WORKCOVER CORPORATION (GOVERNANCE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 October 2013.)

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:59): I want to please the whips at this late hour in the sitting week, so I will be brief, but I do want to put on the public record a few issues about WorkCover. I did receive yesterday, like other honourable members I am sure, a letter from the Attorney-General basically saying:

This bill represents an important step in the Government's strategy to reform the WorkCover Scheme. The Governance Bill leads the way to the establishment of a more accountable, commercially focussed and business oriented WorkCover Board, and in conjunction with the recently strengthened WorkCover Charter, will also provide the Government with greater oversight and control over WorkCover.

The period of appointment for all but one of the current WorkCover board members expires on 31 October 2013 and it is my desire to appoint the new board using the appointment criteria laid out in this bill. As such, I want to bring the WorkCover Corporation (Governance) Amendment Bill 2013 on for debate and passed tomorrow.

And that is what we are doing.

I understand that the government has the support of the opposition, but I just want to place on the record that I hope that we do have a board that is more accountable and that is commercially focused and business orientated. I had extreme concerns about the appointment of some people on the previous board. To me, one fairly high profile person in particular had a conflict of interest when they were able to be on the board and also be involved in working as the sole case manager company for some time. I cannot understand why the government ever allowed those sorts of situations to occur. I trust that, from the Attorney-General's letter, that will not be happening in the future when they appoint people to the board.

Having said that, this is a governance bill. I have received some lobbying, at one stage from Business SA, who apparently now have advised my colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood that, after having some early concern, they now support this bill. The Self Insurers of South Australia, who I do not think get enough support or notice taken of them from the government, would have liked this bill to address broader governance issues and they say it has flaws.

Raising one point from the Self Insurers of South Australia: does the government have on the board now or intend to add to the board, firstly, people with at least 10 years' legal experience; secondly, a fellow of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia; thirdly, a person with at least 10 years' experience in personal injury insurance; and, fourthly, a certified practising accountant with over 10 years' experience? Secondly, if not, what experience does the government believe is important to have on the board in the alternative?

I think they are fair and reasonable questions from the Self Insurers, particularly when you see that we have the highest WorkCover levies in Australia. I declare that my family and I pay WorkCover levies and they are astronomical. When you add up per hour what that adds to the cost of employment, it is no wonder that youth unemployment in particular is high in this state. It costs several dollars an hour for a farm employee with respect to WorkCover.

Something has to change. We have been promised changes by this government, but we have not seen them. We have seen blowout after blowout when it comes to the unfunded liability. I understand that, from the most recent report, the WorkCover unfunded liability is about $1.3 billion. We also have one of the worst return-to-work rates in the nation.

Frankly, I have to say that it was a Labor government that brought in WorkCover—and I wish I did not have to say this, but, unfortunately, it has been an absolutely dismal failure. I for one cannot understand why we even keep WorkCover. I personally believe that, if we get our legislation right to protect workers, etc., which should be the job of the parliament, then why should employers not be able to go out like we used to do and bid for work cover insurance at the same time as we bid for our insurance—which is not cheap?

I know the President and others with union-related backgrounds do not like that, and there is some ideology in the Labor Party—through the Wright family, I believe—that goes right back, that WorkCover is the bees knees, but it has been an absolutely dismal failure. I would love to see a government come in and make the laws—and we will support the laws in the parliament to protect the workers, but give us a chance to get cheaper work cover levies. I do not think, contrary to what I heard recently from the government, that we will be seeing a reduction in levies in the near future.

I just want to finish with a couple of other points. First, given this legislative change to WorkCover and given where we are in the parliamentary cycle, I gather it is unlikely that any other bill will be brought in by the government. Has the government drafted another bill, given that it has been in deep consultation on the WorkCover improvement project for some time, or is this all we are going to see from the government when it comes to WorkCover between now and the next election?

Whenever you speak to employers now, next to utility costs WorkCover is one of the big concerns they have about employing people. Families are hurting and businesses are hurting when it comes to utility costs, red tape and green tape—and then they tell me about the cost of WorkCover. I hope that it is an election issue because it is a silent sleeper for a lot of people at the moment. The media does not seem to report the real facts about WorkCover. However, for the last 12 years of WorkCover under this government I am sorry to say that I would give them a rating of F, for failure.

What happened to the reopening and redemptions to reduce the unfunded liability and help injured workers get off the system? What happened to reducing WorkCover levies for employers, noting the leaked memo on government plans to the end of this year in the election campaign? There was no mention of WorkCover there that I can recall. Will the government announce a reduction in WorkCover levies between now and March? I would like to know, and a lot of other employers would as well.

As I said earlier, the WorkCover annual report just tabled shows that the unfunded liability is over $1.3 billion, even though the funding ratio has improved. I ask the government: what is the projected future, all things being equal, for the unfunded liability into the forward estimates? Is the government at all concerned about the unfunded liability? With those remarks, you can gather that I am not impressed with WorkCover one iota. I hope that whoever wins government at the next election will take WorkCover by the horns and sort it out properly.

I mentioned earlier that the Hon. Graham Ingerson was in the gallery, and I must say that when he was in charge of WorkCover there was real improvement. In fact, the unfunded WorkCover liability when he was the minister in charge was, in real terms, next to nothing—'diddly squat' I would describe it—compared with what has happened since. We did not even get annual reports tabled when the Hon. Michael Wright was the minister for WorkCover for a couple of years. It is an absolute disgrace. I hope that things sort themselves out. We are only two votes and we do not have the numbers, so this bill is going through—but not without a whack from us to the government on the appalling record and history of WorkCover.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.