WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.D. Lawson:

That the regulations under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 concerning Claims and Registration—Discontinuance Fee, made on 26 March 2009 and laid on the table of this council on 7 April 2009, be disallowed.

(Continued from 17 June 2009. Page 2666.)

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (17:15): On 17 June this year I sought leave to conclude my remarks on this motion which seeks the disallowance of regulations made under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The particular regulations concern the discontinuance fee that is to be payable by employers who leave the WorkCover system and seek to be registered as self-insurers under the act.

On that occasion I outlined to the council the hardship that these altogether extortionate discontinuance fees will cause to South Australian businesses and also to the fact that the regulation reflects a hostility on the part of the WorkCover Corporation and, I suggest, the government to those employers who seek self-insurer status. This hostility is altogether inexplicable because the performance of the self-insured employers in terms of return to work and length of disability is markedly better than that of the WorkCover Corporation itself. However, WorkCover has this hostility that is reflected in a measure designed to keep employers who would be very good self-insurers from gaining that status.

The hostility of the WorkCover Corporation to self-insurers can be illustrated by a couple of other points that have been drawn to my attention, although not strictly related to the question of the discontinuance fees. For example, the self-insurer annual levies payable to WorkCover have increased by 28 per cent, and a large part of that increase is based solely on an unreasonable demand that self-insurers pay 19 per cent of the costs of a project being conducted by WorkCover to replace its IT system, a project called Project Harry. Self-insurers do not use that system and will otherwise derive absolutely no benefit from the system, yet the increase in annual fees is requiring them to pay for it. As the Self Insurers of South Australia claim, this is nothing short of highway robbery.

Another example of the hostility of WorkCover to the self-insurers is the massive hike in the prescribed cost of applying for self-insurance. WorkCover is proposing to increase the components of the application fee structure by 100 per cent and, in the case of one of the components, 300 per cent. The effect is to roughly double the application fee. WorkCover has been asked by the Self Insurers of South Australia to justify the figure but it has failed to do so.

I also place on record some recent figures which show that the hostility of WorkCover to the self-insurers is misplaced. It has come to my attention that the latest figures show that the proportion of the total South Australian workers compensation liabilities carried by self-insurers has dropped to its lowest ever level, and the self-insurers now account for 19.6 per cent of total liabilities, and the insured scheme carries 80.4 per cent of the insured liabilities. Given the fact that the self-insurers cover 36 per cent of the scheme by remuneration, that is clear evidence that self-insurers are performing better in terms both of injury prevention and return to work.

The fee contained in the regulations is highly complex, and I will not seek to take members through it, but members will have been provided with information that indicates its effect, and I seek contributions from members and their support for the passage of this disallowance motion, which would have the effect of restoring the status quo ante—namely, the old discontinuance fees, even though they themselves were high, will be restored. I seek the support of members for this disallowance motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.