HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-02-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Grievance Debate

WORKCOVER CORPORATION

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (15:20): What an auspicious day for the Labor Party in South Australia. After at least 4½ years of denial, the Labor Party comes into this place, about to slash the benefits to injured workers, and blames everyone but itself, its own incompetence and its own mismanagement. Today, the Labor Party would have the people of South Australia believe that; and I think that the Treasurer said that it was the parliament's fault. Well, let me just remind the Treasurer how the parliament got it wrong. Back in 1995, when the then Liberal government was intending to change the legislation to lower the benefits to 85 per cent of average weekly earnings after six months, both the Treasurer and the Premier rallied against it. They said, 'We will have poverty in the streets. We will be turfing the working men and women of South Australia onto the commonwealth pension scheme.' That is what they said then.

The working men and women of South Australia need to know that this government is today proposing something more draconian than that: it is reducing to 80 per cent (that happens to be 5 per cent below 85 per cent) after 13 weeks. That happens to be about half of what the proposal was back then. The interesting thing is that the Treasurer claimed today that the WorkCover scheme is not functioning; that it is impossible for it to work under the current legislative regime. What happens to all those industries, all those businesses and all those working men and women who happen to be covered under self-insured businesses?

Ms Chapman: Like at The Advertiser.

Mr WILLIAMS: Like at The Advertiser—all those people who are covered by employers who manage their own scheme as self-insured? I advise members that 36 per cent of the working men and women in this state work outside WorkCover; they work for self-insured employers—36 per cent. They happen to operate under the exact same legislation as those who operate within the WorkCover scheme—the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986. The exact same act applies to those employers as it applies to all those employers who come under WorkCover. One has to ask the question: where is the problem?

Ms Chapman: What is the difference?

Mr WILLIAMS: What is the difference? Where is the problem? How can the Treasurer claim that the problem is with the legislation when one group—the self-insured—can operate with that legislation, yet WorkCover cannot. That is the nub of the problem. It is at least 4½ years of denial; and I am reading the document that was leaked out of the caucus yesterday and the notes that were given to the backbenchers who, I understand, were not very happy with what they have been told. All the points that have been made here are points which I have been raising in this house and about which I asked the current minister at least 2½ years ago. I know that my predecessor in the role as the shadow spokesman for industrial relations some years ago asked similar questions about the return to work rates and the difference in the average levy rate in South Australia.

What has happened is that this government has been in denial for so long and it has just allowed this problem to grow, when the reality is that it was the Minister for Industrial Relations who gave the instructions to WorkCover that have caused most of the problems. It is this Minister for Industrial Relations who had WorkCover operating, and we have heard from the Treasurer today how wonderful the current CEO is.

WorkCover operated for about 12 months without a CEO, and the minister said, 'That's not a problem, it's all operating hunky-dory, it's all really good down there at WorkCover.' I am really looking forward to hearing what some of the backbenchers in the Labor ranks have to say about this. I wonder what the member for Florey will say. I am really looking forward to a contribution from the member for Reynell; and I am really looking forward to hearing what the member for Taylor will say, because she quite often takes me to task and tells the house that I am anti-unionist and anti-worker. I am looking forward to a contribution from the member for Taylor and other backbenchers on the government side of the house.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT