WORKCOVER CORPORATION

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:51): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister responsible for government business a question about WorkCover.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: We are now in the second year since the draconian WorkCover legislation was passed by the government. Many people have received redemptions; however, many people are now being seriously affected by this legislation. As an employer myself I keep getting this propaganda from your department, which frankly does little to assist employers when it comes to equity and WorkCover levy rates. My questions are:

1. Does the minister still claim that the Labor government 2008 draconian WorkCover legislation is fair to injured workers?

2. Did the government intend to see families seeking food hampers as a result of their anti-worker legislation?

3. Where is South Australia positioned as of today against other states re the percentage of WorkCover levy in the wages dollar?

4. What is the amount of money spent in the last year by WorkCover on television, radio and print of the insulting campaign 'Return to work, recover your life'?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (15:42): It is coming up (I think at the end of this year) to two years since the introduction of changes to the WorkCover scheme, and of course the honourable member would be well aware that the legislation requires a review to begin at the end of this year, and that will be an opportunity to examine its impact.

The honourable member asked: is it fair to injured workers? The changes to the WorkCover legislation, as the honourable member will well know, were to seek a balance between the needs of injured workers and to have a competitive workers compensation and rehabilitation scheme. When I say 'competitive', that is, competitive with other states so that the higher levels of levy rates we have had in this state did not act as a deterrent to employing workers in this state relative to those in other states. What we do know is that the previous WorkCover scheme was an expensive scheme to employers. It still has a higher cost than some other state schemes, and part of the reason for that—almost entirely the reason for that—is that it had a very poor return-to-work record.

The honourable member's last question is: how much has been spent on the return-to-work campaign? I am happy to get that information for him, but I want to stress the fact that what we know, categorically, is that the longer a worker is away from the workplace and the support mechanisms that apply there, the more likely that worker is to become depressed and suffer other mental illness.

It has long been recognised that the best thing we can do for workers is to get them back to work safely as soon as we possibly can—and that has been the focus of the advertising campaign—and everyone here should fully support that. It will be good for workers to get back to work as soon as they safely can, because we know it will reduce the level of depression and other mental illness associated with their coming to terms with being out of the workforce. It will be not only good for the worker but also good for the financial health of the scheme. That is simply what it was all about: we need a workers compensation scheme that is fair to injured workers, and the best way to achieve that is by ensuring, first, that we reduce injury in the workplace.

We need to do everything we can, and there are a number of measures in the occupational health and safety area to reduce the incidence of worker injury, but once workers are injured the best thing we can do is ensure that those workers return to work as quickly as they possibly can in a safe manner. I will examine the honourable member's question and see what information I can provide on the cost of it, but I defend the emphasis of the scheme in getting workers back to work as quickly as possible as that is clearly in their interests and in the interests of the WorkCover scheme generally.