Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Employer Payments) Amendment Bill WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION (EMPLOYER PAYMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL Committee Stage Committee Stage In committee. Clause 1. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister responded at the second reading to a significant number of questions that I and I think other members put on the record during the second reading debate in relation to the bill. In particular, the minister has now put on the record assurances that were given to one industry group—the Ai Group—that had been previously given privately and are now on the public record as assurances from the minister and obviously WorkCover, as well. Certainly my advice from the Ai Group is that, having received those assurances, it is comfortable now with the bill before the house. I have also been contacted by a brief email message from the Motor Trade Association. It had raised a number of questions and I referred to some of them in the second reading. I am advised that the association had a further discussion yesterday with WorkCover representatives, and the email message to me indicates that it is satisfied with the assurances. It stated: ...and believe our concerns will be addressed adequately in the responses during the second reading and committee stages. So the Motor Trade Association has indicated that, by and large, it has been satisfied by the assurances that it has been given. I also indicate that I met yesterday afternoon with representatives from the Master Builders Association and they raised a further specific question with me which I will place on the record now if the minister is prepared to take it on notice and bring back to the committee WorkCover's considered response to the Master Builders Association's question. I also indicate that, for the benefit of the committee, given the responses that have been outlined by the minister on behalf of WorkCover, at this stage the Liberal Party does not propose to move ahead with any amendments. In the second reading we did flag that, subject to the minister's responses, we may well look at drafting possible amendments. This morning we were in discussion with parliamentary counsel about one possible amendment that had been raised with us by one industry association but, on advice from parliamentary counsel, we are satisfied that the issue is appropriately handled in the current government draft of the bill. The opposition's understanding is that the only amendment the committee will face tomorrow or Thursday when we conclude debate on the bill (which is within the time frame the government wishes) is the amendment being proposed by the Hon. Mr Hood. For the benefit of members and the minister, I indicate that it is the Liberal Party's position at this stage that when we get to that amendment we will support it, or some version thereof. If the government believes it could be drafted in a better fashion whilst achieving the same purpose, we would be prepared to consider that, but at this stage we are indicating our willingness to support the principle behind it when we come to that amendment. The issue that was raised with us only yesterday afternoon by the Master Builders Association is one that arose between that association and WorkCover as a result of the presentation to the master builders by WorkCover on Wednesday 23 November. I have a copy of an email from a Master Builders Association officer to a WorkCover officer on Thursday 24 November (last Thursday afternoon), which says: Thank you very much to Gael for coming in to present to our Commercial Contractors Meeting yesterday. Gael said that we would be able to have a copy of the presentation. Also, a question was raised, and Gael needed to take it on notice. The question asked was: Was there a cap on premium discounts, and if so, what would be the cap? If not, how low could premiums be discounted? Another question raised was on the experience based percentage to be used in the calculation of premiums. Gael suggested that this would be a sliding scale based on the amount of premiums and remuneration that a company paid. One figure quoted was 10% for a company paying $20,000 premium, and $300,000 remuneration, up to 40% for the largest company. If this is correct, committee members in discussion afterward could not see benefits for those that had premiums in the low end of the bracket, as it appears that they would only be able to gain discount for good performance based on a 10% experience factor. Their understanding of this is that the calculation would only take into account $2000, of an annual $20,000 premium payable, which would provide minimal incentive discounts. Could we please receive further advice and guidance on the exact percentages and sliding scales, as well as the maximum discount that would apply for a business? This may help to clear matters up for our members. Currently, their advise is that potential increases seem to create a larger cost impost for construction businesses, with minor discounts available. I have looked up the FAQ's— which is obviously a facility provided on the WorkCover website— and the position paper on the WorkCover website and must admit I cannot find answers to the above questions. Once again, many thanks to Gael for giving up her time to address the committee. The WorkCover response to that email to the MBA executive officer was as follows: As you are no doubt already aware, the Legislation around the proposed approach to Employer Payments is currently before Parliament. It has now been agreed to take up the optional sitting week next week, which in turn will extend our team's involvement. I'm sure you'll appreciate that this whole process requires significant resources from our business group and is therefore taking top priority for all involved. However, I have referred your email and questions to the appropriate people in our team, and they have undertaken to get a response to you within a week after Parliament rises for the year, ie by COB Friday 9^th December. I look forward to providing you with further information on this matter in due course. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require further clarification. That is obviously wholly unsatisfactory to that industry group, the Master Builders Association. They are not a Johnny-come-lately organisation; they do represent significant construction-based businesses in South Australia. It is an entirely reasonable question that has been put, and I do not think it is satisfactory to say, 'Look, we will give you the answer after the bill has gone through parliament.' On their behalf, I ask the question this afternoon and seek the minister's response before we have to conclude debate on the bill, obviously before Thursday of this week. The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Mr Chairman, I thank the Hon. Mr Lucas for putting that further question on the record, and we will endeavour to get a response for him. Progress reported; committee to sit again.