WORKCOVER CORPORATION

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. A. Bressington:

That this council condemns:

1. The practices of the WorkCover Corporation in both the administration of the fund and the treatment of injured workers and the lack of support and rehabilitation for those workers;

2. The Premier for backing down from his call for a royal commission or similar wide-ranging inquiry into allegations of corruption by WorkCover in May 1997, whilst leader of the opposition; and

3. Other parties for allowing WorkCover to languish in dysfunction since that time.

(Continued from 21 November 2007. Page 1498.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (21:22): When the honourable member put this motion to the council in November last year, she probably did not imagine the debate about WorkCover we have had in the community and in the parliament over the last couple of days. Her motion is a timely one in that it condemns a range of parties—the WorkCover Corporation itself, the Premier, and other parties—for the neglect of this system over many years.

I am speaking to it today to focus in particular on that part of her motion which seeks to condemn the Premier, because I think the Premier does deserve condemnation for the way in which he has handled WorkCover and for the way in which he has pushed his amendments through the caucus of his party and against the better judgment of many of his members. I think he deserves to be condemned in particular because of the way in which he is seeking to strip worker entitlements whilst reducing the levy payable by employers.

In a nutshell, I think we can summarise the debate by saying that the workers should not be punished for the mistakes and poor practices of the government, the WorkCover Corporation and others over many years. The first thing we need to do in relation to WorkCover is to fix up the administration. I note the comments made by Dr Kevin Purse, in his report for SA Unions, where he says:

By any objective standard, South Australia's lacklustre workers' compensation performance is attributable to poor management by WorkCover and its former claims agents rather than the level of entitlements available to injured workers. The core problem has been the ongoing failure to manage the rehabilitation and return to work process. It also includes the failure to ensure that employers comply with their return to work obligations.

So that has to be the starting point. Do not start with blaming and penalising the victims and cutting their take-home pay; you have to look at administration. Kevin Purse goes on to say:

Attempts to blame injured workers for the scheme's shortcomings though are no more than a diversion from the real issues. It is all too easy to paper over management cracks by slashing workers' entitlements.

This has been explicitly acknowledged by senior executives of Victoria's WorkCover authority, who have frequently emphasised the importance of achieving substantial improvements in scheme performance without resorting to cuts in workers' payments or hikes in employer premiums.

We need to fix up administration. We also need to fix up the way that WorkCover deals with employees. We also need to focus our attention on the rehabilitation industry which feeds off the WorkCover system. I think that much of the debate is false in that it seeks to compare the South Australian scheme's performance with those in other states. I note that the industry commission described the artificial reductions in premiums by cuts to workers' entitlements as a form of 'invidious competition'. It is not a valid way of judging the difference between states.

We can also look at the Clayton review, which has cherry picked parts of the Victorian WorkCover scheme, in particular the reduction in entitlements after 13 weeks and the abolition of entitlements after two years—two of the things that the Premier said we will introduce in South Australia. They have cherry picked those parts but they have not recommended the safety net that exists in Victoria of common law rights that those workers have in order to pursue compensation. It is also unfortunate that this debate has focused only on underfunded liability as the WorkCover problem. I think that that gives a misleading picture of WorkCover's financial position.

As I said before, I think it is inappropriate to punish workers. We have to remember that the vast majority of injured workers want to return to work; they do not voluntarily stay injured or sick. The problem with the changes that were announced today is that they will punish those who have been most badly injured, those for whom it will be most difficult to get back to work and thereby get off benefits.

Kevin Purse argues that reductions in employer premiums should be supported only on the basis of better workplace health and safety performance and improved return to work outcomes. We would all love employers to not have to pay such high premiums, but the way to achieve that is to have fewer injuries at work and to have better return to work rates; that is the way to reduce premiums. You do not just unilaterally reduce them and pay for it by cutting worker entitlements.

We have to ask ourselves why the Labor Party is doing this. The Labor Party is turning its back on workers and working families. It has lost touch with working families, and I think that this is a shameful day for that party.

The Greens will be fully supporting SA Union's campaign against these so-called WorkCover reforms. It seems that the Premier is trying to make a virtue of this toughness. He is quoted in this morning's paper as saying:

Ultimately, being in government is making tough decisions...Obviously there's going to be controversy about this, there always is.

The Premier has completely lost sight of the human element of this WorkCover debacle, the injured workers who have families to feed and who have a desire to return to work and, yet, will be punished because of the government's desire to cut premiums for the bosses.

This issue should not be rushed through parliament. We have been told that it will be introduced tomorrow. I think we need a calm and thorough debate—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Hear, hear!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In fact, I hear the Leader of the Opposition saying 'hear, hear!' I am keen to talk to him and to my cross bench colleagues. Maybe we can find a way of giving this bill proper scrutiny, perhaps outside the regular committee process. Maybe we need a separate process to deal with this bill. I was interested to hear Janet Giles of SA Unions refer to this whole business on radio this morning and say:

I think they've got to think about what they were elected on, the platform that they were elected on as a Labor government. A Labor government is meant to stand up for the rights of workers. Injured workers probably are the more vulnerable ones. There's recommendations here that cut the entitlements of injured workers or cut their take-home pay and at the same time give a levy reduction to employers. So, its not about the unfunded liability at this stage, I reckon: it's about providing a commitment that maybe someone made to business that they were going to get a lower levy. If you reduce the levy, it blows out.

I also wanted to refer in conclusion to the words of the secretary of the AMWU, John Camillo, who said:

We are prepared to help the state government in regards to reducing it—

referring to the unfunded liability—

but we're not prepared to help the government in hurting these workers because they have an injury through no fault of their own. No worker goes to work to say, 'I'm going to cause myself an injury; I'm going to go to work today to get killed'. Every worker goes to work to bring money home for their families, and when they have an injury through no fault of their own and then get told by the Labor government, 'We're going to move legislation, that after 13 weeks we're going to take 20 per cent of your wage'. You know, its okay maybe if you're getting $2,000 or $1,000 a week, but that type of work, but not many injuries occur in those high paid areas; it is low income. Those workers who work on production lines, they have the injuries, they're going to be suffering. We're talking about cleaners, production workers, and so on.

The government has everyone offside with this announcement. It is poorly thought through, and I would like to hope that we in the Legislative Council will give this bill proper scrutiny. We know it will not get scrutiny in the lower house, apart from very few individuals, such as the member for Mitchell, who has been on the record today condemning this legislation. I am hoping that in the upper house here we will do a more thorough job and pick this legislation to pieces bit by bit and make sure the rights of injured workers are paramount in our thoughts. This is a shameful day for Labor, and I will be doing my best to help it see the light and turn around this destructive and negative legislation.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.D. Lawson.