HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-06-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION (SCHEME REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from Tuesday 3 June 2008. Page 3056.)

Clause 8.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I move:

Page 12, after line 39—Insert:

(a1) Section 28A(1)—after 'The Corporation may' insert:

, as part of a rehabilitation program,

This amendment requires that rehabilitation programs commence at the earliest possible opportunity and that the WorkCover Corporation make rehabilitation part of its ongoing practices, which would be quite novel.

I have just heard Mr Kris Hanna talking about a WorkCover recipient who required a knee reconstruction. After medical advice, EML rang the practising doctor and said, 'Come on! Can't we just do a cartilage replacement? We don't want to pay for a knee reconstruction and all that goes with that.' It seems that, regardless of the wording of any legislation, WorkCover and EML want to focus on rehabilitation.

I notice that the government also has quite a resistance to have the words 'effectiveness', 'rehabilitation' and anything else that might require WorkCover to actually abide by the original intent of this bill included in any of these amendments. I do ask that members see the need for the wording to be there and for it to be made a little clearer to WorkCover Corporation that it is actually a workers' compensation and rehabilitation scheme and not merely an insurance company.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Let us just clear the record. Let me indicate what the government's proposal is in relation to clause 8 of this bill: it is an amendment to section 28A, rehabilitation and return-to-work plans. First, it changes the three-month period to 13 weeks, which is obviously a technical amendment, but the second part is:

Section 28A(3)—after paragraph (a) insert: (ab) must consult with the relevant rehabilitation and return-to-work coordinator under section 28D (if appointed); and

So, the government's amendment is very much dealing with the need to ensure that we do get improved rehabilitation and return-to-work outcomes.

The government opposes this particular amendment, as section 28A deals specifically with rehabilitation and return-to-work plans, not rehabilitation programs. Plans and programs are separate documents. They serve different purposes and they are established under differing circumstances. To incorporate one within the other is not consistent with the intention of the act. That is essentially why we oppose this amendment, which really is a technical amendment which aims to introduce a requirement for rehabilitation and return-to-work plans to be developed as part of a rehabilitation program. It is really mixing up the two.

The government's amendment contained in clause 8 proposes to substitute a reference to three months to 13 weeks within section 28A of the act, as I have already said, and to insert a requirement for WorkCover to consult with a workplace-based rehabilitation and return-to-work coordinator (if appointed) when preparing a rehabilitation and return-to-work plan.

As I say, our opposition to this particular amendment is because plans and programs are separate documents. They do serve different purposes; they are established under differing circumstances, and to incorporate one within the other is not consistent with the intention of the act.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Can the minister provide us with any information on how many rehabilitation plans actually lead to a rehabilitation program. Just to clarify: a plan and a program are, apparently, two separate things, but why would you have a rehabilitation plan if there was not going to be a program to follow it? It would not be necessary, I would think. As far as a rehabilitation program goes, you would not be able to have that without a plan, either.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that a plan applies when there is a return-to-work focus; in other words, if someone has a capacity to return to work then that is when we are referring to plans. However, a program can be used in a situation where there is no likelihood of return to work. So, it can apply in those situations for a worker who is more catastrophically injured, shall we say, whereas a plan, as I said, has a particular return-to-work focus.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The minister described the change of time from three months to 13 weeks as technical. My guess is that not all months are of equal duration but all weeks are: they are seven days rather than a range of between 28 and 31 days. So, first, could the minister clarify that that is the only effect of the change? Secondly, are there any cost impacts of this clause? I am talking about the government's clause rather than the member's amendment: are there any cost implications?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that it is being introduced for consistency within the act. The entitlement provisions within the act refer to 13 weeks, so this is really to bring some consistency within the act. I think for most times of the year 13 weeks—which I have just worked out is 91 days—particularly if February was involved, would be in excess of a three-month period.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: And in relation to any cost implications of this clause?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Thirteen weeks is 91 days and most months are about 30 days; some have 31 and one has 28. I would not think it would be a huge cost; it would be very marginal.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In relation to the second part of the government's amendment, there is the consultation that has been included. Are there cost implications of that? Is there consultation that is not occurring at the moment, in which case, what costings have been done in relation to the impact of that clause?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The government recognises that there will be some impact on business in relation to this, as it will be required to employ workplace coordinators if they have more than 30 employees. This was recommended by the Clayton review because it has been seen to be successful elsewhere. Like so much of this debate on WorkCover, a good deal of the focus has been on those workers who have been injured in the system. However, if they could be got back to work and not suffer the process of the WorkCover system, not only would the community at large be better off, both financially and socially, but also the injured workers themselves would be better off.

I think that is the point that has to be made through this entire debate—that, if we are successful in reducing the number of workers who stay longer on WorkCover, it would be beneficial not only economically to the community but also socially to the individuals themselves.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer. In relation to the honourable member's amendment, I understand the government's position, namely, that it sees it as confusing rehabilitation programs with return-to-work plans. I do not think that causes any great offence to this legislation. The greatest offence I see is the fact that, in other parts of the bill, we are reducing the income entitlements to injured workers and bringing that ahead 49 weeks, but we are not bringing rehabilitation ahead: that stays where it is. It is just the payments that are cut. I can see no great harm in the honourable's amendment and I will support it.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: The minister mentions the difference between a rehabilitation plan and a rehabilitation program. I am still at a loss to see that it will be terribly confusing. I point out that it states that 'the corporation may', not 'must'. Obviously, it would follow that, if a person has been assessed and has a case management plan (which few do have), it would be worked out then. If a rehabilitation plan was in fact necessary, or if it was a minor injury that needed minor medical attention or treatment, they would go down that road; if they require intense rehabilitation, it is provided for in this amendment and in the act.

As I said, this seems to be one of the great bugbears of many of the injured workers who contact my office—that some of them have waited anything up to three, four or five years for a rehabilitation plan or program because it is not stipulated in the act, and it is not a requirement of WorkCover or EML to ensure that people get a rehabilitation they deserve and need. I feel that if we do not start stipulating in terms of rehabilitation being part of the focus of this bill, it is, as the Hon. Mark Parnell said, cutting workers' entitlements and not putting anything else in place to guarantee that there is an understanding that many do require rehabilitation plans and programs.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The difference between programs and plans is really defined in section 26 of the original act, 'Rehabilitation programs' and section 28A, 'Rehabilitation and return to work plans'. The definition is really contained in those two sections of the act. However, in relation to section 28A, 'Rehabilitation and return to work plans', it is important to point out that subsection (1) provides:

The Corporation may establish a rehabilitation and return to work plan for a worker who is incapacitated for work by a compensable disability.

So, they may do it for any worker, but subsection (2) provides that, if the worker is or is likely to be incapacitated for more than three months (now 13 weeks), but has some prospect of returning to work, the corporation must prepare a rehabilitation and return-to-work plan. The point is that, if someone is likely to be off work for more than 13 weeks, the corporation must prepare a rehabilitation and return-to-work plan, whereas they may do it in other circumstances if the period is less than 13 weeks. That is really the distinction.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (5)

Bressington, A. (teller) Darley, J.A. Hood, D.G.E.
Kanck, S.M. Parnell, M.

NOES (13)

Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. (teller)
Hunter, I.K. Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. Ridgway, D.W. Schaefer, C.V.
Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P.
Zollo, C.

PAIRS (2)

Evans, A.L. Finnigan, B.V.


Majority of 8 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I move:

Page 12, line 41—Delete '13' and substitute:

4

This amendment, again, ensures that rehabilitation plans or programs are developed after four weeks of a person making a claim rather than after 13 weeks. The reason for this is that the self-insured sector tells us that early intervention is the key to whether people return to work in a relatively short time or whether a long-term determination is made about the direction that particular claim will take.

Having a requirement on WorkCover to provide that sort of rehabilitation plan within 13 weeks means that many people do not even hear from a claims manager in that time and have no idea where they are going or what sort of treatment they will get—if they get any treatment at all. If we are serious about wanting to improve return-to-work rates we should also be serious about wanting to provide some sort of plan or process for an injured worker to follow as soon as possible rather than waiting for 13 weeks. According to core competencies interstate and other schemes four weeks is, if you like, a respectable time frame for those sorts of plans and processes to be worked out, in cooperation with the injured worker.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens very strongly support this amendment, and I believe all members should support it if they are serious about improving rehabilitation and return-to-work rates. All the rhetoric we have had from the government and from WorkCover has been around the importance of an early return to work. Those are the words, but the action is basically just to cut the injured worker's entitlements. This amendment proposes to get the rehabilitation process in train earlier and, from what I have heard from WorkCover and others, I do not believe there is any serious debate to be had around the question of whether rehabilitation should start sooner rather than later.

I would like to go back to the words of the section, which provide:

If a worker—

(a) is receiving compensation by way of income maintenance; and

(b) is (or is likely to be) incapacitated for work by a compensable disability for more three months [which will now be 13 weeks] (but has some prospect of returning to work),

the corporation must prepare a rehabilitation and return to work plan for the worker.

Think about it. If it is apparent early on that a person is likely to be incapacitated for more than four weeks but they clearly have some prospect of returning to work, then why not start the rehabilitation program earlier? Why have the threshold of looking like they will be off work for three months before you create the obligation on the corporation to prepare a rehabilitation and return-to-work plan? Of course, it is not the fact of the plan itself which gets a worker back to work; clearly, it is the content of the plan. However, the driver for getting the content right is the need to have a plan established in the first place. So, the two things are connected.

Ultimately, the honourable member's amendment is about making sure there is faster action to put rehabilitation in place. If an injury is serious enough to have a person off work for four weeks, then it is serious enough to make it a requirement that there be a proper examination of what could help the injured worker get back to work. They will also be getting back into the community, as we discussed previously, and getting better in general terms and not just in their role as an economic unit. So this is a sensible and important amendment and puts the government to task to put into place something that would back the rhetoric. This amendment will make it more likely that people return to work early after injury.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The government opposes this amendment. The current time frame is set at 13 weeks or two months because that is the expected time frame within which a strain or sprain should have healed, and soft tissue injuries make up the majority of injuries covered by workers compensation. Further, 13 weeks is a key time frame within the bill as the time when the first step-down will come into place. Requiring every injured person who is likely to be incapacitated for more than four weeks to have a plan will impose an unnecessary amount of red tape on WorkCover, businesses and rehabilitation co-ordinators for injuries that are likely to heal quickly without an extensive rehabilitation plan. From memory, the figures from Clayton are that about 80 per cent of workers will be back at work within the 13-week period.

I read out earlier on the previous amendment that WorkCover may establish a plan at any time, but it is mandatory to do so after the 13 weeks. It is after 13 weeks when you have the 20 per cent tail, and we all know that is the great failing of the WorkCover scheme in this state, that we are much less effective about getting that 20 per cent tail back to work within the two-year time frame and that is obviously where the effort needs to go—in the first 13 weeks. Why would we want to add a whole lot more unnecessary red tape when 80 per cent of those workers will be back anyway? If there are difficulties identified within the 13 weeks, WorkCover may do it and that is covered within the act. There is nothing preventing the establishment of a rehabilitation and return-to-work plan earlier than 13 weeks, even from the first week. The reference to 13 weeks of actual or likely incapacity is the point at which a plan becomes mandatory.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In response to what the minister has said, it seems that the key people protected by the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment are those who fall in that period in between, those who are likely to be off work for more than four weeks but less than 13 weeks, which is where the obligation to prepare a plan currently arises. I can accept what the minister says, that there may be an unnecessary plan prepared by someone who was always going to go back to work some time before the 13 weeks but not before four weeks, but let us look at this in toto: at the cost (or red tape, if you call it that) of preparing a plan compared with the benefit of an injured worker getting back to work sooner as a result of rehabilitation starting earlier.

Whilst I am no expert on the administrative cost of preparing a plan, I would have thought that if a worker goes back to work one week earlier than they would have otherwise, then we have a saving. WorkCover is saving because it no longer has to pay that person their weekly payments. I do not accept that the additional cost of preparing some plans, a few of which may turn out to be unnecessary, is the death knell for an amendment like this. It is a sensible amendment and, if we are serious about getting people back to work, it deserves members' support.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I refer to the core competencies booklet, which says that a rehabilitation plan is a document prepared with the client, which outlines the goals of any rehabilitation program. The plan also outlines the services to be provided, who will provide those services, the time frame on the provision of those services and an approximate cost for the rehabilitation program. What is the advertisement on the radio: people do not plan to fail, they fail to plan. That is exactly what is going wrong with the WorkCover Corporation. I ask the minister to find out how many of those people on the long tail of the WorkCover scheme actually have a rehabilitation plan and a rehabilitation program, because not all of them do and some have been on that scheme now for two, three or four years and they still do not have a plan—they do not even have a program. As the Hon. Mark Parnell said, if we are serious about this rhetoric we are hearing about return to work being so important—

The CHAIRMAN: The honourable member will stick to the clause and stop debating.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: That is it, four weeks. If we are not to have any requirement on WorkCover to get a rehabilitation plan and a program in place for people after four weeks of being off work, then we are not serious about this whole return-to-work stuff we are talking about. The self-insured sector said early intervention is the key, whether the injury involves soft tissue damage or major damage. I have had a number of people coming to my office from the self-insured sector who, if something is not in place within two weeks of an injured worker putting in a claim, feel they are dragging their tail. At 13 weeks we are looking at the first step-down of an injured worker's entitlements and then we start to develop a plan and program for them, after we have already stepped them down for the first stage. They then have to cope with perhaps undergoing a rehabilitation program on less income than they were earlier receiving. It seems to me that medical professionals would know if someone will be back at work within 13 weeks or six months after four weeks of a claim being made.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am advised that the Campbell National Return to Work Monitor, which looks at these sorts of statistics across the country, indicates that South Australia has the most plans of any state relative to population but it has the worst return-to-work rates. I think that underlines the point that just having plans (and if this amendment is carried we would have a lot more of them) will not of itself solve the problem. I suggest that what we need is perhaps fewer but better plans for those who require them.

It would be wrong to suggest that, during the first four weeks (or, for that matter, the first 13 weeks), nothing is happening in relation to the treatment of injured workers. That is the period when there will be the medical management. Significant medical management will be taking place, particularly in the early days of an injury. Again I make the point that, under the act, WorkCover may establish these plans, but they are mandatory after 13 weeks, because we know that that is the time beyond which most soft tissue injuries should have healed.

However, if we require a plan for everyone after four weeks it will mean that even more resources from WorkCover will be going into this area, and that will obviously put a strain on improving the quality where it needs to be done with respect to those longer term injuries. I think the fact that we have the most plans across the country with the worst return-to-work rate really is a statistic that tells a story; that we really need to make sure that we introduce those plans when they are most needed and make them better, and that will give a better outcome.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I find it quite disturbing for the minister to suggest that, because we have more plans, we have a poorer return-to-work rate. Could it not be that it is because the plans are not being implemented, that they are not effective and that they are not followed with a rehabilitation program, and that is why we are having poor return-to-work rates?

The Hon. P. Holloway: What I am saying is that your amendment is not the answer to the problem. We have a problem, but this is not the answer.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member will stop debating the matter and the minister will stop encouraging the honourable member to debate it: we might move along a lot more quickly.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Can we find out how many of those 3,700 workers on the long tail of this scheme have a rehabilitation plan and are currently involved in a rehabilitation program?

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (5)

Bressington, A. (teller) Darley, J.A. Hood, D.G.E.
Kanck, S.M. Parnell, M.

NOES (14)

Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. (teller) Hunter, I.K. Lawson, R.D.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. Ridgway, D.W.
Schaefer, C.V. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

PAIRS (2)

Evans, A.L. Dawkins, J.S.L.


Majority of 9 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

New Clause 8A.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I move:

Page 13, after line 3—Insert:

8A—Amendment of section 28C—Rehabilitation standards and requirements

(1) Section 28C(1)—delete 'by regulation' and substitute:

—

(a) by regulation; or

(b) by the Corporation.

(2) Section 28C—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) Any standards or requirements developed by the Corporation under subsection (1) must be consistent with any relevant nationally recognised standards.

(1b) The Corporation must take reasonable steps to ensure that the standards and requirements under subsection (1) include a comprehensive set of scales of charges for the purposes of rehabilitation facilities and services provided for disabled workers for the purposes of this Act.

(1c) A scale of charges must be based on the average charge to members of the public for the relevant services (to such extent as this is reasonably practicable to ascertain).

(1d) In connection with the preceding subsections, a provider of a rehabilitation service must prepare a comprehensive statement of charges associated with the provision of services to a disabled worker within 7 days after the worker is referred to the provider for the provision of those services.

(3) Section 28C(2)—delete 'regulations imposing standards and requirements for rehabilitation programs and return to work plans, the Corporation must consult on the proposed regulations' and substitute:

standards and requirements under this section, the Corporation must consult

(4) Section 28C(2)—after paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) the Australian Rehabilitation Counsellors Association; and

It is intended that the corporation will be encouraged, if you like, to declare the standards to be set for rehabilitation providers and, in doing so, hopefully we can raise the bar with this amendment. It also aims to compel the corporation to play a more proactive regulatory role to ensure that service providers comply with the highest professional standards.

This has come about because we were able to communicate with rehabilitation providers, both here and interstate. Our standards just do not compare to interstate assessment, evaluation and the requirements of that industry. In South Australia it is pretty much a mixed bag, if you like. I have three rehabilitation people who have been working with my office for quite some time and they were the ones responsible for the drafting of this amendment and including in this bill a reference to standards and requirements so that, if a rehabilitation service reaches those standards and requirements, then they will actually be utilised by the corporation. Apparently, this is not occurring now as much as it should be. There seems to be a streamlining of services going to one or two service providers in particular. If there is a level playing field for rehabilitation providers and they are all measured and assessed at the same standard, there should be no reason why all rehabilitation providers cannot be utilised to their full potential.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I support the general thrust of this amendment. There is one minor glitch in it for me, but I do not think it is fatal, and that is in relation to the proposed new clause 8A(1b) (and perhaps it is a drafting issue) which allows WorkCover to set standards by its own decision rather than by regulation. It is very desirable that rehabilitation standards that are set for WorkCover purposes have a consistency with national standards. That is very much the thrust of the honourable member's amendment. I want to briefly address the issue raised by the honourable member's proposed new subparagraph (1c), which states:

A scale of charges must be based on the average charge to members of the public for the relevant services (to such extent as this is reasonably practicable to ascertain).

I think that is a very important amendment because it highlights one of the problems WorkCover has at present. Because WorkCover has very much taken a cost-containment approach to setting fees for many service providers—whether they be doctors or rehabilitation experts or whatever—many of those professionals can actually earn more doing the same work for people who are not under the SA workers compensation scheme; in other words, people whose injuries are covered by private health insurance or people who simply have to pay for those services themselves.

What this has resulted in, according to the many people who have contacted me, is that many professionals refuse to take on WorkCover cases. That, together with other frustrations that professionals often have in dealing with WorkCover, leads to the result that injured workers are finding it more and more difficult to obtain the best quality help to enable them to get better and get back to work. Requiring fees to be set at a level that reflects what the relevant professionals could otherwise expect for their services is an important step in attempting to restore injured workers with access to professional services and thereby helping them to get better.

I would like to also very briefly comment on the proposed new subsection (4). In support of that I say that it makes absolute sense to me to require that the Australian Rehabilitation Counsellors Association should be consulted on these matters. It is a sensible amendment and, as I say, I support some aspects of it very strongly but, overall, support the package.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I would like to clarify the point that the Hon. Mark Parnell made about having subsection (1b) included in this amendment. I would like to assure the member that I tried very hard not to allow the corporation to set any of these standards but, for some reason that is unclear to me, it needed to be included in there. It would have been my desire for this amendment to have it set strictly by regulation and, therefore, it would have meant that the corporation needed to comply with those regulations rather than set their own standards. However, that was not possible; perhaps parliamentary counsel might be able to clarify why it was not possible.

I also would have much preferred for this amendment to include SafeWork SA, as in the case of occupational health and safety, to set some of these standards. However, that also was not possible. There is a reason (but I am not quite sure what it is) why subsection (1b) is included there.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The government opposes the new clause, as it duplicates arrangements that are already in place through regulation. Alan Clayton did a review of rehabilitation in 2005 and made a number of recommendations to improve rehabilitation, and these are under way. There is extensive work under way to increase the level of expertise required of rehabilitation providers and to add more rigour to the management of the vocational rehabilitation contracts. So, for those reasons the government opposes the new clause.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Can the minister share with the chamber the standards that WorkCover is working towards under these regulations? Who is the assessing body, if you like, or the organisation or authority that is setting the standards for rehabilitation providers in South Australia?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The relevant qualifications are a bachelor's degree, a graduate diploma, or higher; for example, a masters or a doctorate. WorkCover has determined that the minimum qualification for consideration of registration from 1 July 2006 is an approved tertiary qualification with at least three years of study (or higher) in one of the following: Bachelor of Arts (majoring in psychology), Bachelor of Science (including behavioural or applied social or health science, with a major in psychology or disability studies), Bachelor of Psychology, Bachelor of Social Worker or Bachelor of Nursing; a graduate diploma (or higher) in one of the following social work areas: psychology, rehabilitation, counselling, disability studies counselling or nursing; or qualifications as one of the following: a registered nurse, an occupational therapist, a physiotherapist, a psychologist or a medical doctor.

WorkCover developed a comprehensive supervision and training program for vocational rehabilitation providers in 2006. This training program remains available to rehabilitation providers for staff training and competency assessment. In January 2008, following consultation with the key stakeholders, WorkCover developed WorkCover SA competency guidelines for vocational rehabilitation providers. These guidelines have been developed to provide agreed alternative methods for demonstrating competency and are available under the new agreement, effective 10 March 2008.

The guidelines set out the minimum competency requirements, depending on the consultants' qualifications, skills and experience. The development of a supervision and training program was one of the key recommendations made in Alan Clayton's 2005 report titled Review of the Framework for Rehabilitation in the South Australian WorkCover Scheme.

New clause negatived.

Clause 9.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Before moving my amendment, I have a few questions on this clause. This clause seeks to insert a new section 28D into the act, which will require employers to appoint rehabilitation and return-to-work coordinators. The coordinator is to be an employee of the employer, and the new clause sets out their functions. My question of the minister is whether or not what is proposed here is, in effect, what we already have, and I will explain that question.

We know that the government has claimed that the introduction of rehabilitation and return-to-work coordinators will deliver a substantial improvement in return-to-work and rehabilitation, but I am very suspicious about whether these coordinators will actually make any meaningful difference under the current proposals in the bill because, under the bill, there is no need for a rehabilitation and return-to-work coordinator to devote any particular amount of time to that topic or to have any more authority than, say, a fire warden or a first aid officer. In other words, it can be a position that is filled in title only but does not have any meaningful role. The only obligation that the employer has is to nominate someone to be the rehabilitation and return-to-work coordinator. Other than that, they might potentially attend some training at some stage, but they are under no obligation to actually do anything once they are appointed.

The reason I ask the minister whether or not what is being proposed here is what we already have is that it seems to me that many medium and large employers already have people fulfilling this sort of role; they already assign these responsibilities to a particular employee. Given that is the case, I would appreciate the minister's answer as to the additional benefits the government sees in the creation of these positions when there is no obligation under them to do a great deal of work.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: First of all, new section 28D is in the government's bill as a proposed new section. The current Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act does not provide for rehabilitation and return-to-work coordinators. Sections 28, 28A, 28B and 28C of the current act deal with rehabilitation advisers and rehabilitation and return-to-work plans. It is widely acknowledged that the best return-to-work results are gained from workplace-based arrangements in which the employer actively participates in the rehabilitation process.

The current injury management process can be too centralised to be of an office-based nature. The proposed insertion of section 28D will introduce these return-to-work coordinators into many South Australian workplaces. The regulations will initially prescribe that any workplace with 30 or more workers must employ a rehabilitation and return-to-work coordinator within six months of the requirement to register with WorkCover. After three years, it is proposed to expand the requirements to businesses with 20 or more employees. The regulations may also exempt an employer or class of employer from a requirement under this section. The coordinator must be an employee and the employer must be based in South Australia. The coordinators will assist injured workers to:

remain at or return to work as soon as possible after their injury;

liaise with WorkCover to prepare and implement the injured worker's rehabilitation and return-to-work plan;

liaise with medical and rehabilitation providers to monitor the progress of the worker's capacity to return to work; and

take steps to try to prevent any secondary disability once the worker returns to work.

The advantages of this proposal are that research strongly supports the efficacy of workplace-based return-to-work programs. Similar examples in other jurisdictions have also demonstrated a high level of success with their implementation, and the proposal aims to successfully return more injured workers to work sooner, thereby substantially reducing the cost of workers compensation claims. Of course, they are in line with the Clayton report. That is why the government is introducing section 28D.

The Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment proposes to insert a new section 28E to make explicit an injured worker's right to make any reasonable request for assistance with rehabilitation and that WorkCover must determine a request for assistance with rehabilitation made by a worker as expeditiously as possible and, wherever possible, it should endeavour to act on such a request within two business days.

The government opposes this amendment. as it is completely unrealistic to expect case managers to consider and responsibly determine requests for rehabilitation that they may never have heard of before within two business days. In addition to this, injured workers may already request assistance with rehabilitation, as this falls within the spirit of existing legislation. One of the primary objectives of WorkCover, as defined in the WorkCover Corporation Act 1994, is to 'ensure as far as practicable the prompt and effective rehabilitation of workers who suffer work-related injuries'. This is a key objective to which WorkCover is held. However, this unrealistic amendment will not serve to improve how the objective is delivered.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his addressing my amendment, which I will move shortly, and certainly I will not ask him to repeat his explanation then. My further question of the minister follows the question I asked before in relation to the fact that most small employers will be exempt from this provision and, on the information I have, most big employers are already doing it. Does the government have any information about the number of employers, and the number of workers who work for those employers, who would be appointing someone in this type of role for the first time whether or not they have this exact same label of a rehabilitation/return-to-work coordinator? I want to get a feel for whether this amendment is going to capture more people on the ground, other than those who are already doing it.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Obviously it is hard to be precise, but our rough estimates are that about 2,000 employers might be covered—that is, those with greater than 30 employees. That is roughly.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 14, after line 6—

Insert:

28E—Action on request for rehabilitation and assistance

(1) A disabled worker may make any reasonable request for assistance with rehabilitation.

(2) The Corporation must determine a request for assistance with rehabilitation made by a worker as expeditiously as possible and, wherever practicable, endeavour to take action on the request (including by initiating an assessment or response in relation to the request) within 2 business days after the receipt of the request.

As the minister has pointed out, this amendment requires the corporation to determine in a short period of time any reasonable request for assistance with rehabilitation. The rationale for my moving this amendment is that it acknowledges that rehabilitation should be addressed sooner rather than later and, if possible, even from the date of the injury. Under the present arrangements, workers cannot get through the current bureaucracy in a reasonable time frame in order to get the assistance that they need to progress their rehabilitation.

It seems clear to me that the costs to the scheme of early intervention will be beneficial in the long term by preventing the continued growth of the long tail in the scheme, and WorkCover and the claims managers have effectively become experts in building this long tail. Access to rehabilitation is currently limited by a range of policy and procedural failures, including workers having no say in their rehabilitation and having inadequate mechanisms to make the claims manager respond to their need and request for assistance.

Under the present arrangements, workers are often not meaningfully consulted and often receive limited or no response—for example, to their requests regarding retraining, which is an issue we dealt with yesterday, or their need to improve their fitness, which we dealt with yesterday when we talked about people trying to get gymnasium access and being thwarted at every turn, or even people being able to be provided with special medical requirements.

I do not think this amendment actually asks for very much. It is asking that, if a worker asks for some help with rehabilitation, WorkCover does something about that request within two business days of receiving it. They just have to respond to the request and do more than just say, 'Thanks; we've got it and we will just sit on it for months and months, and we will make you go to the tribunal in order to have something done about it.' It puts this pressure back on WorkCover to respond. I guess it gives some power or authority to the worker; if they do need to go to another level to make sure something happens, then at least they have the benefit of my proposed section.

If the case manager needs a medical opinion about the request, that is fine, but get onto it fast: set up the appointment or ask for the report within two days. Certainly, the outcome will take longer than that, but this makes people get things happening faster. If the case manager thinks they need more information about what jobs a worker might be able to get if they do a particular course, that is fine, but let us make them at least ask for that information sooner rather than later. If WorkCover says that the request is not practicable, the obvious reason is at present the chronic under-staffing of case managers. The information that I have is that they are so overworked they have not actually got a hope of pursuing decent rehabilitation requests, because they are desperately trying to get other basic jobs done.

Too many workers have told me that, after months of no response to a request for rehabilitation, when they take the failure to respond to the Workers Compensation Tribunal it is only then that WorkCover actually asks for a medical report to help it make its decision, and then that takes even more time to arrive. It seems that, if the government is serious about assisting those who are injured to get back to work, and if it is serious about reducing employers' levies and improving the scheme performance, then this is an amendment that will help bring that about.

In conclusion, I will refer to one person who contacted me on Friday of last week. My staff received a very distressing phone call from a person on WorkCover who was highly distressed about the legislation and the changes that it was going to bring in. This person described how they had had a complete mental breakdown following a very bad case of workplace bullying. The workplace, in a subsequent court case, was found to be completely negligent. The person was extremely upset about the potential loss of income. They described how much financial strain their family is currently under, let alone what will happen when their income is cut.

The main reason for me describing that person's story is that it is not yet another complaint about the bill: it is directly relevant to this amendment. The crux of the person's story was that it had taken them two years to even get rehabilitation to begin. That example opens up, I think, that whole question of psychiatric injuries which do not neatly fit into the 13-week mould of rehabilitation and recovery that this bill seeks to impose. Often rehabilitation takes much longer.

What this person who communicated to my office was most concerned about was that, if they were currently well advanced in their return-to-work program—and in this case the person was about to return to work after undertaking a series of rehabilitation programs—they were very concerned that they are going to be kicked off WorkCover, despite the fact that after two years they were only just commencing their rehabilitation.

So, the two things go hand in hand: the timeframe within which people commence rehabilitation and the timeframe within which their benefits are going to be cut. It seems to me eminently sensible to bring forward the rehabilitation, because the sooner people start getting help, the sooner they are likely to get back to work. I would urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I want to point out one thing that I think the Hon. Mark Parnell seems to be neglecting, and that is that the early intervention following a workplace injury is likely to be medical intervention. There is intervention straight away. It is medical intervention. The rehabilitation plan and so on follow on from the early medical intervention. In relation to that, of course, under clause 12 of the bill, which we will come to in a moment, there is the section on provisional liability which will enable up to $5,000 in medical expenses to be incurred before a determination is made.

The point is that what we are trying to do is to get the medical intervention quicker. The provision under clause 12 will significantly assist in that. The rehabilitation plans will then come in following that medical assessment and intervention. In any case, I would point out to the committee that, if there is any unreasonable delay in preparing a plan, then there are sections of the act (part 6A) where an expedited decision can be requested. So, there are substantial provisions in the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act which can deal with the issue of unreasonable delay, should that occur. We should not overlook the fact that it is the medical intervention which is the necessary early intervention.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: This amendment does not downplay or devalue the importance of early medical intervention. What it does is provide that, as part of a package of measures, early rehabilitation intervention can be just as important. So, I think that this amendment is still one that is deserving of support. Members need only think about other areas of law that we have dealt with where the law has tried to provide a solution for bureaucratic delay.

The minister has referred to one provision, which is more cumbersome than what I am proposing. I am proposing a very simple 'We will get back to you within a very short period of time.' The other way we could approach it is to say, as we do in other bits of legislation, 'The default position is that if you do not get an answer within a certain period of time then the answer is yes.' That would be another way we could have gone.

I have not gone down that path. I have gone down a path which basically forces an early response. It does not mean that it will be a final answer, but it at least forces bureaucrats to take requests seriously and to respond to them seriously. I have not had anyone tell me that it is a bad thing for injured workers to be given more control, more responsibility and more dignity in dealing with their situation, rather than less.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (5)

Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. Hood, D.G.E.
Kanck, S.M. Parnell, M. (teller)

NOES (13)

Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. (teller) Hunter, I.K. Lawson, R.D.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. Ridgway, D.W.
Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P.
Zollo, C.

PAIRS (2)

Evans, A.L. Dawkins, J.S.L.


Majority of 8 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Clause 10 amends section 30. The explanation of clauses states:

As a consequence of this amendment, a worker's employment will include attendance at a place for the purposes of a rehabilitation and return to work plan.

My question to the minister is: am I correct in my understanding that this clause fixes what may be seen as a technical issue—that is, at the moment, if a worker is injured when attending for treatment under a rehabilitation program, they are covered by workers compensation, but they are not if their attendance is in relation to a rehabilitation return-to-work plan? Will the minister clarify whether that is the effect of the amendment?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that that is the case. I believe it was a drafting omission when the bill was drafted in 1995.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Before I move my amendment, I have a question of the minister. Why has the government amended this section in the way it has when it does not seem to follow any issues raised in the Clayton report or elsewhere?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am advised that this was a recommendation of the board in November 2006. The advantage of this proposal is that clause 11 of the bill provides for a more responsive and flexible fee-setting process under section 32 of the act. The proposal would provide the minister with the authority to set fees after consultation has occurred with relevant stakeholder organisations.

Eliminating the need to regulate fees not only increases flexibility in purchasing services but also enhances access to timely services that will deliver improved outcomes for injured workers. Amending the act to give the minister the authority to set medical fees after consultation has occurred with relevant stakeholder organisations streamlines the fee-setting process, removes unnecessary red tape, increases flexibility in purchasing services, and facilitates access to timely services for injured workers.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer. I am not entirely convinced it is the way to go, because we are removing some level of scrutiny, whether it is through the Legislative Review Committee or even through parliament. However, I do not have a particular amendment to deal with that issue, and we have previously discussed the merits of different provisions being passed by regulation or simply by proclamation. I move:

Page 14, after line 12—Insert:

1(a) Section 32—After subsection (3) insert:

(3a) The corporation should take reasonable steps to arrange to pay compensation under subsection (3)(b) where the service involves the provision of medicines on a regular basis.

This amendment proposes a new subsection (3a). The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when workers have regular medication needs WorkCover will take the fairest, most efficient and least stressful option for the worker in providing for those needs. It could work by WorkCover simply establishing an account with a relevant pharmacy so that it is billed directly for the medicines it approves.

It would come as no surprise to members to know that having to pay for medications and then wait, sometimes for months, to be reimbursed for those costs can put great stress on family budgets. It would have the additional advantage of providing a better recording method for the medications used, because the records would be directly between the pharmacy and WorkCover. I believe an amendment such as this would lead to less of an administrative burden, and would remove the need for injured workers to submit receipts. It minimises paper; therefore, it minimises costs.

It also eliminates the problems of claims managers losing receipts and repeated requests of injured workers to resubmit paperwork. A number of injured workers have come to me complaining quite bitterly when paperwork or receipts go missing; often they see a conspiracy, that they are being punished for criticising the system or causing trouble—and, as we had some time ago, injured workers even talking to each other can result in what they see as discrimination. I think a measure such as this will provide for a better experience for workers in relation to them obtaining their medicines and would remove a major source of frustration people currently have with the system.

Of course, it could be said that WorkCover or exempt employers could do this now; they could introduce such a scheme. However, my point is that I understand it is very rare for them to actually offer this type of facility to injured workers. As I understand it, injured workers usually do not know that this is a possibility and, therefore, do not ask for it; it is not something that is offered to them as a matter of course.

There will be some circumstances where it is not appropriate to provide for a system such as this, but many workers who have long-term injuries have the same medication week in week out for years. This has nothing to do with the prescriptions themselves; it has nothing to do with circumventing doctors' prescribing role: it is simply about the dispensing role. The amendment puts the onus on WorkCover to make arrangements that will take pressure off injured workers, and I expect it will make the administration of the scheme simpler and cheaper. For those reasons, I believe all members should support this amendment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The government opposes this amendment, as a worker is already entitled to be compensated for the costs of medicines or other materials (such as support bandages, heat packs or the like) where these have been purchased on the prescription or recommendation of a medical expert. We also oppose the amendment on the basis that this is a matter already suitably addressed at an operational level. Where there is an ongoing need for provider services such as pharmacy items, the claims agent can suggest to the worker that they discuss with the provider the establishment of an account. The claims agent should also assist the worker to arrange this if necessary.

This practice is in the interests of both workers and agents. In the case of chemist expenses, it means that the agent has to deal with only one consolidated account for the worker's expenses rather than individual accounts for numerous purchases. In other cases, it ensures that the worker is not out of pocket whilst awaiting reimbursement.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I agree that they should do it, but the evidence I have is that they do not. Whilst my amendment does not force them to, it says that the corporation should take reasonable steps to arrange for this. Yes, perhaps some are doing it; but, as I understand it, the vast bulk are not. Putting it in legislation makes it much more likely that it will happen, and it seems to me, even from the minister's answer, that there is no great harm putting this in. It simply puts up front that it is an obligation on the corporation to take these reasonable steps. I maintain my amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (4)

Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. Kanck, S.M.
Parnell, M. (teller)

NOES (12)

Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. (teller) Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

PAIRS (4)

Evans, A.L. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K.


Majority of eight for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: This clause inserts a new section 32A in relation to special provisions for payment of medical expenses after initial notification of a disability. Given that many case managers do not have medical experience, how will medical expenses be determined to be reasonable or unreasonable without seeking a medical report? Medical reports, as we all know, are one of the biggest causes of delay. If case managers continue to seek medical reports to answer their questions, will not the result under this new regime be exactly the same as under the present regime?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It will not change from the current situation. Obviously the case manager has to determine what is reasonable and base it on their judgment and awareness of the facts.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I take it from the minister's answer that there is probably no great improvement in this case, because that is what they would be doing already. It seems that if they require medical reports to help them form their view they will still do that, so we are not saving anything there. My next question relates to the figure for payment of medical expenses, which is set at $5,000. On what basis was that figure calculated?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is based on the Clayton review, which in turn I understand is based largely on the New South Wales experience. I refer the honourable member to pages 174 and 175 of the Clayton report, section 543, 'Provisional liability'.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The clause also inserts in the new section 32A a new subclause (10), which provides for a range of decisions not to be reviewable. The first of those is a decision to accept or not accept liability under the section. What justification is there for having non-medical personnel being able to make decisions that clearly involve some medical judgment without having those decisions subject to some form of review? What is the justification for the non-reviewability of these decisions?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that this clause provides for provisional acceptance before a claim is made, and that must be made within seven days. There are six exceptions, which we will discuss in clause 29. If the case manager does not accept the provisional claim, the provisions that are currently in the act will apply: in other words, a formal claim is lodged. So, the new system allows the provisional claim before a claim is formally made, and it has to be within seven days. There are six exceptions to that. If the case manager does not agree, it just goes back to what the current system is.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: My final question relates to the applications that are made by workers. The new provision talks about applications being made to the corporation in the designated manner and in the designated form. What type of information is it envisaged the worker will have to provide in order for the corporation to make a preliminary decision, and what steps will the government take to make sure that these requirements are not so onerous as to make an interim application, as it were, hardly worth the effort? It does not take a lot of imagination to realise that, if the paperwork was too difficult, people would not seek to avail themselves of this provision.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice on this section is based on the New South Wales experience. So, we are relying on what has happened there. The minister will be gazetting provisional payment guidelines, but the whole thrust behind this new measure is to require a minimal amount of detail. As I said, that is really based on what happens in New South Wales.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Page 15, line 6—Delete 'designated manner and the designated form' and substitute:

prescribed manner and form

This amendment follows somewhat of a theme in relation to the appropriateness of different measures being included in regulations other than just being designated. It seems to me that, in relation to the forms under this provision, these are important enough that they should be subject to parliamentary oversight and, therefore, be done through regulations rather than just designated by the minister.

It seems to me that the way this is currently drafted means that unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats will ultimately have the final say on an important question in relation to the rules for injured workers getting their payments. I take some comfort from the minister's statement that they are proposing a minimalist rather than an exhaustive process but, nevertheless, I do not think WorkCover's performance to date instils in us any confidence that it will be an efficient and user-friendly system. However, because this amendment does follow others where we have discussed the issue of regulation versus designation, I do not propose to divide on it.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The government opposes this amendment, as we have made several proposals in the original bill to remove the requirement for WorkCover to regulate the forms. The regulation of forms requires ministerial endorsement, parliamentary approval and then proclamation by the Governor in Executive Council and then, presumably, perusal by the Legislative Review Committee.

This is an administratively inefficient process which severely limits opportunities to amend the forms so that they remain up to date with changes to contemporary business practice. As I think I indicated in the debate we had yesterday, I do not think any other state requires them.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: This clause involves the topic of transportation for initial treatment. My question to the minister is: why is this amendment proposed? Currently, the regulations under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act prescribe the figure, under the existing section 33(4), as being $150. Section 33(4) states:

If the cost of transportation provided by an employer, other than an exempt employer, to a worker in accordance with subsection (1), exceeds an amount prescribed by the regulations, the employer is, on application to the corporation in a manner and form approved by the corporation, entitled to recover the excess from the corporation.

It seems the way the system currently works is that the employer bears the cost and it claims back any additional costs over that $150 from WorkCover. It seems odd that this government and WorkCover itself (despite all the other problems that we have seen with WorkCover where it is not doing anything about problems such as the failure to provide decent rehabilitation) want to change a part of the act which no government has seen fit to change since 1999. It hardly seems to be a burning issue. My understanding is that this was not raised in the Clayton report. There was no case made for why these changes were necessary in the WorkCover proposal.

It seems to me to be a case of the government fiddling around with a fairly inconsequential issue while the bigger issues of workers' entitlements are where it should be devoting its attention. I can see no case for change. If there is a genuine case that the $150 is inadequate, my question is: why have the regulations not changed? There may be some merit in this amendment but no case has been put to us to justify it. In addition to this question, I ask how many claims are made each year under section 33 and, of those claims (which all result in a shortfall), what is the average shortfall for those claims? Under WorkCover's proposal to increase the regulated amount to $240 indexed, what will be the extra cost paid by employers? What is the actuarial assessed impact of this proposal and what impact will it have on unfunded liabilities?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that it will have no impact on unfunded liability. Under the current law, section 33 provides:

Where a worker is injured at their workplace during the course of work and an injury requires immediate medical treatment, the employer shall transport the worker to a hospital or medical expert for initial treatment at their own expense.

Section 33(4) provides:

Where transportation costs exceed an amount prescribed by regulation the employer can apply to recover the excess from WorkCover.

Under regulation 5 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation General Regulations 1999, the prescribed amount for transportation costs is $150. The amount of $150 was prescribed in 1988 but no further amounts have been prescribed. The figure that was set on 17 October 1988 was not subject to indexation. The proposal to automatically index the cap adds much needed flexibility to the process which will ensure that, from this point, the cap can keep pace with inflation. The actual transportation costs, in most cases by ambulance, greatly exceed the regulated amount. Ambulance costs are based on a call-out fee of $660 in most cases, and then $3.85 per kilometre travelled.

I think the Hon. Mr Parnell also asked for some statistics, and my advice is that we are unable to provide data in relation to how much compensation WorkCover has paid under that section in the last five years because , unfortunately, claims under section 33(4) are not allocated separate payment codes to allow for their easy reporting.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer. It seems to me that there may be simpler ways of dealing with this. The fundamental principle at stake here is that there is no limit on the amount of money that an employer can claim back under section 33 as long as their expenditure is over the legal minimum; in other words, it is not capped. That puts this provision at odds with the other provisions, such as workers claiming medical expenses for costs reasonably incurred. There is no requirement for these travel costs to have to be reasonably incurred, and there is no cap. So, my question to the minister is: what consideration does the government give to the possibility of capping what an employer can recover under this section and, in addition, or, alternatively, to imposing a requirement before it can be recovered that it had been reasonably incurred; and, if the government did consider those options, why did it not proceed with either capping or a requirement for reasonableness?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I indicated, we are talking here about the transport of an injured worker, in most cases to a hospital and in most cases by an ambulance. Given that the ambulance service is, after all, provided through the government, it is really the government that sets the fees. This is really what this provision is all about. It is just about ensuring that the employer meets up to the cap or above the cap. What we are doing here is increasing the excess, but the honourable member is talking about why there is no cap. As I said, in most cases we are talking about ambulance transport, which is a government organisation with a set fee, anyway.

Clause passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Clause 14 amends section 34, which provides for compensation for property damage. The effect of this amendment is fairly minor; it is in relation to indexing. My question in relation to compensation for property damage is more fundamental, and I want to make some observations on how the system works. Under regulation 6 of this act, there is a provision for compensation for property damage. It basically provides that, for the purposes of section 34 of the act, the following limits apply in relation to the compensation payable for damage to personal property. It then states that, for damage to therapeutic appliances and tools of trade, there is no limit and, for damage to clothes and personal effects, there is a $1,500 limit.

The regulation then goes on to say that the amount prescribed under subregulation (1)(b) will be adjusted on an annual basis according to calendar years so that the relevant amount for a year from time to time will be an amount that is effectively indexed. I will not quote verbatim the whole clause but, basically, it refers to the consumer price index. That regulation, as I understand it, was first made by the former Liberal government in 1999.

One of the things that leap out at me when considering this clause is that the change that the bill proposes is to allow the regulation to include indexing, but the existing regulation already includes indexing. Does that mean, therefore, that the former Liberal government made an invalid regulation and that we now need to re-regulate that topic, or does it also mean, in fact, that the present government has done nothing about an invalid regulation for the past six years? I would first like to get a response from the minister to that question.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I have been advised by parliamentary counsel that it is desirable to have the capacity to index included in the act rather than in the regulations themselves. It just ensures that the regulating power—which will include indexation—is properly endorsed in the act itself. So, it is really just making absolutely sure that the current indexation in the 1999 regulations is valid and effective.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer. Just to follow that further, was there some suggestion from any quarter that the regulations were not valid, hence the need to clarify it?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is just a technical issue. Certainly, no stakeholders have expressed a view on it, but I guess it is just one of those things that is picked up by parliamentary counsel when drafting these bills. We all like to make sure that it is as effective as possible.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:15]


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