WORKCOVER

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:06): I seek leave to make an explanation before asking the acting Minister for WorkCover a question about WorkCover.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For a number of years, it has been well known that there has been an ongoing difference of opinion between employers, in particular, those currently self-insured or those seeking to be self-insured, and WorkCover and the current Labor government. This has culminated recently in a dispute process, ultimately determined by the WorkCover Ombudsman with a report, which was released in April this year. The WorkCover Ombudsman reviewed the process whereby self-insurers were being evaluated by WorkCover. He made a number of sweeping recommendations about improvement in that process, which the Ombudsman believed were clearly in the public interest.

In response the government and WorkCover have rejected completely the recommendations of the WorkCover Ombudsman and, according to Self Insurers of South Australia, have refused to even enter into any discussion with self-insurers about the recommendations of the WorkCover Ombudsman on this issue. In fact, in an article in InDaily in June this year, the WorkCover Ombudsman said:

'The existing evaluation [by WorkCover] is very much focused on systems, policies, procedures. It's a paper chase,' Mr Lines told InDaily. 'I think the public would like to see self-insured employers assessed on their performance in the actual reduction of injuries and reduction in the cost of claims and the length of time that people are off work. I think those things should be measured, and I can't see why WorkCover would balk at that.'

There are a number of other quotes from Mr Lines, the Ombudsman, expressing amazement at the position being adopted by WorkCover and supported by the Labor government, in particular, the minister. My questions are:

1. Does the minister support WorkCover's refusal to enter into discussions with Self-Insurers of South Australia and the WorkCover Ombudsman about the WorkCover Ombudsman's recommendations in this report and, if so, why?

2. Did the minister approve WorkCover's rejection of the WorkCover Ombudsman's recommendations prior to WorkCover formally responding to the WorkCover Ombudsman?

3. Has the minister or any member of his staff had any contact with the WorkCover Ombudsman on this issue and, if so, what views were expressed to the WorkCover Ombudsman?

4. Why are the Labor government and WorkCover intent on making it as difficult as possible for self-insurers to continue to operate?

5. Has WorkCover rejected any previous recommendations by the WorkCover Ombudsman and, if so, what were those recommendations and reasons why WorkCover rejected those WorkCover Ombudsman recommendations? Did the minister support WorkCover's rejection of those recommendations as well?

6. For each of the years since 2001, how many applications for self-insurance have been approved by WorkCover and how many have not been approved, and how many self-insurers have lost their self-insurance status for each of those years?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (15:09): I thank the member for his very important questions. Private self-insurers and crown agencies are generally evaluated by WorkCover every two or three years dependent upon their previous evaluation findings and terms of renewal. As a result of some expressions of dissatisfaction about the process from Self Insurers of South Australia, the WorkCover Ombudsman used his investigative powers under the act and undertook to review the issues.

The WorkCover Ombudsman provided WorkCover and Self Insurers of South Australia with a report and recommendations relating to the process for evaluating the performance of self-insured employers. WorkCover carefully considered the Ombudsman's report but elected not to adopt the recommendations. WorkCover advised that it does not believe that widespread issues exist with the evaluation process and that the complaints from the four self-insured employers were based on dissatisfaction with their evaluation outcomes rather than the process itself.

Furthermore, no consultation was undertaken with employee representatives who strongly opposed the recommendations. WorkCover and the WorkCover Ombudsman recently met to discuss this issue further, and it was agreed that the Ombudsman would take no further action; however, WorkCover would arrange for the Ombudsman to experience a self-insurance evaluation with one of the WorkCover evaluators. In regard to the other issues, they are quite specific and I will refer them to the minister.