HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-06-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Return to Work (Scheme Sustainability) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (15:47): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Return to Work Act 2014. Read a first time.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (15:48): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the bill to pass through all stages without delay.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I need an absolute majority for that to happen. We do not have an absolute majority present. Ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there is an absolute majority present, I accept the motion. Does anybody wish to speak to the suspension of standing orders? Minister.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I do wish to speak to the motion to suspend standing orders. The government are approaching this bill and the outcomes that this bill seeks to remedy with a degree of urgency and with a degree of haste. I acknowledge to this house and to members that this is an uncommon but not unusual step to seek to suspend standing orders and we do so acknowledging that members will need to likely, or potentially, I should say, sit until all matters are proceeded with this evening, including the committee stage and the third reading.

In doing so, I thank members for their collaborative approach to this, but the truth is that, if the house and this parliament at large do not move with urgency and haste to seek to not only pass this bill but remedy the circumstances this bill seeks to address, employers and workers in this state will suffer significant hardship at a time when they can least wear it and at a time when this government is most committed to moving with the appropriate urgency to ensure this bill does pass this evening.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta) (15:52): The opposition does not support the suspension of standing orders. It does not mean that we do not wish to see a suitable resolution to this matter so that people can know what the rules are to be very clearly going forward, but there were a range of opportunities available to this government this week, even in the context of the embarrassment they have suffered as a result of the instructions given to the Premier by his friends in the union movement. There were still other things that could have been done.

The government had a bill to deal with this matter, brought to the Legislative Council by the relevant minister, which was understood to be ready to be debated this week. Indeed, there were briefings taking place on Friday about that bill. There were meetings to take place at the beginning of this week on that bill and the opposition had said that we would be ready to have a position to deal with that bill by tomorrow in the Legislative Council.

None of that is relevant now because the government of their own volition pulled their own bill yesterday morning and now have brought forward a different solution, a different solution which the Premier earlier today said suitably balanced the needs of labour and capital.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Morialta, I think you are straying a bit from the suspension. If you want to debate the merits, you need to do it.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sir, thank you, I appreciate your guidance. The point of the suspension is that this needs to be dealt with urgently, according to the government, and the point I make is that, in doing so, that does not remove the requirement that this parliament give appropriate consideration to how to appropriately balance those needs identified by the Premier earlier.

It is tremendously important that we do so because the very reason, the very trigger, that has caused the challenge in the first place is what is, as far as I can tell, an unintended consequence of the legislation as was previously understood. It certainly was understood in a different way by the board for a number of years until the case in question that has triggered this spate of activity. So, does a course of action need to be taken? Yes, of course. The government tells us now that this reform to an incredibly important bill must be debated today.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order has been called, member for Morialta.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member is not arguing about why the suspension of standing orders should or should not be debated. He has not mentioned the bills that are on the government business program that would normally take precedence over this matter. He is simply now arguing the merits of the bill. It is disorderly and he is wasting the parliament's time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will let the member for Morialta continue, but he had better wind it up soon.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I believe I have eight minutes. I am reflecting whether that is the case.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you are going to use the eight minutes, you had better not stray one word.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Certainly. The motion in question is to debate urgently a particular bill, and the minister set out a set of reasons why he believed that it should take precedence and, further—and this is important; it goes directly to the point I was just making of why we need to move through all stages—why standing orders need to be suspended.

Standing orders exist in order to allow bills to have suitable consideration. It is the standing order that, when the second reading of a bill has been moved, the debate be adjourned. It is usually adjourned to the next day of sitting. The best practice is 10 days I believe the leader of the house reminded me on my first week in the job when I was leader of the house, but that sometimes is contravened and sometimes there are exceptions. This is understood. But let us not for one second think that it is anything other than the government's own decision to bring this bill at this time and now say that it requires it to be debated immediately.

The leader of the house spoke to me at about 8.30 this morning and identified that the government might be seeking to suspend standing orders this afternoon to go through all stages of this bill this afternoon as opposed to going through a more orderly practice, as per the standing orders, of having the minister explain the bill in detail, members getting a chance to read the bill, consult on the bill and form a view before participating further in debate and forming a vote. That is the orderly way of things, especially when dealing with a bill of substance that will impact on the way that every business in South Australia carries out its work.

Then we get to the question of the bill itself which was, as I understand it, provided in draft form at 10 o'clock this morning and provided in final form about two hours ago to the opposition to look at. Having had the bill for two hours—which was a period that included question time, when all members of the house were active participants in listening to the government's answers to the questions being asked at the time—I would suggest that it is not even the bare minimum time required for any sensible consideration of a bill. It is I think a reflection on the way the government considers this house.

Going towards the prioritisation that the member for West Torrens asked about, there is in fact a budget approaching $20 billion which is the subject of debate, which is being set aside by the government if this motion passes to debate rather than doing this. That budget must be passed by tomorrow; there is a hard deadline and there is estimates on Friday.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The budget second reading must be passed so that it can be sent to estimates. The government could well have sat past 6pm last night and they chose not to do so, so we will no doubt have to deal with that either tonight or throughout tomorrow. That is as it is, but the government is the one that has decided that this bill in this house takes priority, takes precedence over the budget, and the opposition does not agree that that is appropriate. Here we get to the next part: especially because there is an alternative remedy. The Legislative Council is the chamber in which the relevant minister with responsibility for the bill in question is also sitting. It is right over there. It is about a 30-metre walk. Advisers who are supporting the minister—

Mr Odenwalder: Are you sure? It's 4 o'clock.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —that's quite funny—in question could just as easily support their own minister, the Minister for Industrial Relations, in their chamber where this could get consideration. I do not know why the government feels that it cannot rely on the industrial relations minister or indeed the Legislative Council chamber to deal with this matter today and why it has to be in the alternative chamber, the chamber where another minister is, rather than dealing with it in the Legislative Council chamber.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: I am reluctant to do this, but standing order 120, reference to debate in the other house: 'A Member may not refer to any debate in the other House of Parliament'.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: There is no debate in question in the other house because the government has brought it here. I am nearly done.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You said you wouldn't be long.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I have been six minutes, plus points of order. I am nearly done, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I recommend that you limit your comments to what is happening in this chamber, please.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The opposition is familiar with the numbers in the chamber, I suspect, although I hope the backbench of the Labor Party will hear the force and the merits of the arguments I put, but I suspect they will stick with the caucus line and support the suspension.

Acknowledging that, I make the point that the opposition will contribute to debate as constructively as we can, but it must be remembered that the ink is barely dry on the bill that has just been provided. This is clearly not best practice in legislating any matter, let alone something so important. We oppose the suspension of standing orders on that basis.

The house divided on the motion.

Ayes 26

Noes 14

Majority 12

AYES
Andrews, S.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. Brown, M.E. Champion, N.D.
Clancy, N.P. Close, S.E. Cook, N.F.
Fulbrook, J. Hildyard, K.A. Hood, L.
Hughes, E.J. Hutchesson, C.L. Koutsantonis, A.
Malinauskas, P.B. Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C.
Odenwalder, L.K. (teller) Pearce, R.K. Picton, C.J.
Savvas, O.M. Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K.
Thompson, E.L. Wortley, D.
NOES
Basham, D.K.B. Cowdrey, M.J. Ellis, F.J.
Gardner, J.A.W. (teller) Hurn, A. McBride, P.N.
Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G.
Pratt, P. Tarzia, V.A. Teague, J.B.
Telfer, S.J. Whetstone, T.J.

Motion thus carried.

Second Reading

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (16:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Every South Australian worker has the right to be safe at work and protected from injury. Unfortunately, we know this is not always the case. That is why we have a statutory workers compensation scheme in the Return to Work Act of 2014 to ensure that injured workers are treated with dignity and respect and are supported in recovering from their injuries so they can return to work.

When the act was introduced, one of its goals was to end years of financial difficulty which had plagued the former WorkCover scheme and create a scheme which is financially sustainable and does not impose an unjustifiable burden on South Australian businesses. While the WorkCover scheme system regularly had an average premium rate of 2.75 per cent, the new Return to Work scheme was designed with a legislated target to achieve an average rate below 2.0 per cent. It has met that target every year since it commenced operation.

The Summerfield decision has challenged the scheme's capacity to meet this target by allowing more workers than were initially expected to reach the seriously injured threshold and continue to receive income support until retirement age by combining impairments from related injuries together. It is simply not possible to allow a dramatic increase in the number of new seriously injured workers and at the same time contain employer premiums below the legislated target of 2.0 per cent.

Without legislative change, the Summerfield decision is projected to double the number of new seriously injured workers each year and result in a $1 billion unfunded liability for past claims alone. The Summerfield decision was first handed down in May 2019. An appeal was dismissed by the full bench of the South Australian Employment Tribunal in June of 2020, and a further appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court was dismissed in March of 2021.

The former Marshall government had three years to address the difficulties created by the Summerfield decision but instead kicked the can down the road and left South Australian businesses staring down the barrel of a premium increase to 2.2 per cent or more, the highest of any state in Australia. Unlike the former Liberal government, this government took decisive steps to address the scheme's financial situation by introducing the Return to Work (Permanent Impairment Assessment) Amendment Bill to parliament.

Workers Compensation is a complex area of reform which involves striking a fair balance between the interests of both business and workers. The government has listened to the community concerns about the permanent impairment assessment bill and recognises that the financial sustainability of the scheme cannot come at the cost of leaving injured workers without adequate support and compensation.

Following extensive discussions with both business and worker representatives, the Malinauskas government has reached consensus on a new package of reforms. These reforms will ensure the scheme is financially sustainable for years to come while guaranteeing that seriously injured workers receive the support they need. Under this bill, the 'same injury or cause' test which formed the basis of the Summerfield decision will remain the test for the combination of impairments under the act.

This government does not want to see a situation where two workers suffering from identical injuries are treated completely differently based upon whether those injuries arose from one event or a series of related events. Fundamentally, workers with the same level of impairment should be treated in the same way. Through the combination of injuries, many workers will be assessed with a higher level of whole permanent impairment than they were before the Summerfield decision.

This means that there needs to be an adjustment to the seriously injured threshold to better reflect an appropriate level of impairment beyond which a worker is entitled to income support until retirement age and medical expenses for life. The option which provides the fairest result is to increase the threshold from 30 per cent to 35 per cent, with a commensurate increase in the economic loss lump sum payment received by those people who would otherwise be taken to be seriously injured. This higher threshold will not apply to psychiatric injuries, which remain excluded from assessing lump sum payments.

The scheme retains protections for workers who do not reach the seriously injured threshold. Those workers will still receive up to two years of income support and up to three years of medical expenses. For those workers with a permanent impairment greater than 5 per cent of whole person impairment, they will receive a lump sum payment for economic loss and a lump sum payment for non-economic loss.

The transitional provisions provide that the changes to the serious injury threshold would only apply to workers who have not had a final examination date for the purposes of a whole-of-person impairment assessment before that designated date. It also provides that workers who have been deemed as seriously injured or interim seriously injured before the commencement of the amended act will continue to be regarded as seriously injured or interim seriously injured workers as relevant.

Not all seriously injured workers want or need ongoing attachment to the scheme. Under this bill, a seriously injured worker will be given the choice to receive a lump sum payment for economic loss instead of ongoing income support payments. This gives injured workers more options and the freedom to make the best decision for their own health, for their quality of life and for their future wellbeing.

It is equally important that there are safeguards in place to ensure a worker makes an informed decision. Before election to receive this lump sum payment, a worker must first receive professional financial and medical advice. Further, the small number of seriously injured workers with a whole person impairment of 50 per cent or higher must receive the approval of the South Australian Employment Tribunal that the decision is in their best interests.

There will be no option to receive a lump sum for the entitlement to ongoing medical expenses. This is a further layer of protection for injured workers. Should the worker find themselves in the unfortunate circumstances where the lump sum payment has been fully spent, they would still have access to medical entitlements for the remainder of their life, and this ensures that the worker still receives treatment and care for their work injury, regardless of their personal circumstances.

There is no time limit on when a worker could choose to apply for a lump sum payment. They could apply for it as soon as they are deemed seriously injured or some years later. However, there will be no financial advantage for the worker should they make a later decision to elect for a lump sum payment, as the figure will be reduced by weekly payments they receive beyond their first 104 weeks.

In this bill, the provisions in relation to interim serious injury are being changed to ensure there are appropriate processes in place to consider whether and when an injured worker's injury has stabilised so that the worker can undergo their whole-of-person impairment assessment. This bill also corrects a drafting error which prevents some workers from receiving supplementary income following surgery after their entitlement to weekly payments has ended.

This error has given rise to circumstances where injured workers have been without any income support while recovering from surgery during periods when they have no capacity for work. This is clearly an unintended outcome and forces workers either to delay surgery or bring surgery forward in an inappropriate way. This bill seeks to remove the anomaly by minor amendments to section 41 of the act.

The Malinauskas Labor government shares the concerns of many doctors, workers and legal professionals about changes made to the second edition of the Impairment Assessment Guidelines under the former Marshall Liberal government. The Impairment Assessment Guidelines play a critical role in determining the amount of compensation an injured worker receives. The guidelines should provide an objective, fair and consistent method for assessing permanent impairment arising from a work injury.

The government recognises it is appropriate and proper for parliament to have greater oversight of the permanent impairment guidelines. This bill ensures that future editions of the guidelines will be a legislative instrument subject to parliamentary disallowance. Currently, there are multiple editions of Impairment Assessment Guidelines in operation. This creates administrative inefficiencies as well as uncertainty and unnecessary complexity for those who use the guidelines, such as accredited assessors, lawyers and the South Australian Employment Tribunal. The different editions can also result in different outcomes for some workers.

The bill addresses this by providing that the next edition of the Impairment Assessment Guidelines will apply regardless of a worker's injury date. This is so only a single edition of Impairment Assessment Guidelines will be in operation at any one time that applies to injuries that fall under the jurisdiction of the Return to Work Act.

However, where an injured worker has, before the commencement of the new guidelines, given written notice to the corporation that selects a particular accredited practitioner for the purposes of a whole-of-person impairment assessment for their work injury, the new guidelines will not apply and the version of the guidelines that applied immediately before the new guidelines will apply. This is set out in the transitional provisions.

Following the passage of this legislation, the government intends to consult with stakeholders in relation to a new edition of the Impairment Assessment Guidelines which retains those improvements made in the second edition while rolling back changes which resulted in arbitrary and unfair outcomes for injured workers. I seek leave to have explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

EXPLANATION OF CLAUSES

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

This clause is formal.

2—Commencement

The measure will be brought into operation by proclamation

Part 2—Amendment of Return to Work Act 2014

3—Amendment of section 4—Interpretation

The principal Act draws a distinction between physical injury and psychiatric injury in a number of cases, and this distinction is relevant to some of the amendments being made by this measure. It has therefore been decided to include a definition of 'physical injury' in the Act, which is to be defined as any injury other than psychiatric injury.

Another key concept is the concept of 'stabilised', especially in connection with some of the amendments to be made to the principal Act by this measure. It has been decided to include a definition for this concept and as it connected to the assessment of impairment under the Impairment Assessment Guidelines, it has been decided to adopt the definition used in the guidelines to provide consistency between the Act and the guidelines in their application under the Act.

4—Amendment of section 7—Injury must arise from employment

This is a consequential amendment (relating to the definition of 'physical injury' to be inserted into the Act, and the distinction between psychiatric injuries and other injuries).

5—Amendment of section 21—Seriously injured workers

The principal Act is to be amended so that a seriously injured worker will now be, in the case of a worker whose work injury is a physical injury, a worker whose work injury has resulted in permanent impairment with a degree of whole person impairment assessed to be 35% or more. (For a psychiatric injury, the percentage is to remain at 30% or more).

Amendments are also to be made so that an interim decision that a worker may be taken to be a seriously injured worker will initially have effect for a period of 52 weeks (unless brought to an end sooner). The Corporation will then be able to extend this period if the Corporation is satisfied that the work injury to which the interim decision relates has not stabilised. More than one extension will be possible.

6—Amendment of section 22—Assessment of permanent impairment

It is proposed to change section 22 as it relates to the commencement and application of amendments to the Impairment Assessment Guidelines, or to the substitution of new guidelines. An amendment or substitution of the guidelines will apply in relation to an injury regardless of whether the injury occurred before or on or after the commencement of the amendment or substitution.

Proposed subsection (19) provides for the guidelines to be disallowable.

The opportunity is also being taken to provide for greater consistency between the wording in subsection (8) and (10), by replacing the word 'trauma' in subsection (10) with the word 'cause'.

7—Amendment of section 33—Medical expenses

This is a consequential amendment relating to new section 56A.

8—Amendment of section 40—Supplementary income support for incapacity resulting from surgery

This clause amends section 40 of the principal Act to delete 'under section 33(21)(b)' from subsection (1). This will remove the limited application of the provision, which currently only applies to surgery approved by the Corporation under section 33(21)(b).

9—Amendment of section 53—Redemptions—liabilities associated with weekly payments

Section 53 of the principal Act is to be amended to provide that before a worker enters into an agreement for the redemption of a liability to make weekly payments under Part 4 Division 4 of the Act, the worker must receive financial advice from a qualified financial adviser about the investment or use of money to be received on the redemption. Currently, the worker only needs to receive 'competent financial advice' (which may not necessarily be provided by a qualified person).

In connection with new section 56A, if a seriously injured worker has made an election under that section, the worker will not be able to apply for the redemption of a liability under section 53 for the injury or injuries for which the election was made.

10—Amendment of section 56—Lump sum payments—economic loss

These amendments are being made in conjunction with new section 56A, so that a seriously injured worker will be able to elect under that section to receive a payment under section 56 (subject to the scheme to apply under these new provisions).

(Section 56 provides lump sum compensation for loss of future earning capacity for a worker who has been assessed to have suffered permanent impairment as a result of a work injury. Currently, seriously injured workers are not able to receive an entitlement under section 56 on account of other entitlements provided to them under the principal Act.)

As part of these reforms, the maximum amount of a payment will be the prescribed sum applicable for 34% of whole person impairment, and the total payment that a worker will be entitled to receive under the section will be $434,863 (indexed).

11—Insertion of section 56A

This clause inserts new section 56A.

56A—Seriously injured worker—election to receive lump sum payment

This new section is the provision that will allow a seriously injured worker to elect to receive a lump sum payment under section 56 (subject to the new provisions contained in the scheme). However, the scheme will not apply in relation to a psychiatric injury or consequential mental harm, or in relation to noise induced hearing loss.

An election will be able to be made once the worker has been assessed and determined to be a seriously injured worker as contemplated by the principal Act. An election will not be able to be made by a worker who is subject to an interim decision under section 21(3) of the Act pending an assessment of permanent impairment under Part 2 Division 5 of the principal Act.

A seriously injured worker who has made an election will cease to be entitled to recovery/return to work services within the meaning of section 24(1) for the relevant work injury, and will cease to be entitled to weekly payments under section 41 of the Act for the relevant work injury.

An election will take effect from the day on which the election is received by the Corporation (unless the matter is the subject of an application to the Tribunal, in which case the election will take effect from the day on which the election is approved by the Tribunal (if so approved)).

Once an election is made, the worker will remain entitled to receive weekly payments under section 41 until the lump sum payment is made under section 56, or the period of 28 days expires (whichever first occurs).

The amount paid under section 56 will be reduced by the amount of any weekly payments received by the worker under section 41, or as a result of an interim decision of the Corporation made under section 21(3).

A worker will not be able to make an election unless the worker has received advice from specified classes of experts, consistent with the approach in section 53 for redemptions.

An election made by a seriously injured worker whose degree of whole person impairment has been assessed to be 50% or more has no effect unless approved by the Tribunal.

A worker who has been assessed as being a seriously injured worker will only be able to make one election under this section.

A worker who has entered into an agreement for the redemption of a liability under section 53 of the principal Act will not be able to make an election under this section that relates to the same work injury or injuries.

12—Amendment of section 72—No damages unless whole person impairment of at least 30%

These are consequential amendments.

13—Amendment of section 73—Seriously injured workers—special provisions

These are consequential amendments.

14—Amendment of section 97—Reviewable decisions

This amendment is related to new subsections that are to be inserted into section 21 of the Act relating to the period or periods for which an interim decision that a worker may be taken to be regarded as a seriously injured worker will have effect. A decision not to extend the period of operation of an interim decision will be a reviewable decision under the principal Act.

15—Amendment of section 134—Delegation to self-insured employers

This is a consequential amendment.

16—Amendment of Schedule 7—Prescribed sum—economic loss

This amendment will add extra items to the table that applies for the purposes of section 56, so that the amounts applying as a prescribed sum will include items for whole person impairment from 30% upwards.

17—Amendment of Schedule 9—Repeal and transitional provisions

It will now be possible for the Governor to make transitional provisions, or additional transitional provisions, associated with an amendment of the principal Act by another Act.

Schedule 1—Transitional provisions

1—Interpretation

This clause includes a definition of designated day, which will mean a day appointed by proclamation as the designated day for the purposes of the provision in which the term is used.

Various terms used in the Schedule have meanings consistent with meanings they have in the principal Act.

2—Application of amendments—seriously injured workers threshold

These provisions relate to the change to the threshold for a worker who has suffered a work injury that has resulted in permanent impairment to be regarded as a seriously injured worker under the principal Act.

3—General provision—seriously injured workers

Subject to the Schedule and to the other provisions of the principal Act, a person who has already been determined to be a seriously injured worker under the current threshold (being a worker who has been assessed and determined to be a seriously injured worker under Part 2 Division 5 of the Act before the relevant designated day) will continue to be regarded as a seriously injured worker.

A similar provision is included for a worker who is taken to be a seriously injured worker under section 21(3) of the principal Act immediately before the relevant designated day under an interim decision of the Corporation.

4—Elections—seriously injured workers

A worker who has been assessed to be a seriously injured worker under the current scheme will be able to make an election under new section 56A, subject to the provisions set out in this clause. In the case of a worker subject to an interim decision under section 21(3) immediately before the designated day, the worker will only be able to make an election if they are subsequently determined to be a seriously injured worker other than as a result of an interim decision.

5—Interim decisions under section 21(3) of Act

This clause provides for the application of the new provisions relating to interim decisions under section 21(3) of the Act to existing circumstances.

6—Amendment or substitution of Impairment Assessment Guidelines

This clause makes provision for the application of the amendments relating to when an amendment or substitution of the Impairment Assessment Guidelines takes effect.

7—Impairment Assessment Guidelines

This clause expressly provides that the existing Impairment Assessment Guidelines are not subject to the disallowance scheme to be introduced by this measure. However, the new provisions will apply in relation to any amendment or substitution of those guidelines that takes effect on or after the designated day.

8—Supplementary income support

The amendment made to section 40 of the principal Act will apply in relation to surgery approved by the Corporation on or after the designated day.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (16:16): There is no other way to describe what has happened over the last two weeks, but—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Sorry, member for Colton, I might just interrupt you. Can you indicate whether you are the lead speaker on behalf of the opposition?

Mr COWDREY: I certainly can, sir. Shall I begin again?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Yes, if you wish.

Mr COWDREY: There is no other way to describe what has happened. This process has been an absolutely shambolic process. This is the very definition of policy on the run. This scheme, the Return to Work scheme, affects just about every South Australian worker and business. It is a multibillion-dollar scheme and Labor want to shove through these changes on the back of a napkin and on a wing and a prayer.

I want to remind the house that just two weeks ago the Premier said that the previous bill needed to be passed as a matter of urgency and this was the way to fix the problem. I have only been here for a short period of time, but in terms of process I have never experienced or seen anything like this before. Make no mistake: this is quite legitimately a dark day for democracy in South Australia.

For the opposition to have been provided no notice of the original bill—nor business, nor industry nor the people the bill was to affect—is an absolute disgrace. But this morning the plot got thicker. We received the draft bill at 9.55am, 10 o'clock this morning, and we were provided the final draft at 1.30pm, just prior to question time. Previous to that, we were provided three dot points in size 14 font, and the government wants us to make a decision on multibillion-dollar scheme with this level of information. 'Trust us,' they say. Then, this morning the minister had the temerity to argue that that document was not three bullet points: it was much more.

The opposition met with various stakeholders on Tuesday, none of whom had been consulted on the original bill nor had any knowledge of the new bill to be introduced. We discussed, in fact, the impacts of the original bill prior to it getting pulled later that afternoon. But, as I said, the plot got thicker this morning. We learned this morning that ReturnToWorkSA was asked on 7 June 2022 to model various alternative options proposed by the government, options not provided by the corporation. Advice was finalised on Friday 10 June 2022, the day that the briefing was provided to the opposition by the government and ReturnToWorkSA on the original bill. Let me walk you through this in more detail.

The original bill was introduced on budget day—I believe while the budget speech was being conducted in this chamber—and behind the original bill was six months worth of work from the appeal being dismissed by the High Court to where we are now. ReturnToWork was doing their due diligence looking at how to resolve the Summerfield decision: this bill, three days' work.

The original bill was based on a quality assured actuarial review—a peer review conducted by PwC. It was there, based on a resolution of the board of ReturnToWorkSA, to ensure the accuracy of what was being provided for a decision to be made. By contrast, this bill contains internal estimates prepared by ReturnToWorkSA. As the opposition is aware, the only actuarial input into this is an estimation on the number of workers to fit between the 30 and 35 per cent thresholds.

Let me be very, very clear that these comments are by no means a criticism of ReturnToWorkSA and their management. They were given three days to prepare these estimates of government-initiated changes to the bill, to achieve the Summerfield outcomes and to keep premiums under 1.9 per cent—all changes, again I stress, initiated by the government and not the ReturnToWorkSA corporation. As we understand, other options were provided by ReturnToWork but were not progressed.

What is even more galling is to find out this morning that, instead of eliminating the $1 billion black hole of unfunded liability arising from the Summerfield decision and subsequent interpretation, these measures proposed still leave more than half a billion dollars worth of unfunded liability, and move the solvency ratio to just above 90 per cent—90 per cent is the floor that triggers a review of the scheme based on its being unfinancial. The question remains: is this just a bandaid solution?

The opposition does not have any confidence in these numbers given the process undertaken and the veracity and the criticism of the numbers that are being put forward. This could very well expose business to a great degree of uncertainty, and it is an absolute abrogation of responsibility to deliver good government. We believe that there is a high risk of premiums increasing based on the rough estimates that we were provided. The current bill, as I said, was based just on high-level estimates prepared by the corporation.

The opposition is in no position to be able to provide our position, nor will we be bullied into providing our position on a bill on which we were given two hours' notice. This process, as I said at the start, has been a catastrophic and shambolic process. It has been politically motivated. It has been done without consultation and fundamentally without any supporting documentation to the proposed bill to say that what is being proposed is even achievable.

When you make decisions in relation to multibillion-dollar schemes, I would like to think that this house does so based on evidence, that it does so based on peer review, that it does so on actual qualified actuarial advice. The first bill was simply a change of interpretation, a change of words, to ensure that the interpretation as such was captured. It was a short bill of 1½ pages.

What is being proposed here today across 13 pages, across 15 amendments, is a fundamental change to the operation of the Return to Work scheme, a fundamental change to the existing act. Generally, when you undertake these changes you conduct a review, you consult with people, you perhaps reach out to the Law Society, you perhaps talk to experts in the field, you perhaps understand the position of the board that has a fiduciary duty to ensuring the financial security of the scheme itself. But most importantly, sir, you give people notice. It is not done over three days on the back of a napkin at the request of the unions.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:24): I rise to endorse the contribution of the shadow treasurer to the second reading debate, and I listened carefully to the Minister for Police before him introducing this bill.

What an invidious position the Minister for Police finds himself in because there can be no doubting that the bill that has just been presented to this house rises no higher than an attempted financial fix for a scheme that is so important to workers, employers, unions and advocates statewide. It is important to all South Australians. No-one among those who have presented legislation in the last two weeks is pretending that this is anything other than a process to achieve a financial fix, and a highly unambitious one at that, and I will come to that in a moment.

I will take a moment to speak to those who represent workers and who have an interest in a scheme that is in good health, a scheme that is financially robust, a scheme that is self-funding and a scheme that is auguring towards levies that are fair and remedies that are fair in the awful circumstances in which workers who are injured find themselves in need of availing themselves of the scheme.

What an invidious position for the Minister for Police, coming into this chamber some short days after the responsible minister, the Minister for Industrial Relations, suffered the ignominy of first having introduced a bill at no notice in the other place on budget day—as I understand it and I think the shadow treasurer has just indicated, in the course of the delivery of the budget speech no less—a bill that within days the Minister for Industrial Relations, just yesterday, found himself withdrawing from the other place. Now we find this completely different bill presented to this house by the Minister for Police.

The Minister for Police, I know, has a sincerely and long-held commitment to the workers of South Australia. I know that he has committed a significant part of his working life to that work within the union movement. I do not doubt the sincerity of those commitments to workers. Those are commitments that ought to speak, in terms of legislation that is brought to this house, to measures that might be taken in relation to the Return to Work Act that are about the health of the scheme. It is called Return to Work and, if it is doing its task, it ought to be facilitating the healthy return to work of workers. It ought to be a return to health and, by extension, a Return to Work scheme, and it ought to be in good health.

What we have seen exposed in the last little more than a week, though, is that the new Labor government and, so far the cliché goes, the side of politics that is most closely associated with organised labour has not come to this place with a thought-through series of reforms to this important legislation. It has not come to this place with an explanation about the next generation of the return to work environment.

It has not done so, as one might expect, in the early days of the new Malinauskas Labor government. Rather, it has come to this place, to the other house, with a financial fix to a problem that, it would appear on all indications, it has given no more thought to than the time it took to draft the last piece of legislation that was presented to this place on 2 June.

The shadow treasurer in his contribution has highlighted that what we are dealing with, and are asked to deal with urgently here today, is not only something that has just been landed on us but it has also only just been landed on the ReturnToWorkSA board and organisation itself. In fact, it is only something that has been created in the last days, and it replaces a bill which was completely different in its approach to solving the problem that was perceived being the subject of it.

There can be no doubting that this is simply a short-term attempt to respond to a set of information that has been presented in a very short time frame to solve a financial problem. There is no more integrity than that at the core of this exercise, sadly. It is important to perhaps spell out the time frame because there are people to whom I have referred and those various interested groups that assist and engage with workers—unions, clinicians, employers, advocates—who are interested in this scheme. Their interest extends beyond these financial fixes because it is the scheme they deal with every day of their working lives and we ought to do justice to them.

On 2 June, the Minister for Industrial Relations in the other place presented a bill that no-one really, and I do not think it is too much of an extension to indicate that, knew was coming. It was said to respond to a particular decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court that was dealing with the circumstances of a worker who suffered an injury to his femur and hip, a man of middle working age who then subsequently developed injury to his lower back.

That was a case that worked its way through the court process to the Full Court of the Supreme Court. The High Court was asked to consider the matter, and late last year the High Court determined that special leave ought not be granted because the matter was specific to a state interest and special leave was refused. There was at least a background of sorts, a set of grounds upon which to work up a response.

If it were perceived that the Summerfield decision was such a bogey in terms of the financial threat to the scheme, there was an opportunity to work up a response over time. As the shadow treasurer has adverted, there appears to have been done some robust financial analysis at least around the financial consequence of the measures that were the subject of the 2 June bill that the Minister for Industrial Relations presented in the other place.

The controversy that emerged immediately upon that bill coming to light ranged from the different views that one might take about the actual consequences of Summerfield in the context of earlier decisions, including the 2018 decision of Preedy, on whether or not it presented such a dramatic challenge, all the way through to a robust capacity to analyse the actuarial advice about the consequences both short term and long term.

At least you could have a thoroughgoing conversation about the bill, leaving aside the surprise and the circumstances in which that bill was presented to the house. Indeed, a heated discussion ensued and it was not just us expressing outrage on this side of the house; it was literally every single stakeholder interested in this process that was, to some extent or other, taken by surprise, not having an opportunity properly to engage, not consulted and otherwise left perplexed by what the government had done clearly with a view not to the scheme, or not to the workability of it, but purely an attempt to provide a financial fix in circumstances where, one might presume, the government had received advice that there will be the risk of a threshold for the levy being breached.

The section 137 test at the moment sets that breach limit at 2 per cent. Firstly, it might have been an indication that we are heading in that direction and, secondly, that the scheme might, as a consequence, find itself unfunded sufficiently that it might trigger a section 170 review over the course of the years to come. So far, it is open to at least some robust consideration about the proposed, let's call it, blunt instrument, bandaid or financial fix presented by that bill.

We all did our best to come to grips with it and to engage and to read the responses of those who were doing the same rather diligently. In fact, as late as 9 June, the Law Society, in its by then considered and thoughtful and worked-through response, was still indicating—and this is in its 9 June letter to the Attorney—that it was astounding that the society was not, it appears, even at that date, consulted on the bill that had been presented to the house a week earlier.

So we had a bill that might excite different views, which had had a bit of a run-up start. It was open to analysis, in terms of the consequences of its passing, but it was presented as a complete surprise to everybody, so everybody had to catch up and respond. The result of that response was no less astounding. I think the shadow treasurer described it as a shambolic process. It was indeed.

The opposition was first afforded a briefing on Friday 10 June. Members will remember that we had the long weekend, and it must have been an animated long weekend. It must have been a particularly animated weekend—I can only imagine. Over the course of the 11th, 12th, the public holiday on Monday the 13th and yesterday, 14 June, in amongst allusions by the Premier to notions of his evoking the accord capacities of former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, we saw the bill the subject of robust criticism.

We know that Labor's state executive called for it to be withdrawn, the unions were at one in being both outraged at the lack of consultation and in their calling for it to be withdrawn. We saw a set of circumstances that were far from reasonable and by no means an example of how to go about conducting engagement between employers and their advocates let alone all the rest of those who are associated with the scheme.

We got as far as yesterday because yesterday, after having done our best to work out what can be done with this bill, we then discovered, again at no notice, that that bill has been withdrawn. Now we have not an augmentation of that bill, which bear in mind had been at least thought through against a background of some months lead-up apparently—and we have only had it for about an hour—but a completely different bill.

This is not the bill you got out of the bottom drawer that says, 'By the way, we have been thinking about how to reform the Return to Work scheme, and this is the way to do it. This is thorough. This is fantastic.' No. This is something that is admittedly only a financial fix, and it has been cooked up at such short notice that nobody can possibly stand behind the finances that it purports to lead to. I really sympathise with everybody who is associated with the outcomes of the contents of this bill.

For a start, if the threat that it was looking to address was ever-rising levy fees that might have breached 2 per cent or might have even gone even higher, then the promise of this bill is far from ambitious. It is saying, 'Well, maybe this will afford us another moment before it heads towards 2 per cent, but it's hard to say by how much or when.' Again, as the shadow treasurer stressed, there is no criticism of the good people at ReturnToWork.

They have been placed in this invidious position because of what was a miscarried process from the beginning, from 2 June, to be forced apparently—because no-one has seen anything resembling this in the days prior to today—to come up with something entirely different and then we will try our luck and see how that might go. Well, I can indicate this much: those on this side of the house are interested in a robust scheme that is auguring towards downward pressure on levies and fairness to workers in a way that can be sustained.

Let's have a look at the way the scheme has gone over the years of its existence, and I will say that it has managed to operate in a premium environment that is relatively nationally competitive. It has achieved that much, so I think we should aim to continue to be nationally competitive, and I think we can do better than simply looking to avoid breaching the 2 per cent. I stress, as it would appear to those representatives of the business community yesterday who were finding this as a more acceptable alternative to what had first been presented, that we are entirely with them.

We cannot with any surety say that you have secured a good set of figures through this document because we will just have to live in hope. Nobody knows, and no thorough analysis has been done. I am not really certain what this is going to do, and I do not think that anybody in all sincerity can say any different at least for now. It may be that some work can be done over a pretty short period of time to provide us with greater certainty; otherwise, we are in the government's hands, and all that can be said for the moment is that, as a financial fix, this is a botched job.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (16:45): I thank the members for Colton and Heysen for their contributions to the second reading debate. Should the house wish, I look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr COWDREY: I make the point up-front that the questions that I will be presenting are to do with the impact of the changes as opposed to the changes themselves, given the time frame. I have not had the ability to spread them out by clause so, with the indulgence of the minister, hopefully he is happy to move forward on that basis.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Given the nature of the debate on this bill and the way it was introduced, I think we can have a bit more leeway than usual, so I invite you to make your contribution on clause 1.

Mr COWDREY: Why was this bill introduced in the lower house as opposed to the other place?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Further to the member's previous remarks, we are happy to do what we can to facilitate a fulsome contribution during the committee stage. I note that the government has made a decision to introduce the scheme sustainability bill into this place, the House of Assembly. As I remarked in my contribution on the suspension of standing orders, we do so on the basis of seeking the expeditious passage, subject to the house's authority. As inconvenient as it may be, it is the intention of the government to proceed through all stages this evening before we rise.

Mr COWDREY: Does the minister think it is appropriate to provide less than five hours' notice for a bill that substantially alters the operation a multibillion-dollar scheme?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I note that we are now debating the bill and I will seek to assist the member and members of the opposition in any way I can through this committee stage.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: When will the increase in WorkCover fees start? When will we see an increase in average WorkCover fees?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Member for Unley, I assume you mean the premium rate?

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Yes.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: That will be from 1 July 2022.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Are you able to identify if those increases in the premium rate will be uniform or will some industries receive higher increases than others?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The long-term existing financial practice will not be changed with respect to the application of levies across industries.

Mr COWDREY: Does the minister believe businesses truly understand the impact of 1.9 per cent premiums, or what would be a 10 to 12 per cent increase in real terms for business on their gross payrolls, given the urgency the government is pursuing with this bill?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Thanks, member for Colton. I have infinite trust and infinite belief that the business community, large, small, or family, are well in control and well of an understanding of their own financial means, their profit and loss and their own economic circumstances.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, who was consulted as part of the compromise agreement?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Various stakeholders have been consulted on this bill, including employer associations, industry associations and employer representatives. At the same time, various employee organisations, stakeholder organisations and trade unions have been consulted prior to this bill coming before the house today.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Can the minister advise whether the 1.9 per cent average rate targeted under these changes took into consideration the national wage case increases today?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Insofar as there is no capacity or no involvement in the setting of the average premium rate nor the break-even premium rate in respect of the national wage case, the answer is yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, what specific unions were consulted as part of the process you just outlined?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will undertake to seek a fulsome list, as far as I can, between the houses for the member.

Mr COWDREY: The new bill was prepared by parliamentary counsel at 8.55pm, the draft I am referring to, on 14 June 2022. Was the bill approved by cabinet prior to its introduction to the house through an extraordinary cabinet meeting or other mechanism, and when was it considered by cabinet?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: With due respect to the member for Colton, who has not had cabinet experience, I can say that I will not be speaking about cabinet processes, nor when and by what time and what date cabinet meets or otherwise. What I can say is that, no different from any other government, cabinet receives cabinet submissions and we endorse them thereafter and nothing has changed with respect to this or any other business that has been brought by this government to this house.

Mr COWDREY: Was Business SA present as part of the negotiations with the Premier and unions, or were they brought in after the deal was already agreed?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I do not accept in any way the premise of the member's question that a deal has been done. Consultation was undertaken with respect to the bill that we are currently in the committee stage of. It has been well ventilated publicly that Business SA was one of the employer organisations that I have referred to previously.

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps I can rephrase the question. Was the proposal struck together with unions and then presented to Business SA post an agreement being reached?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Short of giving a running breakdown and minutes of every discussion and every negotiation or consultation that has taken place with respect to this bill, I can refer to what has been publicly ventilated, and that is the support of Business SA for this piece of legislation that we bring by way of the scheme's sustainability bill. As for timing and where in the time line and who said what, I will not entertain that as part of this.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: During the consultations, did any employer groups raise concerns about levy increases with the proposed amendments?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: It would not surprise the member for Unley that one of the primary aims of this bill is to reduce the levies that would have otherwise been imposed on business as a result of three years of inaction by the former Liberal government—three years of inaction. I trust that, in that time, the member for Unley, as a minister in the cabinet, would have received advice. I assume he would have received advice about the implications and, if he did not, then that is a matter for the Treasurer.

In the last two weeks, businesses have certainly not talked about the impact of levy increases on their business operations. The advice and representations that we have received in government I trust would be identical to the representations that the former government would have received whilst they did not act on this for a period of three years.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Is the minister then saying that no employer groups raised concerns about employment opportunities or job losses because of increased costs through the amendments presented here today?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: No, that was not my answer.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr COWDREY: I know the minister touched on this, but perhaps he can specifically provide a yes/no answer. Were other business industry groups—such as the Master Builders, the Housing Industry Association, the Tourism Council, the Wine Industry Association, the Motor Traders Association—consulted as part of the process? When I say 'part of the process', were they privy to the negotiation over the weekend?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will take that on notice and provide any information I can between the houses.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, was Business SA provided with any supporting documentation or modelling to support the 1.9 per cent premium cap guarantee provided by the Premier?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Discussions and consultation that have taken place with respect to this bill have been comprehensive. The modelling in various forms has been well ventilated in those discussions. The financial implications from both a funding ratio and an average premium have also been well ventilated in those discussions. I have no reason to believe that that would not have been the case with all that took place in that consultation.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: You mentioned modelling in your answer. Are you able to table that modelling in the parliament? Was that modelling done internally or were consultants engaged and, if so, who were the consultants?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): That is three questions, I think, member for Unley. Anyway, go ahead, minister. I will count them as one.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will undertake to provide between the houses what I am able to on the first point of the member for Unley's question. On the second point of the question, regarding who undertook the modelling, ReturnToWorkSA undertook estimates and those estimates were informed by Finity, Finity being the long-term actuarial consultant and external actuary of ReturnToWorkSA.

Mr COWDREY: When you say that modelling was produced by Finity, was that purely restricted to the number of people within that band of 30 to 35?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Just to clarify with respect to the question from the member for Colton, my answer was not that Finity provided modelling; it was with respect to the internal estimates as per the member for Unley's question. Finity provided the basis for it, and within that they do provide, I think, on a twice-annual basis their external actuarial assessment. As for this work, the estimates were undertaken internally by ReturnToWork and, of course, informed by the work and additional work undertaken by Finity.

Mr COWDREY: As a point of clarification before I move on to the next question.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Next clause?

Mr COWDREY: Just a point of clarification in regard to that answer before the next question. To be clear, ReturnToWork has not received a final or quality assured actuarial advice in regard to the actual proposal to this point and its impact on the fund, solvency and ratio?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Perhaps in the spirit of providing questions as opposed to the clause, I might try to give a more fulsome answer to that, which may not relate necessarily just to this clause itself. The current calculated break-even premium for 2022-23 has been determined by ReturnToWorkSA's scheme actuary, Finity. This actuarial work has been peer reviewed by PwC.

The Summerfield decision has materially impacted the outstanding claims liability and the funding position of the scheme. In the absence of legislative change, the average premium rate set by ReturnToWorkSA would need to incorporate a loading on the break-even premium to return the funding position of the scheme to the legislated target level of at least 90 per cent assets to liabilities.

In the absence of legislative change, it is estimated that the APR would be 2.20 per cent. ReturnToWorkSA and Finity modelled that the removal of the Summerfield decision would reduce the break-even premium by 0.22 per cent and reduce the outstanding claims liabilities by $450 million based on a January 2023 effective date. Subsequently, the government requested that it be provided with the estimated impact of alternative options.

A range of options were assessed by ReturnToWorkSA management. The estimates provided were informed by modelling by the scheme actuary, Finity. The modelling was to assist with estimating the impact of the proposed initiatives within the time provided. Finity has been the scheme actuary for 14 years. It has extensive knowledge—second to none, in fact, in my view—of the Return to Work scheme and comparable interstate insurance schemes.

ReturnToWorkSA's assessments of the legislative amendments proposed in this bill are that they would reduce the break-even premium and improve the funding position of the scheme. The impact of the legislative amendments in this bill has been estimated by ReturnToWorkSA as follows:

an estimated reduction in the break-even premium of between 0.11 per cent and 0.17 per cent compared to the current break-even premium without legislative change of 2.01 per cent to 2.08 per cent;

an estimated improvement in the scheme funding ratio to around 95 per cent compared with the current funding ratio of 87 per cent;

an estimated average premium rate range of 1.87 per cent to 1.93 per cent compared with the current range of 2.15 per cent to 2.25 per cent; and

an estimated average premium rate of 1.90 per cent compared with a current estimated average premium rate of 2.20 per cent without legislative change. ReturnToWorkSA has advised that the average premium rate is determined annually based upon relevant circumstances at the applicable time. All else being equal, there is no expectation that these estimated premium rates would increase in future financial years. As I said in somewhat of a more fulsome answer, as we jump around between subject matter and the clauses I am happy to provide that information, hopefully assisting the member.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr COWDREY: I think we have now determined that there was actuarial advice in regard to the issue, not actuarial advice in regard to the solution that has been proposed. There was internal modelling conducted and provided based on a degree of information coming from the actuary, but there is no formal actuarial advice in regard to the solution that has been put forward in the bill. On that basis, does the minister intend to seek quality assured actuarial advice from Finity in regard to the updated position based on this bill should it pass? Will the government be seeking a peer review of that work?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The member for Colton's question was on the premise of a number of assertions that I do not accept. To be as clear as I can, in addition to my further answer, Finity provide contemporary actuarial advice to ReturnToWorkSA twice a year. That informs the setting of the levy and other matters. From time to time and on issue by issue, ReturnToWorkSA may, through their usual channels, seek further actuarial advice. I refer to my previous answer about a peer review undertaken by PwC in respect to this matter.

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The minister is answering the question.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: As for the assumptions and estimates and modelling that influence this bill, the government are comfortable and trust the advice that we have received.

Mr COWDREY: To clarify, the minister will not be seeking further advice from the actuary or a peer review?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I refer to my previous answer in respect of the work undertaken and the body of work that informs this bill. Again, for the member's clarity, I refer to my fulsome response to a previous question, particularly in respect of the path and journey by which this bill has come to the house.

Mr COWDREY: Will the minister provide an ironclad guarantee to business that these changes will not see the rate rise beyond 1.9 per cent?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: As far as my previous answer went through in quite extensive detail in regard to the projected break-even premium rate, the projected average premium rate, should the former policy of that then Marshall Liberal government be sustained—that is, do nothing—on 1 July would increase to 2.2 per cent. I have provided significant detail in my answer regarding projections, and also there is no expectation that these estimated premium rates will increase in the future.

Mr TEAGUE: In light of that answer, can the minister inform the house how long any thoroughgoing actuarial advice—

Members interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: In light of the answer the minister has just given, has the minister obtained any advice about how long it would take to conduct a proper actuarial analysis that is capable of being peer reviewed?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: That is not material to my previous answer, nor have I personally sought, as the member for Heysen queried, time frames regarding hypothetical independent assessments of modelling.

Mr TEAGUE: Has the minister satisfied himself that the levy rate rises will not exceed those that have been indicated by the advice that has been obtained?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Yes, this government is absolutely satisfied that this bill will limit and mitigate against levy rises in a way that would not be possible and will not be possible unless this bill passes. We are entirely satisfied with the advice that has been received and furnished in the construction and the bringing of this bill before the house.

Mr TEAGUE: Just so we are all clear, and so that the house and the State of South Australia are clear, what is the high point of that advice? If we were to look to what the minister has satisfied himself about, what would the minister describe as being the high point of that advice?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: If this bill passes before 30 June, or by 1 July, the government is advised that Finity will be able to incorporate the changes into their more fulsome actuarial assessment that will be undertaken as a matter of course in that coming four or five weeks. If I may, so as not to mislead the member: not 1 July but 7 July, if the bill passes by 7 July.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr COWDREY: A reasonably simple question to start in regard to this clause: where does 1.9 per cent sit South Australia nationally?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will undertake to get that information to the member as soon as practicable.

Mr COWDREY: The ReturnToWork board is obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure the Return to Work scheme is fully funded. Has the ReturnToWorkSA board been involved in negotiations to achieve this objective under the new bill?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The ReturnToWorkSA board obviously work within their governance structures and the CE and management of ReturnToWorkSA and the board have been entirely at the forefront of the advice that the government has received in bringing this bill to the house. The board and management of ReturnToWorkSA have done considerable work, and I thank them for that.

Mr COWDREY: When was the ReturnToWork board advised of the compromise deal and its impact on the solvency of the fund?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I will take that on notice.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to clause 5, new section 21(2)(a), what is the number of psychiatric injuries that are on the books in an annual year that are affected by these types of terminologies being written in the act here?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can advise the member that the definition and the phrasing within the bill will not change the threshold for psychiatric injuries. Further to the member's question, around 10 to a dozen injured workers each year are certified at above 30 per cent WPI from a psychiatric injury perspective.

Mr McBRIDE: Regarding clause 5 again, new section 21(2)(b), in the case of physical injuries and numbers of workers on an annual basis, how many does that section cover each year?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that it is projected that there will be approximately 45 fewer injured workers as a result of the move from 30 per cent to 35 per cent on a per annum basis.

Mr McBRIDE: So, in the whole of section 21, what is the minister's understanding about injured workers and their duration of WorkCover and what is that change? Is it negative or positive? Is it lengthened, or is it shortened by any of these, or is there no change?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Within the very finite proposed changes this bill brings, there are approximately 45 fewer individuals each year who would qualify for being seriously injured. Under the act, being seriously injured and being deemed seriously injured has a different suite of entitlements than not being seriously injured. So, for the purposes of that strict definition around 45 fewer individuals each year would be on seriously injured benefits, as opposed to the suite of other comprehensive benefits that the scheme provides.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr COWDREY: I will dive a little more into the assumptions underpinning some of the modelling. How was the estimate arrived at that one-third of seriously injured workers will elect to take lump sum payments and has this been independently verified?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that ReturnToWorkSA's advice to government informed the assumption that around one-third of individuals would opt in.

Mr COWDREY: Yes, I understand that, but what was the assumption underwriting that advice to government in regard to the number of workers who may elect to have received lump sum payments rather than ongoing payments?

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): I didn't say it did. Minister, when you are ready. We are making very good progress. Special thanks to the member for MacKillop for asking questions on the actual clause that we are on.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Thank you, and I thank the advisers for that support as well. I am advised that ReturnToWorkSA brought a multitude of previous experience and previous claims experience when redemptions in the scheme were a more fulsome part—and these are not redemptions but redemption-like payments, or payments out of the scheme.

ReturnToWorkSA (formerly WorkCover SA) operated extensively for a long period in a scheme which had these like payments in the form of redemption that formed a part of it. The advice that the government has received from ReturnToWorkSA is that, informed on that past experience, the future expectation is that about one-third of injured workers will opt in to the payment out of their eco loss.

Mr COWDREY: Were there high and low scenarios modelled? What was the gap in between those two?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: If there is anything further on that that I can provide potentially between the houses, I am happy to.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): I will allow one more question from the member for Colton.

Mr COWDREY: That is very kind of you. How many cases does ReturnToWork expect per year to meet the 35 per cent seriously injured worker threshold compared with the number that we are currently meeting of the 30 per cent threshold sans Summerfield?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that pre the Summerfield decision, the expectations or projections from ReturnToWorkSA are that there would be 100 individuals or workers who would be categorised or deemed seriously injured. From there, I am advised that post Summerfield approximately 200 workers would be expected to be seriously injured. With the proposed changes that the government brings to move from 30 to 35 per cent, as I advised or answered the member for MacKillop, it is the expectation that 45 fewer people will be providing—

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The member would be reasonable in bringing that assumption. I am advised they are the mechanics of the numbers on this one.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the redemptions offered to seriously injured workers who had been eligible under the existing scheme for weekly payments, we have been provided with an estimate that there would be a saving of $100 million based on that one-off offering. How many workers remain a part of that cohort and what is the suggested uptake in terms of total number to provide us with $100 million in savings?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that there are approximately 300 old act injuries that are currently deemed as seriously injured. They are the old act, to which the member's question pertains, the projections of which inform the $100 million. I will take some further advice and come back to the opposition or the member between the houses, but I would not want to assume an incorrect percentage on that one. Perhaps if the member can clarify the question regarding the $100 million, I might be able to get some more specific advice while I am in the chamber.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): The member for Colton is clarifying his earlier question.

Mr COWDREY: The cohort that is available for the redemption payment are those who were seriously injured but under the old scheme. You have outlined that that number is 300. I am seeking to understand the assumptions that underpin the $100 million savings that have been put forward. So the total number that you are basically estimating to elect to take the redemption but also what the uptake rate essentially is.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Thanks for clarifying and thanks, Acting Chair, for allowing me to ask a question. I will come back to the member with any further detail that I can on that. Other than the 300, as I have expressed already, old act seriously injured workers is the cohort in question here.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the redemption payments that are being proposed to be offered for those workers on the old scheme, would those payments be subject to tax?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The only thing worse than misleading the house is to give tax advice in this house. As the member for Colton would no doubt know from his experience, each individual's circumstances from a taxation ruling is different. As required by the existing act as well as other iterations in the past regarding redemptions of economic loss, taxation advice and financial advice is compulsory to have been received before sign-off. As a matter of general approach, redemption-like payments are taxable.

Mr McBRIDE: Regarding clause 7, which amends section 33(21)(a), could the minister define what the change here actually means to WorkCover, and is it a saving or an extra cost to the system?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: This section, member for MacKillop, allows and provides for the payment of economic loss and the retention of medical expenses. There is no capacity, to use a previous phrase, to redeem out medical expenses. It was a feature of previous schemes. What that has a possibility of doing for an injured worker is compromise future appropriate medical treatment or medical support based upon the current or economic circumstances of that injured worker.

They may expend that money that was paid out as a medical redemption and, as a result of the Medicare arrangements that are made, cannot easily access at a free level or at a socialised level appropriate medical care. What this carve-out does—economic loss can be paid out, medical expenses cannot, but return to work and recovery services do cease. They are things like job finding, job matching and résumé building, for example. It could also be things like gardening support for an injured worker.

Mr McBRIDE: As a supplementary based on that answer, do those extra costs fall back to WorkCover, and then do they fall back to the employer as a cost of that WorkCover process, or is it something that is going to be a process across the board that an injured worker is allowed to recover these costs to get back into work?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: To clarify for the member for MacKillop, those expenses I referred to are all features of this existing scheme, so they are not a new entitlement.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to medical expenses, because we are obviously talking about the act—and this is not to do with the actual changes, but the question does relate to medical expenses—is the minister or his department aware that there is the potential for an injured worker to claim medical expenses that do not arise from work; if so, does the minister or the department have any idea of the figures involved here?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: To clarify, it is not my department. But, absolutely, within any scheme there are possibilities for activity not pursuant to code or not pursuant to entitlement. ReturnToWorkSA, as well as providers, have extensive and important processes in place to ensure that those costs are minimised, mitigated and appropriate action is taken. Specific to your question, I have absolute confidence in the vigilance of ReturnToWorkSA in that regard.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mr COWDREY: Can the minister confirm that the unfunded liability as a result of the Summerfield decision was estimated to be around $1 billion with a ceiling of $1.2 billion and a floor of $800 million?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Yes, I am advised that at 30 December there was a band. As the member would no doubt be aware, there are multiple projections and multiple assumptions made by the actuary. That liability was in the range of $831 million to about $1.5 billion as a result of the decision.

Mr COWDREY: With regard to the three—if you like, a better return—cost saving measures for the scheme impacted in the unfunded liability that has just been outlined, can the minister outline the estimated cost saving for each of the three measures to essentially offset that unfunded liability?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: For clarity of the member's question regarding unfunded liability, that was a liability attached to not scheme unfunded liability but liability attached to the Summerfield decision.

Mr Cowdrey: So 590, which you can attribute to the scheme?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: As for a more fulsome response to the member's question, I refer to my previous answer in respect of one of the earlier clauses, where I went through in some detail the projections of various scenarios attached to action or no action with respect to these changes.

Mr COWDREY: With all due respect, the minister outlined impacts on the break-even premium, as opposed to the actual cost savings as a total net from each of the cost saving initiatives that are contained within this bill. I am after the quantum or the total value or estimated total value of the cost-saving measures that are provided in the bill.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): A clarification question, is it, member for Colton?

Mr COWDREY: If you wish to interpret it that way, sir.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: With respect to the specific answer to the member's question about these projections, there is an estimated reduction in claims liability of approximately $400 million, a lowering of the break-even premium by 0.1 per cent, which equates to a best estimate of an ongoing annual savings of between $40 million and $45 million.

Mr COWDREY: As requested, are they set out by each initiative as opposed to accumulated together?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: If there is any further information that I can provide on notice, I will undertake to do that.

Mr McBRIDE: In clause 8, which amends section 40(1), 'delete under section 33(21)(d)', what is the number of workers affected by this change and what savings will be found this area because you are only deleting rather than adding?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: This is an anomaly in the drafting that is being remedied, hopefully with the support of this house. There no savings measure to this. This is just one of those matters that was, through drafting nuance, an unintended consequence.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, perhaps you can try to explain something to me. This bill seeks to codify the Summerfield decision to ensure that more workers are captured. The level of liability attributed to that, as you have said, is somewhere between $813 million or $839 million up to $1.5 billion. If the total quantum of savings from the savings initiatives outlined in your bill is $400 million, what is the outstanding liability still needing to be attributed to the fund, and how possibly is the break-even premium going to be held below 2 per cent in the longer term?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Perhaps working back to front to that question with many parts, my answer with respect to the break-even premium is that I refer to my previous answer. With respect to the member's question, namely, assuming that this bill codifies Summerfield, that is not the case: Summerfield is now the law. The part of the act that Summerfield has applied is not changing.

Mr COWDREY: Has scenario modelling been conducted with regard to the highs and lows of saving initiatives potentially delivering, and have they been offset versus the potential liability attributed with the Summerfield decision being effectively incorporated in the act, for the lack of a better term?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I just want to be really clear on this. I know that the member is not trying to be tricky with his wording, but what the government is seeking to do is not to touch the Summerfield decision. We are bringing other matters that will address not only workers' entitlements but also the average premium.

As for the highs and lows, I did refer in a previous of answer to this matter that there were highs and lows. I referred to that in my responses to the member's previous questions. I am sorry, I will not refer to the clause because we are a little laissez faire in this regard. However, yes, there were highs and lows with respect to the advice that was received by government from ReturnToWorkSA, and I have informed the committee and the member in my previous answer about those.

Mr COWDREY: With respect to the proposed increase from where the rate currently sits at 1.7 per cent, I understand that the corporation sets the rate only annually, but the anticipation is for the rate to sit at 1.95 per cent, and you touched on it earlier, following the passage of the bill. I am seeking your clarification on exactly that number.

Given that it is going to be reasonably complex to do it, I imagine, off the bat, are you able to provide on notice to us a comparison figure by industry of the current premiums of 1.7 per cent, where the rate sits at the moment, and 1.95 per cent, or the proposed rate, taking into account the initiatives that are being put forward?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Just to clarify importantly for the member and for the benefit of this house in committee, 1.9 per cent is a future amount and 1.8 per cent is the next financial year. We are talking a much further future decision. This bill will set a frame, which has informed decision-making that we have made, that will limit future increases to a band, or otherwise as I have referred to previously. The member's question to me is: can I take those series of matters on notice? I will certainly undertake to provide to the member what I can between the houses.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to effectively what is the band that now sits between 30 per cent and 35 per cent, obviously with this bill you have set out the lump sum economic loss payments for that band. Those have, I assume, been projected on increases based on the 30 per cent and below. How many people does ReturnToWorkSA estimate to sit in that 30 per cent to 34 per cent band moving forward?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Further to my previous answer to both you and the member for MacKillop, about 45 injured workers will sit in that band.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

Mr COWDREY: What stakeholder groups outside unions were given a copy of the new bill?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I have answered this question and also provided some advice to the member about my future undertaking in regard to that, and I refer to my previous answer.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to clause 11 and the insertion of section 56A, seriously injured workers receiving a lump sum, could the minister tell us what the changes will be in payments either decreasing or increasing to WorkCover by these proposed changes?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am sorry; can I just ask with indulgence the member for some clarity around that question.

Mr McBRIDE: Clause 11 refers to a seriously injured worker and the election to receive a lump sum payment. If the lump sum payments are increased by a quantity or amount of lump sums going out, there will be an extra cost to WorkCover. If they are lessened—if there are fewer workers applying for this process—I imagine there could be some savings.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am advised that there is a release in outstanding liabilities to the scheme in respect of this proposed change.

Mr COWDREY: The member for Heysen is seeking a point of clarification.

Mr TEAGUE: I just did not hear the answer. If the minister would not mind—

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: There is a release in outstanding liabilities as a result of this proposed change, this clause.

Mr COWDREY: How does the higher inflation environment impact the scheme's funding ratio?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: All those inflation and other economic assumptions are absolutely taken into account by the actuary in their provision of advice. With respect to 'at this point in time', I would need to take that on some further notice, but also know that it is probably not hugely specific to this clause. I did answer it—I answered the question then I reflected upon the answer.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): I might add that if the minister was going to pull up, that would have been a question that is not particularly related to this clause, but yes, that is correct.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to the answer by the minister in regard to my first question, he said there is a release. Could you just give some more clarity about it? I will assume that you are suggesting there could be a bit of a backlog of WorkCover applications to receive a lump sum. If there is a backlog, what sums of money are we talking about?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: In respect of the terminology, the release in future liabilities is very specific terminology. It is, for another way to put it, just a reduction in the future liabilities of the scheme. This clause will reduce the future liabilities for ReturnToWorkSA.

Mr McBRIDE: If I were an injured worker and with the changes here in this draft bill at this stage, should I be worried by the fact that my payment might be lessened with these processes and I will receive a smaller payment and, if so, what sort of percentage?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I am helpfully advised that, should this bill pass, it is the operational intention of ReturnToWorkSA to, before the act is proclaimed, write to all affected individuals that would be impacted by this clause. So there would be plenty of notice and plenty of time well and truly before the act is even proclaimed.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to clause 12, it reads 'Amendment of section 72—No damages unless a whole person impairment of at least 30%'. Could the minister enlighten the parliament on what these changes mean in clause 12, and are there savings or extra costs involved?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: This change will lift the threshold for the potential to opt in or elect for common law, so simply 30 to 35 per cent as is consistent across the rest of the act—but not for psychiatric injuries, which remain at 30 per cent. For psychiatric injuries and those workers who are assessed as WPI for psychiatric injuries, their circumstances do not change.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to clause 13, where it reads 'Amendment of section 73—Seriously injured workers—special provisions', are there special provisions that are being added here in this draft legislation? What are the costs or extra savings by these extra provisions?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: My apologies; with indulgence, could I ask the member to repeat his question.

Mr McBRIDE: I know you were interrupted. You were distracted. Regarding clause 13, this is an amendment of section 73—Seriously injured workers—special provisions. Are there extra provisions and are there extra reasons for this process to cost more or are there savings?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: This clause provides for new section 56A, such that a worker would not be entitled, further to the member's question, to both a section 56A election for lump sum payment and election for common law damages, so it would prevent the election of a 56A lump sum and the election for the pursuit of common law damages.

Clause passed.

Clauses 14 and 15 passed.

Clause 16.

Mr McBRIDE: Clause 16 is an amendment of Schedule 7—Prescribed sum—economic loss. There is a table that describes percentages on the left-hand side and sums of between $370,000 to $434,000. Is this table a recent addition or is it an old one and are there savings in this table or are there extra costs in this table?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: Member for McKillop, I can advise that they are new for the purposes of providing sums for the election of a lump sum for those injured workers between 30 and 34 per cent, so, insofar as that cohort of workers is concerned, that is consistent with the setting of sums from 29 per cent and below.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30.

The CHAIR: We just had a question from the member for MacKillop on clause 16. Are there any other questions on this clause? No.

Clause passed.

Clause 17.

Mr McBRIDE: Clause 17 provides that 'the Governor may, by regulation, make provisions, or additional provisions'. Does this new Return to Work Scheme (Scheme Sustainability) Amendment Bill 2022 cover our emergency services workers, particularly with psychiatric-type issues, being mindful that I do not think at this stage that it does?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The provisions in respect of psychological or psychiatric injuries are unchanged by this amending bill we have before the house. As for this clause, it is a general provision in the drafting that provides for future contemplation of regulation to manage transitional provisions. I would assume and trust that, should there be a need or any identified need for those regulations in the future, then consultation will occur in the usual process. But to the heart of your question: not so much this clause. Psychiatric injuries are unchanged by this, and this is just about the future, possible regulations and the transitional provisions.

Mr McBRIDE: For clarity, and not to harp on it, I have a constituent issue in the seat of MacKillop who is a CFS volunteer. Just hypothetically, I am this volunteer and I am suffering post-traumatic stress disorder and a 50 per cent impairment. The current changes to this Return to Work Scheme (Scheme Sustainability) Amendment Bill do not really give me any more cover than we had under the old system.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: That is correct: there is no change to the circumstances whatsoever. There is a full suite of protections. Obviously, in those circumstances a very complex set of treatment would be not only necessary but proper. All encouragement and support would be there for that constituent, hypothetically, at 50 per cent WPI for the psychiatric injury as well. You can rest assured that certainly someone in those circumstances, as it is really, but for approximately 45 people per year, will be in an unchanged position subsequent to this bill passing this parliament.

Mr COWDREY: I have one question in regard to the fund solvency ratio. Previously, the minister provided the committee with historic references to the fund solvency ratio from November 2021 and some prior to that. To my understanding, those ratios have been provided by the actuary or confirmed by the actuary. Has the advice regarding the fund solvency ratio that you provided in regard to post the impacts of this bill come from the fund actuary, or has that advice come from internal return to work modelling?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: That figure was provided by ReturnToWorkSA and informed by the modelling of the scheme actuary, Finity.

Mr COWDREY: Will the minister provide any modelling, any actuarial advice (or summaries of) or any peer-reviewed work undertaken to assure the house of the veracity of the government's claims relating to the levy increases?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: The member for Colton would know that ReturnToWorkSA routinely publishes their actuarial advice, and I have every reason to believe that that will be published in accordance with current practices.

Clause passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (19:36): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I would like to thank the members for Colton, Heysen and MacKillop for their considered questions during the committee stage and also their contributions to the second reading debate. I would like to thank the stakeholders particularly for their contribution to the formulation of this bill that we now have before the house, which I hope will soon see passage this evening.

I want to thank and acknowledge the work undertaken by business groups, by peak associations and by industry associations with respect to the meaningful contributions that they have made to bringing this matter before the house in a meaningful way that will make a pragmatic and meaningful difference to the operation of the scheme for both injured workers and business in this state.

It may be the last time that I have an opportunity before his bon voyage to thank Martin Haese from Business SA not only for his contribution during this consultation but also for his service to Business SA and to businesses more broadly in South Australia in the years that he has been at the helm of Business SA.

I would like to thank the trade union movement and trade union leaders for their equally important contribution to the consultation and development of this bill that we have before us. The advocacy of the trade union movement is critically important to our democracy. Their advocacy is unwavering for their members, for workplaces and for workers more broadly. For that I say thank you and I acknowledge their contribution to this bill.

Most importantly, I acknowledge that the core mission of trade unions is to not see this bill and this act utilised: it is about safer workplaces and preventing workplace injuries in every circumstance that they can. I acknowledge their efforts and I thank them for what they do here in South Australia.

I want to acknowledge the important leadership that the Attorney-General has shown through the phases and iterations of this bill. Much has been said by the opposition about the Attorney's contribution to this. His contribution has been outstanding, important and has shown exceptional leadership, as has the Premier, who is leading with and for Labor values: bringing people to the table, hearing people and making informed, pragmatic decisions based upon that feedback and that consultation. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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