HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-03-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION: ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (16:14): I move:

That the 14th report of the committee, entitled Annual Report 2011-12, be noted.

I just want to affirm, for the other committees that are here, that this is the last report I am putting forward today. The committee has an important role in investigating matters relating to the administration of the state's occupational health, safety, rehabilitation and compensation legislation and other legislation affecting these matters, including the performance of SafeWork SA and WorkCover. The annual report covers two financial years, namely, 2010-11 and 2011-12.

The Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Committee differs substantially in operation to other standing committees. While a number of factors are identical to all other standing committees of parliament, the key difference with this committee is that members are not remunerated. Thus, the members' dedication to the work of the committee is noteworthy.

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. S.W. KEY: That's right. The committee tends to be issue focused, and its level of activity fluctuates depending on the existence of topical matters. The members are committed to the important work of the committee and have applied themselves diligently in the previous two years. The committee has worked well and collectively, and each member has contributed a significant amount of time for a very important cause. Each can feel proud of his or her efforts (although I must say that I am the only 'her' on the committee).

The Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Committee met on 19 occasions between July 2010 and June 2012, undertaking a single in-depth inquiry into vocational rehabilitation and return to work. The committee also invited the Hon. Susan Ryan AO to make a presentation on labour participation of mature age workers. While the committee has not undertaken a formal inquiry into this issue, it did undertake research and notes the growing public interest in the area.

The committee notes that the South Australian return-to-work rates of injured workers has consistently been lower than the national average for the past 14 years. In fact, it is currently the lowest in the nation, yet the frequency of use of expensive vocational rehabilitation is exceptionally high and on the increase. Such a combination of factors continues to have a negative impact on WorkCover's unfunded liability and the overall performance of the scheme, not to mention on the lives of those workers who have not returned to work.

Following the reforms—I probably would not call them reforms, but changes—in the 2008 legislation, this state's workers compensation scheme has been constantly in the spotlight. Several independent reviews have been conducted, and it is clear that the South Australian return-to-work rate is significant to all the stakeholders. The committee recognises this significance, and the aim of its inquiry was to discover reasons for the current rate and ways to improve it.

The committee noted that there is no consistent way of measuring return to work in Australia, which is of serious concern. Another problem is that rehabilitation is driven by claims management imperatives rather than a system that generally assists injured workers and employers. Evidence was presented to the committee in relation to the claims-related costs, some of which it asserted are inappropriately allocated to rehabilitation. While rehabilitation should deliver value for money, the evidence indicates that this is not being achieved, and the system needs substantial reform.

In May 2012 the Age Discrimination Commissioner, the Hon. Susan Ryan, was invited to make a presentation to the committee while she was in Adelaide. The commissioner provided the committee with an overview of what is occurring at a national level to address structural barriers for mature age workers remaining in the workforce. It may be of some surprise to my parliamentary colleagues to learn that a mature age worker is anyone over the age of 45—

Ms Bedford: 45 is the new 60!

The Hon. S.W. KEY: The member for Florey says that 45 is the new 60; very interesting—of which South Australia has the highest concentration. The commissioner informed the committee that the federal government is working towards removing barriers so that people can continue to work into their 70s and beyond.

There are several reasons for this. First, there is an increasing interest by many mature age workers to remain in the workforce for longer because they have insufficient retirement funds. The commissioner informed the committee that there are an estimated 2 million people in Australia over the age of 55 who are not working but who are able to work and who would work if work was available.

Currently, more than 80 per cent of retirees rely on an age pension, so there will be increased pressure on the federal government's resources as more people reach retirement age and leave the workforce. Research also predicts that as baby boomers leave the workforce there will be a skills shortage that will not be met by new young workers or migrants. A mass exodus will affect Australia's productivity and economic outcomes.

National Seniors Australia submitted to the Australian Human Rights Commission that the economic loss for not utilising the skills and experience of older Australians is estimated to be $10.8 million a year. The committee is interested in the health and safety and workers compensation arrangements that may impact on mature age workers and believes that further work is required to address issues associated with the ageing workforce and the resultant change in workforce requirements and retention issues.

The 14th report of the Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Committee summarises the committee's work for the financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The cost to the taxpayer has been minimal: the total expenditure for our committee has been $3,461.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those people who have contributed to the vocational rehabilitation and return-to-work practices inquiry. I thank all those people who took the time and made the effort to prepare submissions for the committee and to speak to the committee. I would also like to thank the Commissioner for Ageing, the Hon. Susan Ryan, AO, for her presentation to the committee.

My sincere thanks go to the members of the committee: the Hon. John Gazzola, the Hon. John Darley, the Hon. Rob Lucas, the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, the member for Schubert, the member for Taylor, and the member for Mitchell. Also thanks to the staff: Mr Rick Crump, Ms Carren Walker, Ms Mia Ciccarello, Dr Leah Skrzypiec and Ms Sue Sedivy, who is our current and very excellent executive officer and secretary. I commend the report.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:22): I will speak briefly to support the member for Ashford, the chairman of this committee, to the annual report 2011-2012, the 14th report of the Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Committee.

As I said earlier, I have enjoyed my time on this committee. It has been a steep learning curve for me. I would like to pay tribute to the members who served—and they served, I remind the house, for love and commitment because there is no remuneration at all. It is really quite uplifting to realise that people were there to do the job rather than for any financial remuneration. Again, credit to the chair, the Hon. Steph Key; the Hon. John Darley MLC; the Hon. John Gazzola; the Hon. Rob Lucas; the Hon. Leesa Vlahos; Alan Sibbons; the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars and myself. Also to the staff, who have just been mentioned: the secretary, Rick Crump; Carren Walker, Sue Sedivy, Mia Ciccarello and Dr Leah Skrzypiec.

I certainly enjoyed my time on this committee and I found the references pretty interesting, and I will comment on two of them. The committee inquired into the vocational rehab work and return-to-work practices for injured workers in South Australia under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986. The committee made a number of important recommendations which aimed to address the issues raised through the inquiry.

This was a most unique opportunity for me because I have been in this house for a long time and this issue was a serious issue facing the state. When you see some of the statistics, particularly the return-to-work rates that have come before the parliament in the first instance and then secondly to this committee, it is quite unique in having a bipartisan approach to this. In the past in this house the debate can be rather parochial on party lines.

From the standard of witnesses (particularly from the Hon. Steph Key and acquaintances of hers), the information coming forward and the recommendations made, I only hope the government has a very good look at this and picks up the recommendations because we cannot continue to remain as the poorest performing workers compensation scheme in Australia.

The government has had two or three goes at fixing it and has failed, and when you look at it the reasons are obvious. The system was set up to fail, and I think the committee has highlighted that, particularly with the performance of certain service providers. They certainly came under scrutiny and people made excuses. Madam Chair, you did a fantastic job of keeping your cool and asking various people the questions that had to be asked. I only hope that the government picks up on that.

Of special interest to me was that the committee also considered how changes to the retirement provisions might impact on workers compensation and health and safety in Australia. While the committee did not undertake a formal inquiry, it did receive evidence, as the chairman just said, from the Hon. Susan Ryan AO, the Commissioner for Ageing, and undertook research relating to the issues. I found that quite pertinent and interesting, particularly if you consider the average age of our committee. I think we would have to be one of the oldest committees in the parliament for many years—me being one of them, of course.

The Hon. S.W. Key: Except for Alan!

Mr VENNING: Except for Alan; he probably brings the average age down. As the workforce ages, this is a very important question. People ask me, 'Why are you retiring?' and I tell them that I think it is time but, really, there is no reason at all—particularly when you see the Hon. John Darley there at his age, still contributing very well indeed—why people should not continue longer in the workforce.

It was extremely interesting to hear, particularly from Susan Ryan, about how aged people are needed in the workforce, especially in the future and, rather than be passengers in the system, we need to be contributors, and that is what we ought to be. If you are well, you are able and you are capable, you should stay there. I commend the report to the house and again say to the chairman that I have enjoyed my work on the committee and look forward to the next report.

Motion carried.

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