EDUCATION AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (14:19): My question is to the Minister for Education and Child Development. Can the minister confirm that South Australia has more staff within the education department's health and safety unit compared to, say, its Victorian equivalent and, in addition, can the minister provide some comparative information on how the department is tracking in relation to the number of mental stress claims lodged?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (14:19): I thank the member for Florey for this question and commend her on how she always seeks accurate information before releasing facts to the public. On Monday, a media release from the Marshall Liberal opposition made a number of assertions about stress claims in the education department. It claimed Victoria's health and safety unit has five times less staff than DECD.

That is correct. DECD's health and safety unit employs 29 injury management staff. This is higher than the Victorian equivalent because Victoria outsources this service. We employ more staff and, as a self-insurer, all claims are managed in-house. The member for Unley's media release states that, since 2010, there were 3,284 separate claims with 52 per cent for mental stress.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Goyder is called to order.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: In actual fact, there were 544 fewer claims than were stated in this media release, and the collective cost for stress claims was $10.3 million less. The member for Unley asserted that after 12 years of Labor we have fallen behind on this front. Let me outline some comparisons. In 2011-12 there were 173 mental stress claims. This compares to 244 in 2002-03—40 per cent more mental stress claims in 2002-03. If we remove the number of non-teaching staff from the 174 claims, it leaves us with 112 teachers. Back in 2002-03, the after-effects from eight years of Liberal mismanagement saw 171 claims made by teachers. This is 53 per cent higher.

Mr PISONI: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Education will be seated.

Mr PISONI: It is clearly debate as to the previous government's type of management and handling of a particular department. It is clearly debate, sir.

The SPEAKER: It is within the scope of the question, and it is germane.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you, sir. This is 53 per cent higher. So, to borrow the words from the Liberal media release, 'It's a staggering statistic.' The frequency rate within the department as reported in the annual report for new psychological injuries is also in decline. The opposition release states that after 12 years of Labor we have fallen well behind. If they think the 2002 retention rate of 69.5 per cent is an improvement on today's figures of 89 per cent, then I would say the Liberal priorities are in the wrong place.

Let's not forget the 45 schools closed outright by the Liberals when they were last in office. Perhaps the member for Adelaide would not object if the Liberals closed Sturt Street Community School for a second time. If staff aren't already distressed by his $76,000 worth of FOI requests, the thought of having to answer to someone who can utter these untruths is enough to put any decent person in stress.

The SPEAKER: The member for Davenport rose, but I waited for him to make an utterance.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I said 'Point of order' twice, sir.

The SPEAKER: I am sorry; I didn't hear you.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Is the minister finished, otherwise a point of order—

The SPEAKER: Is the minister finished?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Yes.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The minister is finished and I call the member for Unley to order. Does the member for MacKillop have a supplementary?

Mr WILLIAMS: No, sir, I am seeking a point of clarification from your ruling of a moment ago. I believe you said that the answer was not debate because it was within the scope of the question. Does that mean that if somebody asks a question which invites debate, it is therefore parliamentary or not unruly for them to debate the answer? If that's the case, sir, I don't know why we have standing orders at all.

The SPEAKER: Thank you for that hypothetical observation.

Mr PISONI: Supplementary, sir, or are you still dealing with the point of order?

The SPEAKER: The question asked for a comparison, and a comparison was received. Supplementary from the member for Unley.