Return to Work Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 23 passed.

Clause 24.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Broke–1]—

Page 41, lines 39 and 40—Delete subclause (5) and substitute:

(5) Recovery/return to work services will be provided by persons or organisations—

(a) that hold an accreditation under this section; or

(b) that are approved or appointed by the Corporation for the purposes of this section.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)(a), the Minister must establish an accreditation scheme after consultation with the Corporation.

(7) The accreditation scheme—

(a) will provide for the accreditation of persons or organisations that are determined, under the scheme, to be suitably qualified to provide recovery/return to work services under this Part; and

(b) will work on the basis that the Corporation will issue the accreditation; and

(c) may provide for the suspension or cancellation of accreditation by the Corporation on specified grounds; and

(d) may be amended or substituted by the Minister from time to time after consultation with the Corporation.

(8) An accreditation will be issued by the Corporation—

(a) for a period specified by the Corporation; and

(b) on conditions determined by the Corporation.

(9) Recovery/return to work services must—

(a) be consistent with any standards or requirements prescribed by the regulations or specified by the Corporation; and

(b) be provided under the authorisation of the Corporation.

(10) The Corporation must, in acting under this section, take into account the requirements of section 29(2).

This amendment actually allows non-government organisations to participate in return to work processes. We are aware of alternative programs offered by NGOs and community groups that provide training in areas such as financial management, suicide prevention and manual handling, as well as practical workplace experience and retraining. We have been advised that the current training and retraining system is not working as well as it could; in fact, we know it is not, and that is one of the reasons we are here debating the bill, I hope, although the government has not said a lot about what it is really going to do about return to work.

There is a real need for an alternative process should injured workers elect to opt out of the mainstream program. There are various reasons some workers do end up going out of that, and it is no wonder, the way case management and so-called rehabilitation has occurred in the last probably 10 years. This amendment creates a provision for the minister, in conjunction with the corporation, to put in place a system whereby community groups, NGOs, etc., can be granted, essentially, provider numbers so that they can act as an alternative provider for workplace training and retraining, etc., to those offered within the current framework.

I finish by saying that obviously the minister, the government and the corporation can put parameters around the qualification requirements of these NGOs, and parameters around the costs associated with them managing an injured worker back to work through rehabilitation and retraining. But, I put to you also that, because many of these are so passionate and genuinely committed to assisting those workers, I believe it gives a better option to the government.

It actually gives the government a chance to possibly get a double-whammy benefit: one is a return to work and rehabilitation, and the second is to probably come out cheaper than EML and some of those other organisations that this government has been so happy to support but that have proven time and time again that this procrastination and lack of good results when it comes to returning to work, and rehabilitation and retraining programs. I would hope that, for once, just with a minor amendment like this, the government might actually decide to say that they support the amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: With great sadness, I rise to dash the hopes of the honourable member. Before I comment further on the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment, I would like to reiterate the commitment that was put on record in this place on Tuesday, 28 October, with regard to consultation. I am advised that WorkCover has committed to establish a stakeholder group which will include key people in the organisations that advocate on behalf of injured workers. WorkCover will consult with this group on an ongoing basis.

On this amendment, the return-to-work services outlined in clause 24 of the Return to Work Bill cover a wide range of services. This includes domestic help, house modifications, vehicle modifications, and carer support, as well as the more familiar and more frequent pre-injury employer and job placement services. The proposed amendment establishes an accreditation process that parallels the process required for permanent impairment assessors. These additional accreditation and consultation processes are unnecessary in our opinion, which is of course why the government opposed the amendment.

A legislated accreditation process is required for permanent impairment assessors as a whole person impairment assessment process is a critical element is establishing clear and objective boundaries in the new scheme. There is no need to establish such legislative requirements for accreditation of return-to-work services. It is unnecessary and will become a bureaucratic cost with little added value. There is a national framework adopted by South Australia which provides for the accreditation of workplace rehabilitation providers.

This framework has helped to improve standards of performance, but there are still issues to be addressed in South Australia. The corporation has been implementing a return-to-work services strategy which is improving the services being delivered and the outcomes for injured workers. The proposed addition of subclause (10) is of particular concern, as it requires the corporation to take into account the requirements of a further amendment proposed by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. Subclause (10) has the effect of requiring, whenever the corporation proposes to establish recovery and return-to-work services, to encourage, support and consult with organisations or groups that provide assistance or services to injured workers.

It is uncertain if a consequence of this amendment, combined with the proposed change to clause 29, would be that if a group or an organisation providing assistance or support to injured workers must be appointed by the corporation to provide recovery and return-to-work services. That would clearly be an undesirable result. The corporation—and, for that matter, self-insured employers—must be able to choose, naturally, fulfilling all probity requirements, the right services to be delivered to support injured workers.

In addition, clause 28 of the Return to Work Bill already provides for substantial consultation with the representatives of workers, employers and providers when publishing scales of changes relating to recovery and return-to-work services. The combination of amendments proposed creates an additional consultation process when establishing the services to be provided. This would mean the corporation would consult on the establishment of recovery and return-to-work services and then have to consult again when publishing a scale of charges. The return-to-work scheme is established for people injured at work and their employers; it is not established for the providers of services, and therefore the government opposes the amendments.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have addressed some comments in the second reading on clause 1 on this issue but I will address some further comments at this stage. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire and, I am sure, many other members, have worked with and consulted with a number of different stakeholder groups, but one in relation to this particular amendment is a group called Work Injured Resource Connection Incorporated, and the work of Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson and the other hard working volunteers associated with that particular group.

In the discussions that I have had over the years—I had the portfolio some time ago, and then in recent times my colleague, the member for Davenport has had it, and only recently it has been returned to me again—and to be fair I think the same issues are still being raised now as when I was involved in the portfolio two or three years ago.

My previous discussions, and more recent discussions certainly, have been in relation to two issues. The first issue that has been raised with me has been a concern of a complete disconnect between those who advocate on behalf of injured workers and WorkCover management and the government in particular, and that has been a longstanding criticism. As I said in the second reading, they supported the structures with stakeholder forums that former CEO Keith Brown had established some time ago, and they have steadily been removed under a succession of CEOs over recent years. That was the first thing.

The second thing which is being addressed in the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment is in relation to access to funding and support. To be fair, Ms McKenzie-Ferguson had raised issues with us prior to the election in relation to funding and support, and the point of view I put to minister Rau on this is that through the Budget and Finance Committee I have seen the sorts of volunteer and community groups who get discretionary funds through the Premier's discretionary fund—which we require through the Budget and Finance Committee every year—and there are a range of worthy groups that premiers and ministers make regular funding allocations to out of the discretionary funds that they have available to them. They are not legislated, but they are decisions that governments and ministers make on the basis either that it is a favoured group or that they have decided it is a group worthy of support.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Or to keep a group quiet.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, there are a number of reasons, as the Hon. Mr Brokenshire alludes to. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendments are geared towards, in essence, meeting that second part of the issue. With the first issue, which is consultation à la the old stakeholder forums, I acknowledge that the minister working with WorkCover management has placed on the record a commitment to meet that particular issue. I know that that is only one issue that Ms McKenzie-Ferguson and her group are arguing for.

Clearly, a bigger and more important one for them is to get access to funding to assist the work that they do, and the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment is potentially a way to achieve that. As the minister has just outlined, even if one was to support that principle, that is, to legislate for access to funding, which will add to the cost of the scheme, and not just to Ms McKenzie-Ferguson's group but potentially to a much broader group—because the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment does not refer to just a group, it is a whole variety of groups who might qualify—the level of costs that might be involved from our viewpoint as opposition is obviously indeterminate. The government is obviously not going to support it, as it has indicated. As the minister has outlined, there are, even if you support that principle, some drafting issues in relation to the amendment the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has put before the chamber.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Parliamentary counsel do a great job.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: They always do a great job, but maybe your instructions were not clear enough to parliamentary counsel.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: No, they were very clear.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think the minister has highlighted some issues such that, even if we were to support this principle, we as a committee would need to tidy up the particular amendment that we have before us. The position on this particular issue, as I outlined in clause 1, is that we are prepared to advocate for and to support the commitment to consultation through stakeholder forums, but we are not prepared, for the reasons that we have outlined, to support the amendment and to access funding in a legislative mechanism through an amendment along these lines.

In considering the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment, it does raise the issue that the minister briefly addressed; that is, under clause 24(5) the government currently envisages an accreditation scheme which clearly will not be legislated, but there is a legislative framework provided for it and WorkCover would implement it. I just want to clarify the precise nature of the sort of return-to-work services that the government is contemplating under 24(5). I think he talked about domestic services and others, but are we talking here about the traditional services that rehab providers have been providing in the past?

Some rehab services have been providing rehab and return-to-work services. I think the Auditor-General's Report refers to some providers actually providing two sorts of services, and they get paid under different contractual arrangements for both. I just want clarification as to what the government is intending in terms of this accreditation scheme. Will it apply to some of the big rehab providers who provide a range of services? Let me give an example. Do the companies associated with Ms De Poi fit this example of companies that provide recovery and return-to-work services, through one of the companies that they have, and what is the general nature of the accreditation scheme that the government has in mind if that is the case?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: While the minister is preparing an answer to that question, I am happy to indicate that the Greens support this amendment. We welcome debate in the committee stage to provide some further clarity on what the government has said. These amendments were tabled many weeks ago, and if there were drafting issues they should have been raised with the honourable member prior to this. The principle of it, I think, is sound.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be supporting the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's amendments.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I thank the crossbenches for their support. It is clear to me that what has happened here is that, with a bit of bullying and dictatorship, the government has muscled their way in, that they know best. They certainly have not known best for the last 10 or 12 years. It is absolutely appalling. I think this government should have been thrown out eight years ago just on their performance with WorkCover, notwithstanding the lack of performance elsewhere.

I am really stirred up about the whole hypocrisy of this government and how they now come in and all of a sudden have all the answers to everything, and they are not prepared to listen to one amendment because 'You do it my way or you don't do it at all'. I will not forget that, because sooner or later they are going to need the crossbenches and proper consideration.

I hear what the shadow minister says. I am disappointed that I do not have the numbers, but I thank my colleagues and the crossbenches for their support. I encourage those relevant people to have a close look at the comments in the second reading speech, and I will talk to my other amendments when appropriate. The minister has refused to allow this flexibility, even though there will not be any financial impost whatsoever; in fact, I would suggest that it probably will be cheaper.

I cannot understand how the De Poi situation was never thoroughly investigated and interrogated. It is an unbelievable situation that the government and that company have been able to get away with, and it is not at all in the interests of South Australia that there was never a thorough investigation into that shenanigan (and I can only call it that).

Does the minister agree that the return-to-work record, the retraining and rehabilitation records, of WorkCover and whoever they may have tendered out those programs and case management responsibilities to, have been abysmal at best and have been very expensive to the employers in this state? Does the minister agree that it has had the worst return-to-work record in Australia when it comes to the efforts of this state government and a pretty ordinary, at best, WorkCover Corporation since the exit of former CEO Mr Keith Brown, who actually knew what he was doing?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Mr Chair, with your approval I will ignore the opinion and the argumentation and rely on simply the questions that have been asked of me in the contributions of recent times. I can advise the Hon. Mr Lucas and the committee who will be captured in terms of accreditation. It is traditional return-to-work services and job services that will need to be accredited and then they may be appointed to a panel, for example.

Medical rehabilitation services will be dealt with separately, as health issues currently are. It could also cover extra services such as gardening, child care or other services that need to be provided in an ad hoc way, in which case, rather than go through an accreditation process, our intention is to appoint or approve those services.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 25 to 28 passed.

Clause 29.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Broke–1]—

Page 45, lines 19 and 20—Delete paragraph (c)

Amendment No 3 [Broke–1]—

Page 45, after line 20—Insert:

(2) The Corporation must take reasonable steps—

(a) to encourage and support (to a reasonable degree) the work of organisations and groups that provide assistance or services to injured workers; and

(b) to consult with organisations and groups that provide assistance or services to injured workers with a view to achieving the best possible outcomes for injured workers who are seeking to return to work.

These two amendments are integrated. Additionally Family First is putting forward here an amendment to create a requirement that the corporation engage with NGOs, community groups, etc., pursuant to a recommendation of SARC in 2010. SARC itself actually recommended, as I understand it, these amendments that I am putting forward to the Legislative Council, which was that WorkCover establish a more open and consultative management style with injured workers and interested stakeholders.

Most of us have probably had to deal with constituents as a result of this not occurring and the government's ignoring SARC's recommendations way back in 2010, a term of office ago. We have seen enormous inflicting of pain, harassment and stress on many injured workers and their families. I for one have dealt with a number of constituents. I am sure most members have dealt with similar constituents. As I understand it, this consultation occurred for a period of time and worked well, I think, when Mr Keith Brown was head of WorkCover. It makes sense to have a structure like this. However, in recent times the consultation has been at best limited, and I am told now that it just does not occur, and we would like to see this level of consultation reinstated and continue. It basically requires the corporation to take reasonable steps to engage with community groups, NGOs and other stakeholders to provide assistance or services to injured workers for better outcomes.

I will finish with this comment. The government promises through the actuarials, and I understand this is probably conservative, $180 million of return to the employers, and it could be more, I am told, maybe $200 million. It is a significant amount of money going back there, and it is due and timely and necessary. But there is an offset to that. The government is going to throw a percentage of workers on the scrap heap. Whilst the government does not talk much about this, I just want to tie in with this because I think it is relevant to this clause.

An email I received today from the President of the Police Association, Mr Mark Carroll (someone I respect), again has reinforced something for me—and I am sure this went to all the other colleagues, plus a copy of the letter to the Attorney-General as the minister responsible for the Return to Work Bill and, obviously, WorkCover. It starts, 'The government's new Return to Work Bill will have a negative impact on some injured police,' and it goes on from there.

The bottom line is that the Police Association is far from happy with what is going on here, and good on them for having the guts to stand up for their employees when most of the unions have lain on their backs and had their tummies tickled.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Not the CFMEU.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Not the CFMEU, but most of the rest. My point is that they are going to save $180 million or $200 million, or maybe even more, who knows, that will go back into the economy and be better spent. They are going to reinstate some of the conditions to workers that this government savagely cut, namely, the 10 per cent after 13 weeks and the 20 per cent after 26 weeks but, at the end of the day, after two years, there will be a percentage of workers who, through no fault of their own but because they do not meet the percentage of long-term serious injury, will be on the scrap heap.

Yet, we actually do not see cooperation from the government and the gurus who have put this together on behalf of the government and WorkCover when it comes to their commitment to address issues like integration with NGOs and like doing everything possible to return injured workers to the workplace.

To me, there is still no legal commitment or any legal framework of obligation on the government to drive the agenda needed to be the third part of the picture to actually complete what they need to in order to bring this scheme back to the success that it was having in the early period of this millennium, namely, 2000 and 2002, under the stewardship then of the Hon. Graham Ingerson, who has never been given the credit for how he had to work to get things back in order. It has been a slippery slope downwards since then.

This is now the panacea and we are going to have the best WorkCover system in Australia, allegedly, so I would like to see some support for the NGOs from the corporation as per the recommendations of SARC, and I think the goodwill alone would be very positive for the workers, the corporation and those people who are on the phone, probably tonight—and I am not exaggerating—talking to an injured worker who is potentially suicidal and/or their family. That is how serious it is. We know that.

I move these amendments in good faith and I would hope that the government would look at these amendments in good faith, too, because it is costing them nothing, other than a bit of energy, to try to facilitate a good conduit between injured workers, those people who are mainly volunteers who want to help those injured workers and the corporation.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The amendment of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire proposes to delete clause 29(c) and the subsequent amendment seeks to insert new provisions which cover a similar topic. The government opposes this amendment and the subsequent and more substantial amendment as well.

Clause 29(c) provides the corporation with the ability to encourage and support—which may well be financial support—organisations that provide assistance to workers as it thinks fit. This will allow the corporation to provide sponsorship of programs or initiatives to promote or feature such organisations and communication material and the like.

The key element of this clause is at the beginning: 'The Corporation may, as it thinks fit.' This allows the corporation to develop an appropriate program of encouragement and support of such organisations which adds value to the focus of the corporation at that time. By way of a hypothetical example, there may be a specific focus by the corporation on psychological injuries and encouragement and support of organisations could be directed to organisations supporting workers with a psychological injury. What matters is that the corporation has the flexibility and discretion to direct its limited resources, both financial and human, to achieving the greatest result. The government will oppose the first amendment.

I will now go on to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's second amendment, which he has moved and has spoken to. This amendment seeks to aid the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's earlier amendments, which the government did not support. Essentially, this amendment is seeking to create legislative requirements on the corporation to encourage, support and consult with organisations and groups that provide assistance or services to injured workers.

While it may seem innocuous on the first reading, the government does not support this amendment to clause 29 for two main reasons; the first being that the consultation requirement identifies a different group that does not represent the stakeholders of the return-to-work scheme. The proposed amendment requires consultation with organisations and groups that provide services and assistance to injured workers.

In every other part of the return-to-work scheme, the consultation is required with representatives of workers and employers in the first instance. Only where it is relevant are representatives of providers also included in the consultation process, and we believe this is the right balance to achieve. In our view, consultation should primarily occur with a representative of parties directly affected, not with organisations which provide services and draw income from the scheme.

The second concern relates to the absolute requirements within the proposed wording; that is, the corporation 'must' encourage and support organisations and groups which provide services to injured workers and it 'must' consult with organisations and groups who are not the representatives of parties directly affected. These are very broad requirements.

This amendment will place upon the corporation the requirement to support and encourage individual organisations and groups, regardless of whether they represent the interest of parties other than themselves, irrespective of whether they are providing a service of value to injured workers. There is little discretion in this proposed amendment.

The term 'support' can possibly be construed to include financial assistance, as I alluded to earlier. It is not appropriate for WorkCover to be required to provide financial assistance to organisations and groups without any accountability, focus or restrictions, even with the caveat of 'to a reasonable degree'. There is no value in creating an additional consultation group and process, and I am advised that WorkCover is committed to consultation in an appropriate manner with relevant bodies to ensure its initiatives properly reflect the requirements of the new scheme.

For example, depending on the initiative, relevant bodies include unions, employer associations, provider associations and other groups or organisations that represent relevant interests. This consultation approach is adequate, we believe, and reflects the provisions in the bill without the need for this amendment and therefore the government opposes both amendments.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not sure whether the minister's briefing note prepared by his advisers has caught up with the commitment the government has now given as a result of further consultation and discussions. Be that as it may, the minister has put on the public record earlier today, and again repeated tonight, a separate commitment that was discussed between minister Rau and, clearly, WorkCover management in relation to ongoing consultation, in a more generic way I concede, amongst groups which will include those who advocate on behalf of injured workers.

The Hon. Mr Brokenshire refers to the work of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee going back prior to 2010. The particular recommendation that he referred to is actually one that I, as a member of that committee, argued for, lobbied for, drafted and finally got agreement from all I think to include in the final recommendations.

This issue has been an ongoing issue in terms of I think a growing disconnect between some stakeholders and WorkCover management, which I do not think is healthy for the scheme. I have argued that way in that Statutory Authorities Review Committee inquiry, and I have argued that way in my discussions with the minister and WorkCover management on this bill.

But I am encouraged by the commitment that the minister has put on the record today that there will be a stakeholder forum. I think part of what the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is seeking to achieve in these particular amendments has been given by way of a commitment from the government on behalf of WorkCover on the public record today. From our viewpoint, as I indicated earlier today, we are prepared to support that commitment as a sign of intent from the government.

I do not envisage that, in the immediate future, it is likely to lead to funding support for particular groups, but I would hope that, over a period of time, it will lead to better understanding between these stakeholder groups and WorkCover. It may well be that that could lead to a position where an appropriately designed scheme of support for injured workers might be able to be financially supported by WorkCover, but I see that being a fair way down the track now. There needs to be a degree of trust between both groups developed, if that is possible. I am not saying it is; I am just saying if that is possible.

I think the framework is there. The minister has outlined that this particular clause which is in the legislation does, if the corporation sees fit—it does not compel it—leaves them with the flexibility to make that judgement. It is my judgement that that will not occur immediately or in the short term, which is not what the stakeholder group wants—I accept that—but I think the framework is there. The challenge for both the stakeholder group and WorkCover management is to see whether they can productively work together in this stakeholder forum for the mutual benefit of the operation of the scheme but also in terms of trying to support the injured workers and the sort of workers to whom the Hon. Mr Brokenshire referred this evening.

We have shared sympathies and goals in this. This is an issue, as I have put on the record, that I have supported in other fora before and I will continue to support now, albeit I intend to do it differently; that is, to accept the commitment the minister has placed on the public record today that there will be a stakeholder forum to allow those who advocate on behalf of injured workers to put their point of view directly to a level of WorkCover management.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Based on the minister's response to my remarks on these amendments, I ask: under the government's clause 29—Related initiatives, and particularly in respect of subclause (b) and what I believe I recall from the minister' comments—is there a budget line within WorkCover for any money for the provision of this clause to be put into practice?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I admit that I am new to this gig, but I would not imagine there would be a budget line in WorkCover for a clause in a bill that does not exist at this point in time. I would not imagine that an organisation or an agency would provide a line in the budget for a proposal that has yet to be voted on by this house.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: If, between the government, the minister and WorkCover, they are worth their salt in any way whatsoever, someone has actually put this clause together. I believe the minister actually indicated to the house, and it reads here 'conduct, participate in or subsidise research…' I would have thought they would have had some consideration for what sort of budget line they would have had there. If they had had a budget line in the past, which we know they did have, certainly under the CEO Mr Keith Brown, what has happened to that budget in the years that they have effectively dwindled it back to the point now where nothing is occurring?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The agency does not have a dedicated budget line for the issues raised by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. From time to time, if they have an initiative they wish to pursue, we will provide the funding from our own internal resources. But a budget line as such for a proposition that has not yet been put into an act does not exist, as far as I know.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be supporting the Hon. Rob Brokenshire's amendments.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So will the Greens.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 30 to 32 passed.

Clause 33.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 48, line 34—Delete 'reasonable and necessary and'

Amendment No 3 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 48, line 39—Delete 'as follows' and substitute: 'the necessary costs of'

Amendment No 4 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 48, line 40—Delete 'the cost of'

Amendment No 5 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 49, line 1—Delete 'the cost of'

Amendment No 6 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 49, line 3—Delete 'the cost of'

Amendment No 7 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 49, line 4—Delete 'the cost of'

Amendment No 8 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 49, line 10—Delete 'the cost of'

Amendment No 9 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 49, line 12—Delete 'the cost of'

Amendment No 10 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 49, line 16—Delete 'the cost of'

Amendment No 11 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 49, line 18—Delete 'the cost of'

Amendment No 12 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 49, line 20—Delete paragraph (i) and substitute:

(i) other services (or classes of services) authorised by the Corporation.

Amendment No 13 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 49, line 33—Delete 'unreasonable,'

All the amendments are consequential on the first amendment. This first amendment removes reference to compensable medical expenses needing to have been reasonable and necessary in addition to reasonably incurred. With this amendment, clause 33(1) will state that a worker may be compensated for the cost of medical expenses that are reasonably incurred. Consequential amendments are also proposed throughout clause 33 to provide that the cost of listed services must be necessary costs. My advice is that all subsequent amendments standing in my name are consequential.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Does the Hon. Ms Franks intend to move her amendment No. 17?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My understanding is that the government's amendment addresses the amendments that the Greens tabled in terms of our concerns about the term 'necessary' and, indeed, 'unnecessary'. Is that case? Can the government clarify that?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: It does remove the term 'reasonable and necessary and' but does substitute that with 'compensated for medical expenses that are reasonably incurred'. So, that is a change.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I thank the government for that clarification and for their amendments. That certainly does go some way to addressing the Greens' concerns, which were, of course, raised by the Law Society, which had very grave concerns about this terminology and what the term 'necessary' would mean and how it would be applied. With that, I will not be moving the Greens' amendment.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Mr Darley, are you moving your amendment?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: No, Mr Acting Chair.

Amendments carried.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Ms Franks, are you intending to move amendment No. 18 in your name?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No, that is consequential and now no longer necessary.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Or amendment No. 19, the Hon. Ms Franks?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I intend to move amendment No. 19 and, therefore, I move:

Amendment No 19 [Franks–1]—

Page 51, lines 23 to 40 and page 52, lines 1 to 7—Delete subclauses (20) and (21)

If the purpose of this bill is to rehabilitate an injured worker, then they should actually be supported with ongoing medical payments. The Greens oppose the changes to the medical and related services. This section is nothing more than a cost-shifting measure and it has been almost copied and pasted from the New South Wales Liberal/National government workers compensation laws.

This section will have a significant impact on injured workers in our state as we have seen in New South Wales, and that will have a detrimental impact. The government proposes to deny all injured workers, other than those catastrophically injured, access to medical and related services 12 months after weekly payments have ceased. What will happen to a worker with a work related knee injury who returns to work but will need surgery for a knee replacement in five years' time, or indeed after playing a game of sport some years down the track, as one of the honourable members mentioned in their second reading contribution? That worker would not be able to make a claim against WorkCover for the costs involved.

This section is contrary to the proposed object of the act which is to assist with the recovery and return of a worker either to work or to the community. In particular we strongly support the Law Society's contention and concerns about clause 33(10). I note the Law Society's submission for this section and draw members' attention to that. The terms as to payment of medical expenses under clause 33(10) could mean that the minister could prescribe treatment protocols or a framework that is not realistic to enable return to work.

For example, the minister may say that if a worker suffers a neck or back injury, he or she only gets eight sessions of physiotherapy and no more. This could be detrimental to that injured worker. The details of this clause are also to be in regulations, which of course we cannot amend; that is another debate about how delegated legislation is undertaken in this jurisdiction, but certainly without that guarantee we do not have the certainty to support this part of the government's bill.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This amendment removes provisions that bring a worker's entitlement to medical expenses to an end 12 months after income support ceases. The government will be opposing this amendment and all related amendments that seek to achieve this change to the time banding of medical expenses. It should be noted that this change would have a material impact on the culture and sustainability of the new return to work scheme. It should also be noted that there are provisions in the legislation for prosthetics and future surgery to be still covered. For those reasons, the government will oppose the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For the reasons we outlined in the second reading and on clause 1 of this bill, we will not be supporting this amendment or related amendments.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate my support for the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): We are still on clause 33. There are some amendments in the name of the Hon. Mr Lucas; however, I understand that the Hon. Mr Darley wishes to ask some questions of the Hon. Mr Lucas before he moves them. Is that correct, the Hon. Mr Darley?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Chair. I would just like to make a few brief comments before proceeding with this amendment. Since voting on this package of amendments earlier today, it has been brought to my attention that a number of stakeholder groups are extremely concerned about the measures proposed by the Hon. Rob Lucas. I would like to ask the honourable member whether he can advise who he consulted with over these amendments and which groups have indicated their support for them; specifically what, if any, feedback has the honourable member received from the Law Society and the Australian Lawyers Alliance?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party received, as I think most members received, a comprehensive submission from the Law Society and the Australian Lawyers Alliance, which I think made clear their views in relation to support for a stand-alone employment tribunal. In relation to endeavours to get feedback from a variety of other groups, we received nothing from unions, other than the Police Association, as I think I indicated earlier.

The main group of groups, if I can use that clumsy phrase, that has been raising this particular issue has been a group of 20 or so employer organisations that have expressed great concern at the current operation of the Workers Compensation Tribunal and the proposed employment tribunal. At a recent meeting that we convened with I think about 16 of those employer associations, we went around the table and all 16 or 18 of those employer organisations supported the proposition that SACAT is the appropriate agency, as opposed to the employment tribunal. Two of the key ones, however, took the view that they believe it would be impractical—which is the government's position and Judge Parker's position from SACAT—for it to occur on 15 July, which is what we were consulting on.

Our original package of amendments was to ensure that SACAT would take responsibility from July 2015, from the start of this particular scheme. As I say, two of the more significant employer groups expressed concern about that. In essence, they had heard the message the government had put on this particular issue and urged the Liberal Party to reconsider its position to see whether or not this would be something which might see the whole bill fall apart. They did not use those words but I think that is essentially the point of view that they put.

At that stage we were consulting on an original package of amendments, which was to transfer on July 2015. As a result of that, I had further discussions with minister Rau, his advisers and WorkCover. I received a copy of a letter from Judge Parker which, as I understood it, was to be circulated to a number of members. I am not sure whether that is the case but, anyway, it essentially said that they (being SACAT) were not in a position to absorb the employment tribunal in July 2015. That was the position that he put.

Minister Rau indicated that Judge Parker was prepared to meet with me to discuss our amendments. I met with Judge Parker and he put that point of view to me. When I put the question to him, 'What would happen if parliament actually just legislated July 2015', he said, 'Well, if parliament decides that, we would have to comply. It would mean that a variety of other agencies that were to be transferred in the period from July 2015 onwards would just have to be put back by 12 months or so so that the employment tribunal could go in.' He said that that was not his preferred course of action. He was not recommending that, but he said that if parliament decided that that was what was going to happen, then they would just have to respond.

When I put the question to him, 'With your current workload, when would you be in a position to absorb or accept the responsibilities of the employment tribunal', he indicated about three years. That is why we then constructed a second package of amendments, which is for July 2018, which is 3¾ years from now.

The answer to the question is that we are aware from the Law Society and the Australian Lawyers Alliance that they support the employment tribunal concept and the government's position, because they wrote to all members and indicated that, but there is significant support from employer organisations for the responsibility at some stage to be transferred to SACAT, with the additional caveat that a number of the employer organisations would not wish to see the issue of the timing of the transfer to SACAT meaning the end of, or the defeat of, the total bill. They obviously would like to see the bill go through and that is the position, obviously, of the government. It is also the position of the Liberal Party in relation to seeing the passage of the bill at some stage.

I understand that the Hon. Mr Darley has received a significant lobby from the Law Society and the Australian Lawyers Alliance, which is fair enough. The proposition I have put to the Hon. Mr Darley is that if at some stage he is going to change his position on this, given that we have already supported half a dozen to 10 amendments as part of a package that have been accepted as consequential by the minister and this will just be another one of those, the simplest solution would be that when, we hope, they conclude bill tomorrow, if the member has a new position then the minister could seek to recommit the 10 or so clauses, or whatever it is, that relate to this particular issue, and we can vote again on those 10 or so clauses to see what the position of the committee is.

If the member, having reflected on it overnight—and I would like to speak to Mr Bailes from the Law Society in relation to the issue in the morning—maintains his current position, that is the position he has adopted thus far, then these amendments will stand. As I said, if he changes his position, then we would just need to recommit the clauses tomorrow. I am sure if the member indicates to the minister that he has changed his position, the minister is going to be more than willing to recommit all the clauses at the end of the committee stage, prior to the third reading of the bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: When the Hon. Mr Lucas mentioned employer groups, he did not actually name the employer groups. Which employer groups has he consulted with, and do they include Business SA?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think there are about 15 to 20, which include Business SA, the Australian Industry Group, the Motor Trade Association of South Australia, Self Insurers of South Australia, the Wine Industry Association, the Hardware Association, Primary Producers SA, Federation. That is six or seven; there are another dozen or so.

Business SA's position to us has been along the lines that I have just suggested, and that is that they can see the argument and merit of moving to SACAT, but they do not want to say anything that would prevent the passage of the legislation through the parliament. Their greater priority is to ensure that the whole bill goes through unamended. I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has expressed some view in relation to a letter and email he has received from Business SA to that effect in the last 24 hours or so. That is certainly the position that Business SA has accepted.

In the discussions that we have had with Business SA, if they had their way, they have indicated to us, they support the notion that it should be transferred to SACAT but they understand the government's position that they do not support it being transferred to SACAT. Their greater priority is to get the bill through. They are prepared to compromise on that issue, if it was to be an issue that would prevent the total passage of the bill. I think that is probably a fair reflection of innumerable discussions I have had with Mr Carney, and a smaller number with Mr McBride, from Business SA.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you for that clarification of which employer groups you were referring to. We have had lots of lobbying over the past few days, as you know, and Business SA and the MTA, and I think the Australian Industry Group (but I will look around and see if I am wrong on this one) have strongly lobbied us not to accept amendments to this bill that are not coming from the government. I am almost tempted to say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I am also a little confused about these 10 amendments that you speak to. I have four, all to clause 4. Is my understanding correct that all of these are to clause 4 that we have currently agreed to and, in fact, it would only be clause 4 that we would be recommitting?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Perhaps it just seemed like it was 10. Yes, you are right; there are seven pages of amendments but so far we have only moved and the minister has accepted as consequential amendments 1 to 4. This is amendment 5 of a total package of 27 amendments, one of which is on a different issue. So 26 amendments relate to this one issue; four of them we have passed and this is the fifth one, so you are quite correct.

Depending on how far we progress tonight and how many more of these we might pass as consequential consistent with the decision from earlier today, it would only be those particular amendments—the four amendments to clause 4 and this one to clause 5. The next one is not until clause 98, and I suspect we will not get to clause 98 by close of business tonight. It may well be that there are two clauses and five amendments that if the Hon. Mr Darley changes his position on tomorrow would need to be recommitted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I just put on the public record my understanding of the matters around the current debate between my colleagues. It did not matter whether it was the amendments put up by the Greens, the amendments put up by the Hon. Mr Darley or the amendments put up by myself on behalf of Family First, the major representation that I have had is that they wanted the bills to go through as they were.

However, in trying to qualify that in discussions that I have had, the reason is that they indicated to me that the government had basically said to them, 'This is what we want.' There had been a lot of work and effort put in by employer groups for some time to try to overcome 10 years of appalling management by both the government and WorkCover and so, to an extent, through partial exhaustion and the fact that this was better than what the employers had had before, they lobbied me to put it through in its entirety.

As disappointed as I was about some of the attitudes that I spoke about this morning, I do not believe this chamber has done anything, given that my observations are that whatever the crossbenchers put up was neutralised or negated in fact by virtue of what has happened between the opposition and the government, and that the government has got its way and—other than the Police Association that is clearly not happy—the rest have got their way with what they wanted.

The one and only amendment that we have felt strongly to support has been the one put up about the employee tribunal going into SACAT in 2018, because my understanding was that it was more a logistical problem that Judge Parker was concerned about than anything else. The reason we supported it was that to me it makes sense. The government demands that the Guardianship Board go in, which they did; they did not want any changes to SACAT either and, apart from one amendment that the Hon. John Darley got up for a presiding officer of the Guardianship Board, I think SACAT pretty much went through again as the government wanted it, so they got their way there.

I just put on the public record that I think that July 2018 has no impact on all the things that the employers want now—right now—and that is why, reluctantly to some extent, we have had to let it go through as it is. I have not had anyone come back to me and say that they do not want it in 2018.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Clearly, I am in the hands of the committee in this regard. I am not going to agitate the arguments I made earlier at clause No. 4. I accepted the will of the committee at the time. If the committee is telling me at the moment that the view of the committee has changed in this regard then I will take that advice and I am happy, if that is in fact the will of the chamber, to again vote against the Hon. Mr Lucas's amendments and then we only have one clause to revisit tomorrow. Again, I am in the hands of the committee.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I rise to indicate that at the end of the debate I will be seeking to recommit clause 4, the test clause for the Hon. Rob Lucas's package of reforms. I appreciate that this may seem somewhat unorthodox and it is not a decision that I have made lightly. In the intervening period, between discussing these amendments with the Hon. Rob Lucas, coming into this place and voting on them and now, my office has been lobbied very strongly by a number of stakeholders but in particular by those same bodies that I sought to represent through my other amendments, namely, the Law Society and the Australian Lawyers Alliance. Those groups are vehemently opposed to these reforms. I was not aware of that this morning.

Moreover, this package of amendments is not consistent with the position I have taken on this bill on their behalf and, as such, I think it is most appropriate to deal with this issue now rather than later, and also to set the record straight. I sincerely hope the Hon. Rob Lucas can appreciate that on this occasion I have sought to support the position put forward by the Law Society and the Australian Lawyers Alliance on behalf of injured workers.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Nothing surprises me in politics after all the years I have been here, so I will not vent my spleen or do anything like that. I will take wise counsel, take a deep breath and accept that it is as it is. Given that indication from the Hon. Mr Darley, it would be appropriate that we vote and divide on this particular issue and test the numbers on the floor of the chamber. If, as indicated, the Hon. Mr Darley has changed his position and if no-one else changes their position then this particular amendment would be defeated and, as he has indicated, he or the minister would need to seek leave to recommit clause 4 when we get to the conclusion of the committee stage (some time tomorrow, I would imagine).

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Lucas, do you wish to move—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I suppose if I am going to test the water I had better move the amendment, Mr Chair, so I formally move the amendment standing in my name. I move:

Amendment No 5 [Lucas–1]—

Page 52, line 10—Delete 'under the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014' and substitute:

under this section

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: As previously, the Greens will be strongly opposing these amendments.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 8

Noes 8

Majority 0

The CHAIR: There are 8 ayes and there are 8 noes, so my vote goes with the noes.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: You don't usually use a casting vote to overturn a decision.

The CHAIR: My vote goes with the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 34 to 38 passed.

Clause 39.

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

Amendment No 13 [Darley–1]—

Page 53, after line 31—Insert:

(a1) In this section—

first designated period means an aggregate period not exceeding 13 weeks (whether consecutive or not) in respect of which a worker has an incapacity for work (being a worker who is entitled to the payment of compensation under this Act on account of that incapacity);

second designated period means an aggregate period not exceeding 13 weeks (whether consecutive or not), commencing after the end of the first designated period, in respect of which a worker has an incapacity for work (being a worker who is entitled to the payment of compensation under this Act on account of that incapacity;

third designated period means an aggregate period not exceeding 104 weeks (whether consecutive or not), commencing after the end of the second designated period, in respect of which a worker has an incapacity for work (being a worker who is entitled to the payment of compensation under this Act on account of that incapacity).

This amendment is part of a package of measures aimed at tackling the specific periods that apply to weekly payments for those workers who are injured but not seriously injured. For the sake of convenience, I will speak to the package that is amendment Nos 13 through to 19 together.

Clause 39 of the bill provides that if a worker, other than a seriously-injured worker, suffers a work injury that results in incapacity for work, the worker is entitled to weekly payments in respect of that incapacity. For the first 52 weeks from the date on which the incapacity first occurs, a worker with no work capacity will be entitled to weekly payments equal to their notional weekly earnings—that is, at 100 per cent. If during that period the worker has a work capacity, then they will be entitled to the difference between their notional weekly earnings and their designated weekly earnings. This is referred to as the first designated period of incapacity.

For the second designated period of incapacity—that is, the 52 weeks following the first designated period—the worker will be entitled to 8 per cent of their notional weekly earnings where they have no work capacity. If they do have work capacity, then they will be entitled to weekly payments equal to 80 per cent of the difference between their notional weekly earnings and their designated weekly earnings. In a nutshell, the amendments will mean that workers, others and those who are seriously injured, will have no entitlement to weekly payments after the period of 104 weeks from the date on which the incapacity first occurs.

I want to read into the Hansard the comments made by the Law Society with respect to these provisions. It is a little long, but I think it is important that we record, with accuracy, the concerns that have been raised with respect to these provisions. The submission states:

In practice only a very small percentage of injured workers are likely to be assessed as 30 per cent whole person impairment or more. The worker would have to have at least 75 per cent loss of use of a leg before he or she attained this 30 per cent whole person impairment threshold. It is highly unlikely that a worker with a mental injury will ever reach this threshold. For example, an ambulance officer, firefighter or police officer diagnosed with a post-traumatic stress disorder is in our view unlikely to meet the threshold. Similarly, a worker who has a displaced disc in the lower back arising from employment is unlikely to meet this threshold.

From our experience, a really bad outcome from a knee replacement with infection, significant scarring and significant restrictions of motion is likely to attain 30 per cent whole person impairment. However, such an outcome cannot be measured within two years of the date of injury and therefore a worker may be cut off before permanent impairment is able to be measured. This bill is unclear as to what happens in those circumstances. Can their weekly payments be reinstated and backdated for instance?

On the other hand, a person who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma—for example, from exposure to toxic chemicals—and has a fatal condition is likely be ranked as less than 30 per cent whole person impairment according to current guidelines, and would therefore not be entitled to ongoing weekly payments even though the condition may be fatal.

The cut-off criteria of 30 per cent whole person impairment in our view unfairly confuses the concept of a level of disability with a new concept of the extent of incapacity. It is the extent of incapacity which determines whether or not a worker may be capable of earning future wages. The level of incapacity depends upon the extent to which any injury impacts on a worker's ability to earn a living.

I hope, for all our sakes, that the Law Society is wrong in its analysis of this legislation, because if it is not then we will be left with some very disadvantaged injured workers.

The government has signalled, through its actions, that these are risks it is willing to take. I, on the other hand, am not willing to take those same risks. I am not willing to support a measure that could see a worker with a fatal condition miss out on appropriate entitlements because the condition was assessed using objective methodology based purely on numbers.

I think it is fair to say that the amendments I am proposing are consistent with the recommendations made by the society and with the ALA, insofar as they provide workers with a reserve of entitlements to weekly payments to draw from as required within the specified time frame of five years. There will be a step-down in payments between the first designated period and the third designated period. During the first period, workers will be entitled to weekly payments equal to 100 per cent of their notional weekly earnings. During the second period, workers will be entitled to weekly payments equal to 90 per cent of their notional weekly earnings, and during the third period, workers will be entitled to weekly payments equal to 80 per cent of their notional weekly earnings.

Amendment No. 16 makes it clear that a worker will only be entitled to weekly payments for a period of five years from the date on which the incapacity for work first occurs. There are also a number of consequential amendments that make related changes to those provisions that deal with supplementary income support for incapacity resulting from surgery.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The Hon. Mr Darley has introduced three amendments: the first introduces three designated periods, the second talks about payments for each of those periods, and the third provides for a five-year period for income support to be paid. I will address each separately. The first amendment applies to the designated periods for weekly payments. This amendment makes two significant changes to the new scheme.

Firstly, the amendment reintroduces a concept of aggregated periods rather than periods based upon the passage of time. Secondly, the amendments reintroduce three designated periods: the first, 13 weeks; the second, 13 weeks to 26 weeks; and the third, 26 weeks to 130 weeks. This means that the new scheme would be a 2.5-year scheme with income support that is aggregated rather than calculated by reference to the passage of time.

This amendment is a reversion to the current scheme, where injured workers remain on the system for long periods of time with little incentive to return to work. This will add significant costs to the scheme and move away from the policy intention to provide a clear focus on return to work. It would also remove the time and certainty associated with income support, so the government opposes the amendment.

In relation to the Hon. Mr Darley's second amendment, this amendment, as I said, works with amendment 13 to reintroduce the income support provisions that are provided for in the current scheme. Income support is reduced for injured workers by reintroducing income support at 90 per cent of notional weekly earnings for the 13 to 26 week aggregate period, and 80 per cent thereafter. The government has moved away from these reductions in income support and cannot support this amendment.

In relation to amendment No. 3, as I said, this amendment works with amendments 13 and 14 and applies a five-year period for income support to be paid. This means that 2½ years of income support can be paid over a period of five years. This turns the return-to-work scheme from an early intervention scheme focused on early recovery and return to work to a long-term scheme. This amendment, coupled with amendments 13 and 14, will continue to promote a culture of entitlement which we believe exists in the current scheme and which we need to move away from; therefore, the government opposes this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For the reasons we have outlined in the second reading and in clause 1, we will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens support this amendment and the consequential amendments.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank the committee for its indulgence. I would like to provide a few responses to questions raised in the committee stage earlier today. The Hon. Mr Lucas asked for information about what was the most significant change contributing to the change in actuarial advice. I am advised that past volunteers and non-operational volunteers have been excluded which significantly reduces the cost for any changes to the scheme. The 10-year retirement threshold also limits the cost.

The Hon. Ms Franks also asks what thresholds were applied for the actuarial assessment. I am advised that the most recent actuarial advice, which is by Finity Consulting, took into account the removal of the threshold requiring CFS volunteers to attend on average 175 fire incidents over any five-year period.

The Hon. Mr Lucas asked about the bearing of costs in disputes, in the context of employers bearing the cost of all matters before the tribunal in relation to seeking a reinstatement of employment under clause 18. The honourable member noted that the arrangements for matters under clause 18 are different to other disputes in the return-to-work scheme, whereby the corporation bears the costs for both parties up until an appeal, and asked how this compares to cost arrangements in other jurisdictions.

I am advised that based on previous analysis done in 2013, apart from South Australia and Comcare, all other major workers compensation jurisdictions in Australia have costs at risk during dispute resolution processes. However, in New South Wales, the WorkCover Independent Review Office (known as WIRO) has established the Independent Legal Assistance and Review Service which provides free independent legal advice to injured workers in circumstances where there is a disagreement with insurers regarding entitlements.

To the best of the corporation's knowledge, arrangements in other jurisdictions have not changed since the analysis was undertaken in 2013. As referred to earlier today, these matters where a worker is applying to the tribunal for an order for the reinstatement of their employment are expected to occur only in exceptional circumstances. Before this point, the worker is able to apply to the corporation where the employer is not complying with their obligations to provide suitable employment for a review under clause 15. Furthermore, clause 18 provides for the worker to provide written notice to their employer expressly seeking suitable employment.

Where a worker has exhausted these options and applies to the tribunal for an order for suitable employment, it is because the employer is not meeting their obligations and has refused to meet them at several specific review points. It is therefore appropriate that the employer is exposed to the costs of such matters before the tribunal.

The Hon. Mr Lucas made reference to three examples WorkCover had provided to him about the lump sum entitlements of non seriously-injured workers. I can confirm my early advice that the examples were intended to reference the combined amount a worker would receive by way of a lump sum payment for economic loss and a lump sum payment for non-economic loss. There was no income support or medical services factored in to those examples.

I am advised that, during the break, WorkCover has reviewed the examples the honourable member referred to and has advised me that regrettably the calculations undertaken to create those examples were incorrect. I would like to put on the record the same scenarios but with the correct combined lump sum entitlement amounts. I note these are each about $30,000 less than the figures the Hon. Mr Lucas has quoted.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: It will change your whole position now.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Perhaps I will stop here! A 25-year-old full-time worker with a 29 per cent permanent impairment (not eligible for serious injury) will receive a total lump sum of $457,449; a 30 year old with a 29 per cent permanent impairment (not eligible for serious injury) will receive a total lump sum of $439,949; a 55 year old with a 29 per cent permanent impairment (not eligible for serious injury) will receive a total lump sum of $317,449. These figures are based on the worker being full time at the time of the injury. The hours worked factor would reduce the economic loss lump sum amount if the worker was working part-time at the time of the injury.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

At 23:09 the council adjourned until Thursday 30 October 2014 at 10:00.