HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-06-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WORKCOVER CORPORATION (GOVERNANCE REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 June 2008. Page 3129.)

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (19:56): I thank the Hon. Robert Lawson for his comments during the second reading of this bill. The Hon. Mr Lawson asked me several questions. I have supplied him with an answer but I will put it on the record.

Mr Lawson asked why the minister's power to direct under section 14A(5)(d) provides that such a direction does not have to be published if it might detrimentally affect the performance of a statutory function. It is pointed out that this provision is a new provision applying to WorkCover. I am advised that the provision recognises the breadth and particular nature of the WorkCover Corporation's responsibilities which are not limited to financial performance. Particular emphasis is given in the act to the corporation's duties to provide effective rehabilitation; to set standards and policies to promote occupational health, safety and welfare; to promote injury prevention; and to provide compensation.

I am further advised that the clause referred to by the Hon. Robert Lawson is intended to provide a safeguard for the corporation where the publication of a ministerial direction in relation to one of these responsibilities could affect its capacity to discharge its other responsibilities. For example, the minister may give a direction to the corporation about the exercise of its powers to carry out investigations and prosecute under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act of 1986.

The publication of this policy might be detrimental to the corporation's ability to manage breaches of the act, for example, in relation to a policy as to whether to prosecute or give a warning. It would not be helpful to publicise the potential degree of tolerance that might be allowed to persons who commit technical breaches of the act. It needs to be emphasised that this provision is limited only to those circumstances detrimentally affecting the performance of a statutory function and therefore does not pertain to the corporation's general operations.

Secondly, the Hon. Robert Lawson asked why sections 17A and 17B provide for the minister to prepare and review the corporation's charter and performance agreement in consultation with the corporation. In this sense the sections do not replicate exactly those measures in the Public Corporations Act that provide for both the minister and the Treasurer to participate in these processes. The government gave careful consideration to its preferred governance arrangements for the WorkCover Corporation. In respect of the matter raised by the Hon. Robert Lawson, I am advised that there were three choices. First, particular sections of the Public Corporations Act could be applied to WorkCover; secondly, the exact provisions of that act could be inserted into the WorkCover act; and, thirdly, the WorkCover act could be amended to take into account the particular circumstances of the corporation.

In the event, the government chose the third option, that is, amending the WorkCover Corporation act to reflect its special circumstances. The particular circumstances that the government had in mind were that, unlike other statutory authorities, WorkCover is not publicly funded and therefore is not a semi-government authority under the Government Financing Authority Act, the act which confers significant powers upon the Treasurer in relation to borrowing and investment by semi-government authorities.

The omission of the Treasurer from the preparation and review of WorkCover Corporation's charter and performance agreement recognises these realities and provides for a single, clear and transparent line of accountability with the minister. I commend the bill to the council.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I have a point of order, sir. The cameraman needs to focus only on members on their feet.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Hon. R.P. Wortley): The cameraman can do a wide-angled shot, but please be careful.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have been provided with a copy of a letter from Mr Geoff Davey, Acting Chief Executive Officer of WorkCover. It is an old letter which goes back to January 2004. The letter, which is addressed to Ms Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson of the Work Injured Resource Connection, states:

Dear Ms Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson

I refer to your letter dated 12 December 2003 in relation to the provision of WorkCover Board minutes. Bruce Carter has requested that I respond on his behalf. I advise that minutes from board meetings have never been made available to the public as they are commercially confidential.

My question of the minister is whether or not that is still the case and whether it is possible for minutes of decisions of the WorkCover Board to be made publicly available, even though it would be quite appropriate for any minutes that relate to detailed deliberations to be kept commercially confidential. I could see no reason why decisions reflected in minutes should not be made publicly available.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The minutes of WorkCover (as with other similar corporations) are indeed confidential—as they ought to be. It is important that members of boards are able to have a robust discussion in relation to the important issues facing them without their views becoming publicly available and their being lobbied in relation to them. Yes, the board minutes are confidential.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I accept that details of deliberations are quite rightly kept confidential if the board is to have a frank and fearless debate, but certainly the decisions that they make ought to be publicly available. The minutes can be provided in a form that does not reflect who said what, or even who voted which way on an issue, but certainly I can see no reason why the outcomes of the meeting in terms of decisions could not be made publicly available.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: In relation to the major decisions that have an impact on the operation of the scheme under the act, then obviously it is the act which prescribes which particular decisions will be made public. My understanding is board determinations are gazetted. We have discussed a number of situations where decisions are gazetted and where obviously they set up guidelines or practices within the system during debate on the previous bill. In addition, I am advised that there are also quarterly reports on the scheme's performance. That public accountability is performed in a number of ways, but it is the act which is the appropriate place in which those things are prescribed and we have just had a long debate on that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

New Clause 4A.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 2, after line 12—Insert:

4A—Amendment of section 5—Constitution of board of management

Section 5(2)—Delete subsection (2) and substitute:

(2) The board consists of nine members appointed by the Governor on the nomination of the minister, being the persons who collectively have, in the opinion of the minister, the knowledge, skills and experience necessary to enable the board to carry out its functions effectively.

(2a) Of those members:

(a) at least one must be a person experienced in rehabilitation; and

(b) at least one must be a person experienced in occupational health and safety; and

(c) at least one must be a person experienced in financial management, the management of capital through investments, and the area of insurance; and

(d) at least one must be an actuary; and

(e) at least one must be a person experienced in the self-insured employer sector; and

(f) at least one must be a legal practitioner experienced in the area of workers compensation

This amendment proposes to change the structure of WorkCover's management board from one of stakeholder representation to expert representation. It provides that the board shall consist of nine members appointed by the Governor on the nomination of the minister, being members who collectively have, in the opinion of the minister, the knowledge, skills and experience necessary to enable the board to carry out its functions effectively. Of those nine members, at least one member must be a person experienced in rehabilitation (as is currently the case); at least one must be a person experienced in occupational health and safety (as is also currently the case); at least one must be a person experienced in financial management, management of capital through investments and the area of insurance; at least one must be an actuary; at least one must be a person experienced in the self-insured employer sector; and at least one must be a legal practitioner experienced in the area of workers compensation.

I have previously stated that there are far more reaching problems with the WorkCover scheme that legislative reform alone will not address, and I believe the government needs to implement changes to address these underlying issues that will result in a change to the attitude and culture of all parties involved in the WorkCover scheme. The cultural issues go much further than those expressed by the government, which appear to be secondary to the financial deterioration of the scheme. I for one am not confident that the WorkCover Corporation has established the organisational capability and leadership required to tackle the scheme's challenges and I question the follow-up of the current board in this regard, given that it is a representative board made up of stakeholders who may or may not have their own agendas.

This amendment aims to begin this process of change within the WorkCover board. It is aimed at providing a board made up of individuals experienced in dealing with all the critical areas associated with workers compensation legislation. I strongly urge members to support this amendment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Darley deletes the current directions for the constitution of the board and replaces them with different ones. It is proposed that the minister nominates people who he believes are competent to carry out the role of board members: one will have to be experienced in rehabilitation; one in OHS; one in financial management and insurance; one an actuary; one experienced in self-insurance; and one a workers compensation legal practitioner.

The government opposes this amendment as we believe that the WorkCover Board is an appropriately selected and balanced board which represents the interests of both employee and employer stakeholders and which has experience in the areas of rehabilitation and occupational health and safety. In addition, there is nothing preventing the government from appointing people with the types of qualifications suggested by the Hon. Mr Darley. In fact, the board chair, Mr Bruce Carter, is clearly someone with financial management experience. Board member, Jane Tongs, has a background in insurance and risk management, and Barbara Rajkowska has extensive knowledge in the self-insured sector.

As someone who, as a minister, has to make appointments to a number of boards within their portfolio, it is often the case that the more prescriptive you might be with the types of suggestions made by the Hon. Mr Darley the more likely, in my view, you are to get a board that in the end cannot see the wood for the trees. By the time you try to balance up all the factors (including gender balance), and with people with these types of experiences, the one thing I have learned in my experience as a minister is that the most important thing above all is competence in running a board. That is the overwhelming criterion.

Of course, it is important that there be a range of skills and knowledge on the board, but to me it is much more important to have people with the skill and the talent and of a calibre to properly manage a board than to have a mixed board with particular skills, For that reason, I believe we should oppose the amendment.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Whilst we have some sympathy for this well-intentioned amendment of the Hon. John Darley, we are not convinced that we as legislators should limit the capacity of any government to select a well-rounded board to fulfil particular functions. It seems to us that the designation of the required experience of individual board members is overly prescriptive. Whilst it is true that persons with the experience mentioned in the honourable member's amendment sound like good people with good experience to have on a board, in selecting a board a government ought to have sufficient flexibility to make judgments.

Incidentally, we believe that it is very easy for this government to sheet home responsibility for the current situation of WorkCover to the board; it has been very keen to do that, and it has been demonstrated in a number of ways. This governance bill will make this body subject to ministerial direction, as it should be and, indeed, as it has been.

This government has had its hands on the wheel of WorkCover since it came to office. This minister had his hands on the wheel, and his fingerprints are on the result—and never let that be forgotten. We simply do not believe that, by stipulating in a prescriptive manner the particular qualifications that are to be held by individual members, will necessarily yield a better board. So, not without some reluctance, I indicate that we will not be supporting this measure.

New clause negatived.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I move:

Page 3, lines 22 and 23—Delete paragraph (d).

I apologise to the committee that this amendment was placed on file only earlier this afternoon, and I will therefore explain its effect in some detail. When making my second reading contribution I had hoped that the government would provide information which convincingly showed that an amendment of this kind was unnecessary. However, the explanation ultimately provided by the minister—and I thank the minister for doing that—does not allay the fears which we have.

This is an amendment to proposed clause 14A. Proposed clause 14A, headed 'Direction of minister', specifically provides that the corporation will be subject to the control and direction of the minister. Clause 14A is based word for word upon section 6 of the Public Corporations Act. So, what the government is doing by this amendment is to make WorkCover subject to the same regime that applies to SA Water, the Land Management Corporation, the Lotteries Commission, TransAdelaide and other public corporations, except in one significant respect.

The clause, as I say, provides that the corporation is subject to the control and direction of the minister. It goes on with some important qualifications: the minister cannot direct the corporation in relation to a specific WorkCover matter; any ministerial direction that is given must be communicated to the corporation in writing, so it cannot be a secret call to the chairman: it has got to be written; it must be published in the next annual report of the corporation; and it must be published in the government Gazette within seven days. So, it is an important element of accountability and transparency. It is very important that any directions be made public.

However, there is an appropriate form of protection in subclause (5): 'if the corporation is of the opinion that a direction should not be published' because (a) it 'might detrimentally affect' commercial interests, (b) it 'might constitute a breach of duty of confidence', or (c) 'might prejudice an investigation of misconduct or possible misconduct' are all reasons that we can accept as being appropriate to relieve the minister of the obligation to make the direction public, and they apply to all public corporations.

However, in this act, and without any explanation, the government has added another reason why the minister can avoid publicly revealing the contents of a direction, and that is a new clause (d) which is inserted, and my amendment seeks to delete this clause. The new way out for the minister is that the publication of the direction 'might detrimentally affect the performance of a statutory function'.

I cannot see any reason why this additional way out of publicly revealing a direction should be made available to the WorkCover Corporation, of all of the public corporations that we have. SA Water does not have this particular way out for the minister there: he has got to actually table it unless he can satisfy the earlier criteria. The minister, no doubt, will provide some explanation: he did in his answer. He suggested—and this might come up in debate—that there might be reasons of policy (in relation to prosecutions, for example) where they might not want to reveal the direction.

I am certainly not satisfied of that. If any direction is given it ought to be publicly available, excepting in the extraordinary cases which are already mentioned and which apply to other corporations. I seek support for the amendment which in this respect will put WorkCover in the same position as SA Water and other public corporations.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: First, I would like to make the point that WorkCover is not quite in the same position as SA Water, which is really a commercial operation. WorkCover has a range of responsibilities in terms of rehabilitation; SA Water is simply about producing water at a price. I suppose it has a community service obligation, but that is satisfied by providing water to country areas at a lower price. I think it is quite different with WorkCover, which has these broader responsibilities.

An example I gave in my second reading contribution of a policy that might be detrimental to the corporation's ability to manage breaches of the act was, in relation to a policy, whether to prosecute or give a warning. My point was that it would not be helpful to publicise the potential degree of tolerance that might be allowed to persons who commit technical breaches of the act. If that is the sort of thing where there might be a direction—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Why is the minister giving directions?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, one does not know what the background might be; this is hypothetical—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is simply to allow for the fact that there might be a case where—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Hon. R.P. Wortley): Allow the minister to answer the question.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition to try—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: How would it be helpful to publish the potential degree of intolerance? There have to be those sorts of directions. I can give one analogy; it does not really apply to the minister, but the Commissioner of Police determines the tolerance on speed cameras. That is not made public for a very good reason, and I think everyone would know what that was.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It probably would be possible to give a direction, but why should the Commissioner have to make that public? That is an example of a very good reason why a policy that is uniform and not discriminatory in any way should not be made public. If you look at the other reasons (and the Hon. Robert Lawson is not challenging those), it says:

If the corporation is of the opinion that a direction should not be published for the reason that its publication—

(a) might detrimentally affect the corporation's commercial interests—

so he is happy with that—

or

(b) might constitute breach of a duty of confidence—

he is happy with that—

or

(c) might prejudice an investigation of misconduct or possible misconduct—

and he is happy with that, but apparently he is not happy with—

or

(d) might detrimentally affect the performance of a statutory function...

Now, if you put it in that context I would have thought it was the Hon. Robert Lawson who needed to explain why that is different to the other functions.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The examples given by the minister as being reasons for the necessity for this provision are that perhaps the minister—and this is a political officer—might wish to issue a direction to the WorkCover board. Now, I presume you do not issue directions if the board is prepared to do whatever the minister is suggesting; these are fairly extraordinary circumstances where the board does not see the sense of a particular position and the minister has to give a political direction as to what to do. The two examples are given as a policy as to whether to prosecute or give a warning. That is what the minister said. If there is some policy in relation to prosecution that the minister at a political level wants to give a direction, that is the very sort of issue that ought to be publicly disclosed.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Neither am I.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Can members please go through the chair.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The minister might want to say, 'We don't want you prosecuting SafeWork officers or union officials, who have a responsibility to pay, or giving warnings. We don't want you to do this and we do want you to do that.' These are fairly—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: It is the minister who is suggesting the example is a policy as to whether to prosecute or give a warning.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order!

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I am reading from the minister's second reading response. The fact is, the minister is suggesting that there might want to be a policy that the minister might want to impose, the board does not want to do it, and the minister wants to keep it secret. We do not believe that a government that claims to be committed to transparency and accountability should be promoting a special provision for WorkCover, not applicable to any other public corporation but to this one; that we can have a minister give a direction that is kept secret. There is simply no justification for it.

An example given of the Commissioner of Police, as the Hon. Rob Lucas pointed out in an interjection, is absolutely inappropriate, the very sort of case where a direction by a minister to the Commissioner of Police is the sort of thing that ought to be public. It should not be made in the first place—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: We are talking about the minister. The other distinction that the minister seeks to make, as he said, is that SA Water is purely a commercial operation and, therefore, you would not want to give a direction of this kind. SA Water is not purely a commercial operation. It is a public corporation. It has particular functions, many of which are to do with the public interest, just as the WorkCover board has public obligations. I do not believe that the government has made a clear case as to why a special exemption should be made for WorkCover Corporation, and I seek the committee's support, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation, for the removal of this offensive provision.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Hon. Rob Lawson has been a bit disingenuous in misinterpreting the point that I made in my second reading response. I said, 'in relation to a policy as to whether to prosecute or give a warning', and the member is suggesting that, somehow or other, the minister would say, 'Don't prosecute X or prosecute Y.' If such a direction were ever to be given—and I do not believe it would be—how would that detrimentally affect the performance of a statutory function? Obviously, it would be quite inappropriate.

Clearly, the point that was being made in relation to that is that, if there was some direction in relation to a class of actions there might be minor transgressions, and that is why I gave the example of the Police Commissioner. The Commissioner makes a determination about at what point people will be picked up under speed cameras; what the speed figure is.

That is the sort of general broad determination that has to be made and it is a type of instruction like that, by analogy, that would cover a class of actions where its publication might detrimentally affect the performance, because people would immediately shift their behaviour to the very margin of the act, as they would in the speed camera analogy. To try and suggest, as the Hon. Robert Lawson does, that the minister would somehow or other direct not to prosecute particular individuals, I think, is really being quite disingenuous.

Clearly, there are cases where, if a direction were to be given in relation to a class of behaviour to set the limit, if that degree of tolerance became known it could clearly detrimentally affect the performance of a statutory function. However, it would be quite proper for such a direction to be made.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I support the comments of my colleague the Hon. Mr Lawson and will not repeat them, but the other point I make is that the whole area of ministerial directions of statutory corporations is complex and difficult. The summary of the Hon. Mr Lawson's case is that there are provisions under the Public Corporations Act and, if it is to be different, the government needs to make the case. I agree with the Hon. Mr Lawson's argument that the government has not done so in this regard.

Evidence has come to light in regard to the WorkCover Corporation relating to the general issue of a commonly held view that a direction had been issued by minister Wright to the board in relation to the policy of redemptions. I will not go into the detail, but the minister had a particularly strong view on redemptions. It was a commonly held view, but it transpired that the chairman of the WorkCover Corporation conceded in the end that there had not been a direction to the board. However there had been a philosophical letter from the minister to the chairman of the board and to the board expressing the very strong views of the minister in relation to this critical policy issue.

It raises the general issue of a philosophical letter, as it was so described by the chair of WorkCover on a critical issue like redemptions, and a mechanism through that course where the minister did not issue a direction and therefore it did not have to be made public. That will not be resolved by this debate, but it is a complex area and ministers like to get their way if they can, and sometimes they like to get their way without it necessarily being revealed publicly through an annual report, a revelation or a tabling in the parliament.

So, in respect of this issue of whether or not a further mechanism can be constructed for a minister to give a political direction to what is supposed to be an independent board running WorkCover on complicated issues, such as the example the minister used of prosecutions or any range of a number of other areas, it is really the responsibility of the minister and the government to make a case for it. I agree with the Hon. Mr Lawson that the government and the minister have not made that case.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The minister also in his response to me said, 'It would not be helpful to publicise the potential degree of tolerance that might be allowed to persons who commit technical breaches of the act.' To take an example, WorkCover takes a position that employers will receive no extra time in which to make a payment and, if they are one day late, they must pay interest immediately from that time or from seven days after the due date, and that is WorkCover's policy. However, a business friendly minister may come along and say, 'That's a bit harsh, seven days; I want you to give them 30 days—that would be more reasonable.' WorkCover says, 'No, we think seven days is reasonable.' The minister says, 'I'm going to give you a direction; I'm going to tell you that everybody—employers, self-insured or whoever—can have 30 days to make the payment.'

If a minister were so unwise as to make a direction of that kind (I could not imagine that would ever happen), he would be able to do so under this provision and then say, 'Well, I don't actually have to reveal that because it might detrimentally affect the performance of the statutory functions.' That is a hypothetical example, but one can see the case where ministers might give directions. The Hon. Mr Lucas gave a more direct example where a formal direction was not given but a philosophical letter was, which raises other issues again. There is the possibility of inappropriate directions being given. If you make sure the directions have to be tabled, you will not get inappropriate directions. I seek support for my amendment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Subsection (5) provides:

If the corporation—

not the minister—

is of the opinion that a direction should not be published for the reason that its publication—

and then there are these grounds—

the corporation may advise the minister of that opinion giving the reason for the opinion.

That is all that happens in the first instance: the corporation 'may' advise the minister of that opinion. If there is some direction and if the corporation thinks that it might detrimentally affect its performance, the corporation may advise the minister of that opinion giving the reason for that opinion. New subsection (6) provides:

If the minister is satisfied that a direction should not be published for a reason referred to in subsection (5), the direction need not be published by the minister or the corporation as required by subsection (4), but—

and it is a pretty big but—

(a) the minister must cause a copy of the direction to be presented to the Economic and Finance Committee of the parliament within 14 days after the direction was given; and

(b) the corporation must cause a statement of the fact that the direction was given to be published in its next annual report.

How on earth is that hiding the decision?

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: In conclusion, I say I am not satisfied, on the minister's explanation, that there is any reason why WorkCover should be treated any differently from SA Water or any other public corporation.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (11)

Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Kanck, S.M. Lawson, R.D. (teller) Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. Parnell, M. Ridgway, D.W.
Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.

NOES (6)

Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. (teller) Hunter, I.K. Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS (2)

Schaefer, C.V. Zollo, C.



Majority of 5 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I move:

Page 4—

Line 7—

After 'minister' insert:

and the Treasurer

Line 22—

After 'minister' insert:

and the Treasurer

Page 5—

Line 1—

After 'minister' insert:

and the Treasurer

Line 3—

After 'minister' insert:

and the Treasurer

Line 20—

After 'minister' insert:

and the Treasurer

The amendments I move are in identical terms, and I will make one explanation for them. These provisions follow sections 12 and 13 of the Public Corporations Act. They require a charter and performance statements to be prepared. In the Public Corporations Act the charter and all the obligations are to be undertaken by the minister and the Treasurer. In the amendment that the government has presented, the Treasurer is removed from these obligations, whereas in SA Water and other public operations it is both the minister and the Treasurer who are responsible in consultation with the corporation to undertake these functions in relation to the charter.

As I stated in the second reading debate, the Auditor-General has indicated that there is an implied public guarantee by the state of WorkCover Corporation's debts. Although there is not an explicit guarantee, there is an implied guarantee; therefore, the financial results and the performance of WorkCover are of great interest and moment to the Treasurer. Why, one might ask, in relation to this particular public corporation, has the Treasurer been written out? I can quite understand why the Treasurer might want to say, 'Don't involve me in this; leave that to the minister. We have seen what a terrible mess it can get into. I don't want to be involved. I want to wash my hands of the performance statements and the charter of the WorkCover Corporation.'

We do not believe the Treasurer should be able to wipe his hands in that way. We believe that, as in other public corporations, these responsibilities should be shared by the minister and the Treasurer, because, as we now know, if WorkCover encounters financial difficulties, as it has, it is a matter of vital interest to and responsibility of the Treasurer. He ought to be there, he ought to be responsible, and he ought to accept his responsibility. It is for that reason that we seek to have these provisions match the provisions of the Public Corporations Act, and ensure that the Treasurer is accountable.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I assume the missing Independents will vote with the opposition as they did last time even if they do not hear the arguments.

The Hon. R.D. Lawson: Some of them do.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, I should acknowledge that the Hon. Mr Darley and the Hon. Mr Hood have sat and listened to the debate all the way through, as they generally do. I think it is a bit rich when we are told by some people that WorkCover is the most important piece of legislation this state has ever seen, but when it comes to this part it is apparently not: governance questions are not quite as important. I think that says something.

With this particular provision, I have outlined the government's position. There were three choices that the government could have had in relation to arrangements for WorkCover. The particular section of the Public Corporations Act could be applied to WorkCover; secondly, the exact provisions of the act could be inserted into the WorkCover Act; or, thirdly, WorkCover Act could be amended to take into account the particular circumstances of the corporation.

That was the choice that the government took. The particular circumstance that the government had in mind was that, unlike other statutory authorities, WorkCover is not publicly funded and, therefore, is not a semi-government authority under the Government Financing Authority Act, the act which confers significant powers upon the Treasurer in relation to borrowing and investment by semi-government authorities.

It is different but, obviously, WorkCover also has a special position, as the Hon. Robert Lawson pointed out, because of implied liabilities or implied responsibilities. However, it is still different to those other authorities. The omission of the Treasurer from the preparation and review of the WorkCover Corporation's charter and performance agreement recognises these realities and provides for a single, clear and transparent line of accountability with the minister. However, as I say, if it remains as it is, so be it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I rise to speak to this and support my colleague, the Hon. Mr Lawson. Given what we have heard that the current leaders of the government (both the Premier and the Treasurer) have said to various fora within the Labor Party and other circles that the problems confronting WorkCover were of State Bank proportions and spoke about the implied liability issue that the Hon. Mr Lawson has talked about of unfunded liabilities of $1 billion, as a former treasurer for the life of me I cannot understand how, in terms of governance, the government would have gone down the path of not having a continuing role for the Treasurer of the state in relation to this corporation when he (or she; but he at the moment) has a role in relation to other pubic corporations in South Australia.

I think, with the greatest of respect, that the Leader of the Government's heart was not in his response there. His words say the numbers are not going to be there and so be it, sort of thing—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We do not know; we have not heard yet. However, let me say, having observed the Leader of the Government, that his heart is not in this, because I think he realises that there is no argument for the government's position on this. For the life of me I cannot work out why the Hon. Mr Kevin Foley would be wanting to wash his hands of the whole WorkCover issue. Maybe he does want to, as an individual treasurer, but future treasurers (whoever they might be) should have shared responsibilities in relation to something as important as the WorkCover Corporation. I do not intend to repeat the arguments that the Hon. Mr Lawson has made. They are persuasive, and I trust that the majority of the committee, if not all the committee, will support his amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (11)

Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Kanck, S.M. Lawson, R.D. (teller) Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. Parnell, M. Ridgway, D.W.
Schaefer, C.V. Stephens, T.J.

NOES (6)

Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. (teller) Hunter, I.K. Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS (2)

Wade, S.G. Zollo, C.


Majority of 5 for the ayes.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (9 and 10) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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