HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WORKCOVER CORPORATION

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. A. Bressington:

That this council condemns:

1. The practices of the WorkCover Corporation in both the administration of the fund and the treatment of injured workers and the lack of support and rehabilitation for those workers;

2. The Premier for backing down from his call for a royal commission or similar wide-ranging inquiry into allegations of corruption by WorkCover in May 1997, whilst leader of the opposition; and

3. Other parties for allowing WorkCover to languish in dysfunction since that time.

(Continued from 14 November 2007. Page 1309.)

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (17:39): The Hon. Ms Bressington has sought the support of this council to pass a motion of condemnation regarding the operation of WorkCover. I remind members that it is only a matter of weeks since this place referred WorkCover for inquiry by the Statutory Authorities Review Committee. That committee has not yet had a chance to commence its deliberations in any meaningful way. Members will also be aware that in March this year the government announced an expert independent review of the WorkCover scheme. The review is to provide its report to the government in the coming weeks.

The honourable member's motion makes for an interesting conspiracy theory, entwining a few scant facts with some sensational fiction. This motion is entirely frivolous and utterly unhelpful. It is a motion based on highly questionable facts and subjective, biased views. Frankly, it is a motion that is not worthy of this council's attention. The motion focuses much attention on events long past. In one case cited, these dealings have been recent. In other cases, the circumstances date back more than 10 years. This motion does nothing—not a thing—to contribute to improvements in the WorkCover scheme. The condemnation of this council which the honourable member seeks will make no contribution to meeting the challenges that lie ahead—none. I will make some remarks later about the circumstances to which the honourable member refers, but I do not intend to rebut all of the assertions made, notwithstanding that many of the remarks are worthy of lengthy and forthright challenge.

It is worth considering for a moment the nature of accident compensation schemes, whether they be work or motor vehicle related. Accident compensation schemes deal with people who have been injured. One common element that all schemes of this nature have is aggrieved parties who feel they have been unjustly treated and let down by the schemes that are designed to help them. This is an unfortunate but not uncommon circumstance. Where such grievances do arise, there are robust review and complaint mechanisms in place. Such mechanisms, both in WorkCover and through independent bodies such as the Workers Compensation Tribunal and the Ombudsman, are in place to ensure that workers are treated justly. In the majority of cases, those avenues do provide workers with options to have their grievances heard and considered.

It is worth emphasising the size of the South Australian scheme and the number of injured workers who access it. In the past 10 years, dating back to the 1997-98 financial year, WorkCover received in the order of 260,000 claims from workers of registered employers. I do not intend to make light of any injured worker's poor experience with WorkCover, but it is worth noting that the vast majority of those who made a claim had an experience with the scheme entirely different to the three or four cases described by the honourable member. The experiences described are based on the views of aggrieved parties that feel they have been wronged by the scheme. The honourable member makes no attempt to present an alternative viewpoint to add objectivity or, indeed, hard facts that would withstand scrutiny.

In that light, I would question the assertion that the circumstances described are typical. They are not. I recommend that members do not leap to any unfounded conclusions that these limited circumstances are anything but rare and in any way point to systemic problems within the scheme. Focusing on these highly specific and unusual case studies and stories of woe will not get to the heart of the issues that should be addressed. The honourable member concluded her remarks by saying that every member in this place and the other place should be working to seek a solution that brings back justice for injured workers. The government agrees entirely with this proposition and has established an expert independent review to thoroughly examine the WorkCover scheme and to recommend, amongst other things, legislative change. In that regard we welcome those comments and look forward to the support of members in this place when considering any amendments to be proposed by the government.

The call to action in the honourable member's concluding remarks is, however, at odds with the position adopted in the preceding 8,300-odd words in support of the motion. It is also inconsistent with the appeal for this place to condemn numerous and unspecified parties for alleged wrongdoing in years past. The government is on the record as indicating its strong concerns with the state of the WorkCover scheme that it inherited upon forming government in 2002. Many of the historical issues to which the honourable member has referred occurred under the former government. However, the scheme, injured workers and South Australian employers can ill afford an unhelpful focus on the failings of the past. The government is focused on delivering change and concentrating on the future.

The minister appointed an entirely new board in 2003 and, under that leadership, the management arrangements and scheme foundations have been significantly formed and strengthened. It is evident that challenges remain and significant improvements are necessary to get injured workers back to work sooner.

While I do not wish to be drawn into an unproductive debate about the specifics of the small number of unusual cases highlighted by the honourable member, I feel it is necessary to respond to some of the most outrageous matters raised. The fact that I have elected to highlight a small number of points to rebut it should not be interpreted as acceptance that all the other matters are factual and accurate; this is certainly not my view.

Within the motion there was an assertion that the existence of the 'scheme critical list' influenced the findings of presidential members of the independent Workers Compensation Tribunal. It was asserted that the existence of this list ensured that workers would fail in their disputes. It was asserted that the mere existence of the list blocked presidential members from making independent findings based on the law and the facts. I am sure that this would be a stunning revelation to those presidential members. I am equally sure that the presidential members would consider this to be a baseless, outrageous claim that cannot be substantiated.

I am advised that the scheme critical list was a largely working internal document prepared by WorkCover. Following the legislative changes in 1995 and the move to outsource claims management, WorkCover sought to closely monitor legal proceedings that may have been significant in interpreting the legislation. It was an administrative mechanism to monitor important cases. At some point in time it was decided to share the listing with the tribunal, as a means of monitoring the cases before it.

The honourable member made reference to the attention that the infamous scheme critical list attracted in mid-2000. What the honourable member failed to mention was that the president of the tribunal responded to that attention by saying that the tribunal paid no regard to that listing and at no time and in no way did the scheme critical list have any bearing on the findings of the tribunal. For the honourable member to assert otherwise is outrageous and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the powers of WorkCover and the role of the tribunal as an independent arm of the judiciary. I would expect that eminent members of the judiciary would be offended at the assertion that they operated in 'a justice system which is not permitted to rule according to the merits of their claim' and the assertion that 'for most part judges are forced to rule in WorkCover's favour'.

The motion also made reference to a person who had a long history with WorkCover. I do not intend to give a detailed history, but I urge members to question the characterisation of this person as an innocent victim of the scheme, wronged through little fault of their own. The person named has numerous criminal convictions for assault and dishonesty. The later convictions related to his workers compensation claim. I understand that currently there are further criminal charges pending in the Magistrates Court and a contempt charge in the Supreme Court.

Members of the judiciary in South Australia are very familiar with this person and their conduct in and out of the courtroom. This person has had their day in court many times over, and they have not been denied justice. The honourable member's statement that 'after 17 years of being in this system and not getting any outcome, I am surprised that it is only contempt of court that he has been charged with' is just plain wrong. The statement alone must cast serious doubt on the credibility of this motion and the extent and quality of the alleged breach that led to it.

As would be the case for any member here, I hold dear the principle of free speech and welcome advances in technology which allow greater expression of that freedom. However, I would express surprise at the extent to which the honourable member quoted directly from the WorkCover blog. I make no criticism of the existence of this site or the people who contribute to it. The experience of some injured workers does cause great distress to both them and their families. This is a tragic outcome and it is regrettable. Their frustration and suffering is evident from the passages quoted.

My surprise comes from the prayer which was quoted by the honourable member and which was described as 'probably the most heart wrenching of all'. The passage quoted in this place, amongst other things, prays for harm and suffering to be brought to bear on WorkCover staff and their children. The author is entitled to those views, but for a member of this place to present such a quote, which is no doubt offensive to the staff of that statutory authority, is of great concern. This is the same web blog that invites people to publish the home addresses of staff of WorkCover and Employers Mutual so they can be paid a visit which 'could get nasty'

This is the same web log on which a person with alleged connections to bikie gangs then volunteers to send his bikie mates to fellow WorkCover staff to teach them a lesson. I ask members in this place to seriously question the honourable member's judgment in quoting from a site that prays for harm and incites violence against the staff of WorkCover. This motion is conspiratorial and frivolous at best and serves no good purpose.

Additional focus on historical issues regarding three or four cases will not assist in delivering any improvement in the scheme. It will not in any way change the experience of injured workers or help small employers, the two groups the honourable member concludes need the help of this parliament. As I stated in my opening remarks, the condemnation of this council, which the honourable member seeks, will make no contribution to meeting the challenges that lie ahead.

The honourable member has displayed a significant lapse in judgment in proposing this absurd and baseless motion. If this council displays a similar lack of judgment and supports the motion it will bring this proud institution into disrepute. I urge members to oppose the motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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