WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (20:18): I move:

That the general regulations under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 concerning revocation of regulations, made on 24 June 2010 and laid on the table of this council on 29 June 2010, be disallowed.

This motion has a long history, and I do not intend to speak at length repeating the arguments for the motion. The arguments have been well and truly heard, other than perhaps in the corridors of power of this government and WorkCover management. On two separate occasions, the first in November 2009 prior to the last state election, the Legislative Council, by an overwhelming majority, voted to disallow the WorkCover regulations which sought to introduce an extraordinarily large increase in fees for those companies that wanted to self-insure in South Australia.

We then had the ensuing state election and in July 2010—so, under the current parliamentary composition since the state election—all members in this chamber voted again on this issue, and I think all members other than government members voted again on the substance of this argument to disallow the regulations.

This chamber has spoken clearly to the government and to WorkCover management on two separate occasions. The arguments are exactly the same. However, on this occasion, what the government and WorkCover have sought to do is rewrite all the WorkCover regulations, and they have incorporated in that rewrite this particular regulation again, which seeks the massive increase in fees for those companies that wish to self-insure.

I have therefore given notice to disallow the regulations consistent with the two previous decisions of this chamber. In doing so, I indicate to the government and to WorkCover management that it is the intent to overturn only the regulations that relate to discontinuance or exit fees for self-insurers. However, as has been discussed before, the Legislative Council has only one option: it can either accept or reject all the regulations that have been made.

The options for the government are that, if this is rejected, the government can come back with just the complete rewrite of regulations minus the bit with the discontinuance fees; or, of course, if it wanted to create difficulties for itself, it could rewrite all the regulations again if this one were dismissed.

The sensible course of action, from the point of view of WorkCover management and the government, would be to separate the arguments; that is, this council is not seeking to disallow the overwhelming majority of the WorkCover regulations: it is only seeking to assert its position in relation to an issue on which it has clearly put its view to the government and to WorkCover management on two previous occasions. I think everyone in the industry following this particular debate is aware of and has heard the position other than, obviously, the government and WorkCover management.

As I indicated, I do not propose to repeat all the arguments: they are exactly the same as they were when the council voted in November 2009. More particularly, they are exactly the same as they were just a few months ago, in July 2010, when the Legislative Council voted to disallow the regulations. I seek members' support for the disallowance again of these regulations.

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