Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time WorkCover Corporation WORKCOVER CORPORATION The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON Legislative Council WORKCOVER CORPORATION The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (15:03): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations a question about WorkCover practice. Leave granted. The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON Legislative Council The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Members will recall that last year in the WorkCover debate I raised the issue of the scheme critical list—a list that was apparently provided to magistrates in the tribunal. Names on the list were deemed significant, obviously. Basically, they would find it difficult to settle these cases because of the cost that could be incurred by the WorkCover Corporation. During my speech I mentioned that a person, who had previously worked for WorkCover, had said that the term 'scheme critical' had now changed to 'significant case'. Last week I was provided with a WorkCover document from a file that was stamped '107B', which is the definition of a significant case. The definition says: Where a decision is made by the courts or tribunal that affects the management of the scheme and creates a fundamental risk to its viability, or where significant potential exists for such a decision to result, the matter is to be deemed a significant case. The corporation will endeavour to preserve the parliament's intention with regard to the application of the act. As a result, the corporation assumes full responsibility for that dispute and any other associated dispute, together with the costs thereof, until finalised. This definition lays out quite clearly that decisions are being made about whether a case is a significant case or scheme critical before the evidence is even heard before the tribunal. I have a letter from the previous minister, the Hon. Michael Wright, stating that in fact the scheme critical list used to be passed on to the tribunal, but to his knowledge, as of this letter dated 2004, it no longer occurs. This document was found in a file heading to the WorkCover Tribunal, which no doubt would have seen the definition front up in the file. My questions to the minister are: 1.	Who is authorised to make a determination that a case is either scheme critical or a significant case before any evidence has been heard before the tribunal? 2.	When will the minister provide to the parliament the number of cases determined to be either scheme critical or a significant case throughout the past 20 years or since its inception? What has been the cost of litigating these cases? 3.	Who by name and title was the architect behind the scheme critical list and significant cases list, and when was this practice approved by the minister, the parliament or the WorkCover Corporation in relation to any legislation passed in this place? 4.	What remedy will the minister provide for those scheme critical or significant cases, especially where documents have been lost or removed from files to justify a scheme critical determination: in other words, 'no evidence, no case' is the final determination? 5.	Finally, when will the minister refer this matter to the Anti-corruption Branch as a matter of great public interest? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:07): I will refer those questions to the Minister for Industrial Relations in another place and bring back a reply.