Parliamentary Committees

STATUTORY AUTHORITIES REVIEW COMMITTEE: ANNUAL REPORT 2010-11

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo:

That the report of the committee, 2010-11, be noted.

(Continued from 19 October 2011.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:14): I rise to support the motion that the report of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee be noted. In speaking just briefly to this motion, I want to acknowledge the work of the hardworking members of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee. It has met on a good number of occasions in the last 12 months and I think, again, has justified its existence and the money the taxpayers pay to the members for the work on that committee.

I think we are to be joined by a new member, the Hon. Mr Gazzola—the newly-wealthy Hon. Mr Gazzola; the only $200,000 backbencher in the parliament. We welcome his ascension (I think is the right word) to the Statutory Authorities Review Committee. After many years of trying to get onto the Statutory Authorities Review Committee he has finally made it and we welcome his appointment.

He will find that it is a hardworking committee. For the past 12 months the main work of the committee has been the review of the Teachers Registration Board, and it has commenced work on the Environment Protection Authority. In particular, in relation to the TRB inquiry, we welcome the fact that it was a unanimous report. The committee, in its history, has occasionally had differing views. The WorkCover inquiry, I think, was one example where the government members on that committee did not agree with the majority recommendations.

I note, advisedly, that one of those recommendations was that the monopoly position of a single claims manager (EML) was unsustainable, uncompetitive and counterproductive to a healthy WorkCover or workers compensation system. The government members on that committee vehemently opposed that recommendation, but we now see, perhaps two years later, that the government has finally and belatedly come to the view of the majority of the members of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee in relation to that issue.

Sometimes we have to understand that partisanship will enter parliamentary committees. Certainly, I am not averse to a bit of partisanship on occasions. I am no shrinking violet when it comes to an appropriate role for parliamentary committees. It does not always mean that we have to hold hands and sing Kumbaya on every issue.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Ms Zollo says she would not want to hold my hand and I must say, on that issue, we are bipartisan. I do not have the view that these committees must always have unanimous views for them to be effective. On occasions we can have vigorous differences of opinion. We welcome the fact that the government, as I said, I think too late, has come to realise that the view it adopted at the time of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee inquiry was wrong. It was costly to the WorkCover scheme and we are now going to see a movement to a system where there will be some competition for EML if it continues—and it may well be one that continues.

The recommendation of the majority of the committee was that there be two or three claims providers in order to provide some competition. A lot of concern has been expressed about the operations of the monopoly claims manager. I spoke just previously about the Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Committee, and some members who are on the Statutory Authorities Review Committee will be stunned to know that we took evidence from SA Unions and one Ms Janet Giles, in particular, a previous board member of WorkCover, who moved down the path of monopoly supplier for a claims manager and who now admits that it was wrong, that it had not worked and that there needed to be change. Again, we welcome that realisation of the accuracy, I think, of the assessment that was made by the majority of members of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee.

There will be occasions when there are differing views and there is nothing wrong with that, but, on the Teachers Registration Board, there was a unanimous view in terms of the recommendations; there was enormous frustration about the inadequate cooperation with the committee by a leading parent body (SAASSO) in South Australia. I was disappointed in that, having had almost a decade as a shadow minister and minister for education. I had worked effectively with SAASSO as an organisation and, during that period, it had been the pre-eminent parent organisation in South Australia. It was thoroughly professional in terms of its representation of parents, in particular, parents of school councils, as they were called in the good old days; they are now governing councils. It was a thoroughly professional body that was a joy to work with, whether I was the shadow minister or whether I was the minister.

So, I was enormously disappointed to see the lack of cooperation the Statutory Authorities Review Committee had from that particular body during the inquiry on the Teachers Registration Board. Some unanimous recommendations were made, and we await the minister's response in relation to those recommendations.

I rarely do it, but with respect to that inquiry, I want to single out the work of the research officer to the committee, Lisa Baxter. She has a legal background, which was useful. She was thoroughly professional in terms of the advice she provided to the committee on some technical and difficult concepts. She worked hard throughout the duration of the committee, and she drafted substantially the report and the recommendations. She might have been a touch frustrated on occasions about our discussions about her recommendations and their final drafting, but she was thoroughly professional in her dealings with the members of the committee and the committee as a whole. I did want to take the opportunity this afternoon to acknowledge publicly the work of Lisa Baxter on the Statutory Authorities Review Committee. With that, I indicate my support for the motion.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (17:22): I thank the Hon. Rob Lucas for his indication of support for the noting of our annual report. I also thank the other members of the committee, as I have done previously, the Hon. Ann Bressington and the Hon. Terry Stephens. I congratulate the Hon. Ian Hunter, who has now left our committee on his elevation to becoming a minister in this place, and I welcome our new member, as we meet tomorrow morning, the Hon. John Gazzola.

The honourable member made mention, in particular, of the WorkCover inquiry which, from memory, I think was outside this reporting period. Nonetheless, I think he said that there were two reports. I think that, in the end, there were three reports because the Hon. Ann Bressington also had some comments to make.

Also, if my memory serves me correctly, by the time I came to rounding up or noting the report, the government may well have said that it was holding a review into WorkCover—but I am going only on my recollection because I do not have the debate in front of me. I just wanted to make a quick response to some of the honourable member's comments. In relation to the TRB, I believe we still have the TRB report on the Notice Paper to be noted, and that will occur in due course.

I would certainly like to add my agreement to the comments the honourable member made in relation to our staff, in particular, our research assistant, Miss Lisa Baxter.

Motion carried.