transition and uncertainty.

In early 2010, following the state election, after the appointment of new members to the fifth Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation, the committee's activity significantly increased with the commencement of an inquiry into vocational rehabilitation and return to work.

For the financial year 2010-11, the Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation met on seven occasions. The bulk of the committee's work during this time was focused on a single in-depth inquiry into vocational rehabilitation and return to work, which it is currently undergoing. During this time, the committee was also briefed by representatives from SafeWork SA on the national occupational health and safety harmonisation legislation which is, obviously, very relevant to us in this house in this session.

The committee notes that the South Australian return to work rate for injured workers has consistently been lower than the national average for the past 14 years and, in fact, is currently the lowest in the nation, yet the frequency of use and expense of vocational rehabilitation is exceptionally high and on the increase. Such a combination of factors continues to have a negative impact on WorkCover's unfunded liability and the overall performance of the scheme, not to mention the lives of those workers, and their families, who have not returned to work.

Following the reforms in 2008, the state's workers compensation scheme has consistently been in the public spotlight and has suffered criticism. The committee has been advised that there have been a number of independent reviews into workers compensation since the reforms and it is clear that the return to work rate of South Australia's scheme is of concern to all stakeholders. The committee recognises this concern and, through its inquiry, would like to discover the reasons the current scheme is underperforming and identify ways it can be improved. The committee understands that the issue is complex and that there is no single definitive solution to bring about an improvement in the scheme's performance.

The committee has heard evidence from WorkCover, its claims agent Employers Mutual, and other stakeholders, including South Australian unions, who are in the process of developing and initiating several strategies with the aim of addressing the state's low return-to-work rate. Such efforts are commendable and, hopefully, time will show such initiatives to be successful.

May I say that it is not just a matter for WorkCover and the claims agent; it is important for all stakeholders, including employers, employees and rehabilitation service providers to focus on supporting return-to-work efforts. Successfully doing so will inevitably result in a reduction of the unfunded liability of the scheme but, more importantly, will reduce the impact of injury upon the lives of workers. The committee notes WorkCover's aims to improve the return-to-work outcomes. The corporation's strategic plan includes targets to improve the return-to-work rate by 3 per cent each year in the next five years.

The 12^th report of the Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation summarises the work of the committee for the financial year 2010-11, and also provides a summary of committee activity and membership changes since the committee last reported to the house in 2007. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contributed to the work of the committee, in particular the assistance provided to the committee in undertaking its inquiries. I thank all those organisations and people who took time to make an effort to prepare submissions to the committee and appear before the committee to provide oral evidence. Without the support of all those people the work of the committee is severely limited.

Finally, I extend my sincere thanks to members of the committee: the Hon. John Gazzola MP, the Hon. John Darley MLC, the Hon. Rob Lucas MLC, Mr Ivan Venning MP, and Mrs Lisa Vlahos MP. I would also like to thank the staff who support the committee: Mr Rick Crump, the secretary of the committee, and Ms Mia Ciccarello, the committee's research officer. I commend the report to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:47): I rise to support the 12^th report of the Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation. I think this is something we all need to address in a very serious way; too many people have lost their lives or have been injured in the workplace. Coming from a farming background I know how important it is to be careful, because farming is one of the most dangerous occupations—up there with mining—that can be taken on, and I am certainly well aware of the dangers within the industry.

I have a good friend up the road who was involved in a power take-off shaft incident, which tore his clothes off. Luckily he survived. Something must have blocked to stop the power take-off shaft that was revving somewhere in the vicinity of a couple of hundred revs, and it got hold of a piece of loose clothing. Thankfully he lived, even though he was injured. He is still making a full recovery but is managing to complete all his duties, although I think it still causes him a bit of grief with his ribs. There have certainly been some horrific accidents along the way. We hear of posthole diggers where people have been scalped; they have managed to be fixed up but, sadly, too many people have been involved in accidents in which they have lost their lives.

I want to bring one item to the attention of the house; I think it is linked to occupational health and safety. A constituent was involved in a major project in this state, and was subcontracting to that project, and he was going to supply a loader. He thought that perhaps the loader he had at his home base was not up to speed, as it has had a couple of oil leaks. He thought that he would do the right thing and hire a new machine. He went to this project with the brand-new machine he had hired, and he was asked, 'What's the service history?' It was a brand-new machine, straight out of the box, straight off the workshop floor and imported from America. He was told, 'No, it's got no service history.' How ridiculous! That is taking things one step too far.

After several days of trying to sort this out, he decided to go back to the hire operator and hire a machine with a few hundred hours on it just so that he could take it to the worksite and give the supervisors the service history of that machine. I think there are issues like that that need to be resolved. You would like to think that common sense would have prevailed in that case of someone turning up with a brand-new machine, with its seat still wrapped in plastic and everything shiny new. That machine was highly appropriate for the job, and you could not fault it—I believe it was a Caterpillar machine—and it would have well and truly done the job.

I am not denying at all that we have to have occupational health and safety standards, but let's have some reality in some of these incidents on worksites so that if people do turn up with a brand-new machine we do not have this ridiculous situation of someone asking for a work and service history and being overly pedantic about the history of that machine. Let's not forget that we do have to be mindful of everyone who works in this state and in this nation: we want to see that loved ones get home to their loved ones.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:51): I was put on this committee against my wisdom, I suppose, because this is not an area in which I naturally have a lot of expertise. I agreed because the Chair, as always, conned me into doing so. Now that I am on the committee, can I firstly congratulate the member for Ashford on being a very good Chair. This is a sensitive issue, and the way in which the committee has been handling it, it has crossed the political divide.

I cannot see us at any time having a real split on a political line because I think the common cause, the common problem, has been of concern to us all. I found being on this committee particularly interesting, and I have had discussions with other associates and the Chair (and her close associate), and I find the information that comes out amazing. Some of these people also write articles in the paper about what has happened in this area, and I now read these with a lot more interest.

We have come up with some pretty concerning revelations since we have been on this reference. Maybe the member for Ashford knew about the problem, but I certainly did not—well, I knew it was there, but I did not know it was as deep to this extent, particularly our very poor return-to-work ratios, which concern me greatly. When the committee calls in the witnesses, amid all the heaving and shoving that goes on, and the flicking of blame, they all realise there is a problem, but it is always somebody else's problem. As a committee, we had a good look at it in the cold, hard reality of a committee under parliamentary privilege and with a high quality of speakers who were brought in.

With regard to the other committee members, we have been well served with some pretty smart people, because a lot of us have some expertise before we come into this place. However, it is very upsetting and concerning to realise that, even after the parliament changed the so-called WorkCover regime in South Australia to fix up the problem, it is still the worst in Australia, and there are all sorts of excuses as to why that is the case.

I know the government went through a fair bit of angst passing that legislation through this place and earned the ire of the unions, as they are certainly concerned that they do not receive the best service. On the other side, businesses are concerned that they are paying far too much in premiums, so it is a bit of a double loser. When you realise what has been happening here in relation to the service providers who do the work in getting these people back to work, I believe it has basically been a monopoly.

There have not been any checks and balances; it has been a closed shop with jobs for the boys. When other people try to become service providers, they find themselves locked out. There have been no real checks and balances there and it has been very much a closed system. However, I think these service providers—and we will find out and hopefully reveal this—need to be performance tested. When you look at other states (and we have done that) our performance is pretty ordinary alongside theirs. This is a pretty poor area of our whole industrial, manufacturing and tertiary industries and businesses in South Australia.

It is a huge cost to business and a huge disincentive. When someone is trying to keep a business in South Australia, particularly when they are running offices in several states, and they see the WorkCover fees here are far in excess of any other state, it is just another reason why they relocate out of South Australia. We wonder why we are paying such a high level of WorkCover premiums because, as I said, it adds costs.

I think that the industry itself—and that is what it is, an industry—realises that there is a problem here. If this committee has done nothing else, it has revealed to all the stakeholders who have discussed matters with us that what is going on here is not acceptable. The industry has to be contestable, it has to provide service, it has to come under regular scrutiny and it cannot be just looking after an internal business of jobs for the boys.

I commend this report to the parliament. It can sometimes be a chore coming down from the country for these meetings, but I have no problem in doing that because I find it particularly interesting. I commend the chair and other members of the committee because it has been very interesting. This is one committee that I have been on that can actually achieve a fair bit and, in this instance, I certainly think it has.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:56): I would like to thank the member for Ashford for tabling this annual report. When people hear about a parliamentary committee into occupational safety, rehabilitation and compensation they typically think of large companies, large employers, and large workplaces. I would like to make a few comments about small employers and often people who are self-employed. I agree with a lot of the comments from the member for Schubert that things can be over-regulated and I believe that responsible self-regulation is generally the way to go.

However, sadly, I am minded of the fact that a constituent of mine near Melrose died eight days ago. He was working for himself on his own farm and was crushed by a tractor against a haystack. Also, Madam Speaker, a constituent of yours near Quorn had a very similar death, I think seven or eight months ago.

While I am certainly not a fan of over-regulation and endless rules, laws, checks and nonstop interference with people's businesses, the work of a committee like this and the importance of a report like this needs to be highlighted and appreciated. People can have very unfortunate accidents at work, whether they work for one of the world's largest companies, like BHP at Roxby Downs, or somewhere else in the world, or they can have an accident at work if they work for themselves and do not employ anybody else on their own property.

Madam Speaker, the fact that we have had, in our two electorates, two very sad deaths in the last several months—and, again, I am not in favour of over-regulation—enforces focus by everybody, whether they are self-employed or they employ thousands of people in this area, which is very important. Knowing the member for Ashford as I do, she would consider every single worker, whether it be a farm worker in country South Australia or a factory worker in the heart of Adelaide, to be equally important. I commend the report.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:59): I would like to thank everyone for their contribution. We have not finished our inquiry into return-to-work rates in South Australia and we will certainly be continuing on with that work. I would like to commend members for their input this morning.

Motion carried.