HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WORKCOVER CORPORATION

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (14:34): My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. What is the estimated annual cost to WorkCover in lost levies as a result of a successful appeal to the Levy Review Panel by a major employer? WorkCover's definition of secondary disabilities cases was challenged in the Levy Review Panel by Skycity Pty Ltd. The panel upheld the appeal and reduced the levies by $100,000 per year. Industry sources advise us that the decision is likely to cost WorkCover $30 million a year, or $600 million in lost revenue over the period of unfunded liability calculations. The panel also criticised the performance of WorkCover in dealing with secondary disability issues.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (14:34): I thank the honourable member for his question. This matter was first raised by the opposition a month or so ago, as I recall, in a press release that was issued by the shadow spokesperson at that stage and, of course, my response at that stage was that the figures being plucked out of the air by the opposition were wildly inaccurate and ridiculous and, certainly, I stand by that comment today. This ruling has not impacted upon the WorkCover levy income and to suggest otherwise demonstrates really, I think, without being disrespectful, a misunderstanding—

Mr Williams: You'll be so, anyway!

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, I'm not that way, and you know that, Mitch—a misunderstanding of the WorkCover scheme. The opposition spokesperson detailed a little bit of the potted history and I will not go there but, certainly, in response to the points raised by the opposition in posing this question, it is critical to note that the panel actually did not uphold Skycity's appeal.

Of the 15 cases complained about by Skycity, the panel actually only decided two, and in both those cases confirmed WorkCover's decisions. In two other cases, the panel directed that a further investigation take place, and it was on one of these that the panel respectfully suggested that WorkCover should do some detective work in this matter. The 11 other cases were adjourned for further submissions from the parties. This could lead to any number of outcomes and it is utterly wrong to conclude that WorkCover lost its argument in these cases.

The point that I would make is that resolving disputes between WorkCover and employers is exactly what the panel's role is all about, and it is proper and expected that employers will win some matters and WorkCover will win others. The suggestion that the panel had criticisms of the standard of investigation in some of the matters was not a generalised finding. More importantly, I think, the context of the case was whether the 15 claims should be treated as secondary disabilities from the point of view of the employers' levies, and there was no suggestion by the panel that they had not been investigated adequately for the purpose of deciding whether workers were entitled to compensation. Again, I would reinforce the point that the ruling has not impacted upon WorkCover's levy income, and to suggest otherwise is not appropriate.

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