Bills

Return to Work Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 29 October 2014.)

Clause 40.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 20 [Franks-1]—

Page 54, line 27—Delete 'section 33(21)(b)' and substitute: the regulations

We moved this at the behest of the CFMEU, so while I understand that the opposition has not had representations from the unions I would stress that the Greens have had representations from some unions in some quarters with grave concerns about this bill. We have been advised by the CFMEU that an injured worker who has incapacity for work as a result of surgery should be approved by the corporation under the regulations to have access to weekly payments, which is why we move this amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Mr Chairman, I understand this amendment is consequential to [Franks-1] amendment No. 19 that was seeking to remove the time banding that applies to medical expenses from non seriously-injured workers. This amendment provides for a supplementary income support to be paid for surgery approved by the corporation of the regulations rather than under section 33(21)(b) which is proposed to be deleted. For the similar reasons to opposition to [Franks-1] amendment No. 19, we also oppose this one.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party adopts the same position on this amendment as we did to amendment No. 19. The only point I might note to the CFMEU, which is perhaps not experienced in the ways of parliamentary procedure or political practice, is that if they have a point of view that they want to put forward, and they want people to at least consider their position and argument, it might be wise to actually provide a copy of the submission to all members of parliament.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Given that the CFMEU raised this issue with the government, and given the Liberal opposition have basically conceded with the government that they will not support any crossbench or non-government amendments, the CFMEU I think are very wise in the ways of political practice and procedures in this place.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: Your amendments Nos 16, 17 and 18, Mr Darley, are all consequential? Are you happy with that?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Yes, Mr Chairman.

Clause passed.

Clauses 41 to 47 passed.

Clause 48.

The CHAIR: Is amendment No. 19 [Darley-1] consequential?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: That is consequential as well.

Clause passed.

Clause 49.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 21 [Franks–1]—

Page 65, line 11—Delete 'that would have been payable if there had been no redemption' and substitute:

that fall within the scope of the redemption

Since 2008, the pendulum has swung too far when it comes to redemptions. Redemptions, of course, can be useful for both workers and employers. This has been demonstrated by the self-insurers who, in contrast to WorkCover, have made great use of redemptions to finalise claims. This also enables workers to exit the scheme with dignity.

The reason why we think it is necessary to have redemptions with a limited time period is that a redemption otherwise has an adverse impact on the worker for the rest of their working life, even though, in the case of a young worker, the amount paid on redemption bears little or no relationship to the worker's working life. It is often fundamentally unfair for a young worker to have the redemption held against them decades later.

For example, if that young worker is harassed at work and suffers psychological harm and is unfit for work for some period, they can finalise their workers compensation entitlement via redemption under WorkCover and then 10 years later, if they are working at a different workplace and suffer a physical injury, then at that point the previous redemption—the amount of weekly payments they might be getting when the first payment was made—is deemed as current compensation payments.

What this means is that that worker who has now suffered a physical injury is entitled to weekly payments, but from those payments there is a deduction by the amount of the weekly payments the worker was receiving 10 years earlier. This is fundamentally unfair. There should be a time limitation to the redemption. We have been advised that many self-insurers would not have had an issue with that approach.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Clause 49 works to ensure that a worker does not receive excess weekly payments. Clause 49(1) and (2) I am advised are unchanged from provisions in the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986. This amendment moved by Hon. Ms Franks suggests that the protection from excess payments will be limited in time based upon the quantum of the redemption payment.

While a worker can receive up to two years income support for a claim, there is also a lump sum payment for economic loss made, and together these supports are taken to compensate the worker for the economic impact of their injury over their lifetime. Simply because there is not ongoing support in the form of weekly payments, does not mean there is no support.

Therefore, it is appropriate that a worker who has received a redemption in the case of a subsequent claim, will be taken to still be receiving support from the scheme. The government therefore opposes this amendment and will be opposing the other amendments seeking to change the redemption arrangements that have been foreshadowed.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For the reasons outlined earlier, the Liberal Party will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 50 to 52 passed.

Clause 53.

The CHAIR: The next amendment is amendment No. 22, the Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The amendment is consequential and I will indicate that the amendments at clause 54 are also consequential.

The CHAIR: So all at 53 are consequential? The Hon. Ms Franks, your amendment No. 25 leads into another issue. Do you want to move that one? Also, the Hon. Mr Darley has an amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes, amendment No. 25 is right at the bottom of the page that I just flipped over but we actually have that as consequential.

The CHAIR: Amendment No. 26, the Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Amendments Nos 26 and 27 are consequential.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I understand the Hon. Mr Darley will probably need some indication.

The CHAIR: It is the same one as the Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We will probably need some indication from Hon. Mr Darley about he intends to proceed with that.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be moving my amendment.

The CHAIR: What number amendment is that?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: No. 20 [Darley-1]. Mine was the same as the Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Mr Chairman, if I can assist the committee I understand we are dealing with amendment No. 20 [Darley-1]. It is if not virtually the same it is very similar to the Hon. Ms Franks' amendment, and it probably is then fully consequential but we need an indication from the Hon. Mr Darley.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Darley, are you going to move your amendment No. 20?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: It is the same as the Hon. Tammy Franks so I will not be.

Clause passed.

Clause 54.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Amendment No. 27 [Franks-1], amendment No. 28 [Franks-1] and amendment No. 29 [Franks-1] are all consequential.

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

Amendment No 21 [Darley–1]—

Page 68, lines 1 and 2—Delete subclause (2)

As already mentioned, it seeks to remove that provision which prevents seriously-injured workers from being able to seek a redemption and sue for economic loss at common law. It is the first of a series of amendments aimed at ensuring that we end up with more than a mere token recognition of common law rights because that is precisely what we have before us under the current bill.

History has taught us that abolishing common law rights is unsustainable and that those jurisdictions that have tried it have ended up introducing these rights in one form or another. If these measures are not supported then, mark my words, we will be back here in three, four or five years' time hearing about the unsustainable impacts that the government's proposals have had on injured workers and debating this issue yet again. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Redemptions for medical expenses will be available in the return-to-work scheme for non seriously-injured workers. Seriously-injured workers will receive lifetime care and support from the scheme. These redemptions must be made by an agreement between the worker and the corporation after the worker has received competent professional advice regarding the consequences and advice from a recognised health practitioner about the future medical services the worker is likely to require.

This amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Darley allows seriously-injured workers to access redemptions for medical expenses. This amendment is in conflict with the state government's obligation under the National Injury and Insurance Scheme to provide lifetime care and support rather than a lump sum for medical and like expenses to seriously-injured workers. The new scheme reflects current international thinking that the best way to support seriously-injured workers is to provide for their long-term medical support and care needs and therefore we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party will not be supporting the amendments either. We acknowledge a number of these areas, as the Hon. Mr Darley has indicated that he is putting the views of the legal fraternity. One of the key issues in relation to all of this is that the capacity to run a reasonable, fair and, in the end, appropriate workers compensation scheme will mean that in some circumstances the legal fraternity will be unhappy with aspects of, I guess, the amount of work they will be able to achieve in the future and the changes that are inherent in this legislation, including this particular provision and others.

We know from the submissions we have received from the legal fraternity and representatives of the legal fraternity that they are not supportive of some of these particular changes. So, whilst we are mindful, as always, of the views of the lawyers in society and their representatives, in the Liberal Party we do not always agree with the position that they put and for this amendment, and indeed a number of the others, we are not in a position to support the position they are putting.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 55.

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

Amendment No 14 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 68, line 35—After 'subsection (4)' insert '(but subject to subsections (6) and (6a))'

Clause 55 details the factors that are used to determine a worker's entitlement to a lump sum payment for loss of future earnings. These factors are the age factor, hours worked factor, and the prescribed sum. This amendment is a consequence of the proposed amendment to insert new subclause (6a) which will alter the application of the hours worked factor that is used in the calculation of economic loss lump sum. This change ensures that where a worker, at the time they were injured, is working part-time but has a right to return to full-time employment, the hours worked factor would be at 100 per cent. This may occur, for example, where a worker has been undertaking graduated return to work from a non work-related injury.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We have received no indication of opposition from any stakeholder to the government's amendment. On that basis, and consistent with the position we put previously, we will support the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens also support this amendment. We certainly welcome the government's willingness to amend this bill comprehensively throughout both the debate in the other place and here; however we do raise concerns about the fact that we have amendments coming this late in the piece from the government, which clearly shows quite patent problems with this legislation. While we support this wholeheartedly, we say that we will probably be back here very soon fixing up a whole lot of other areas.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 15 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 68, line 37—Delete 'However, if' and substitute 'If'

Amendment No 16 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 68, after line 40—Insert:

(6a) Furthermore, if in relation to a worker who was working part-time at the relevant date there is evidence that, at the relevant date, the worker had a legally enforceable right to return to full-time work, the hours worked factor applying in relation to the worker will be based on full-time work.

Amendment No. 15 is a minor technical amendment that is a consequence of a proposed amendment to insert new subclause (6a), which will alter the application of the hours worked factor that was used in the calculation of the economic loss lump sum. The change is to ensure that where a worker, at the time they were injured, is working part-time but they have a right to return to work in full-time employment, the hours worked factor will be 100 per cent, as I explained earlier. This is consequential on the previous amendment. Amendment No. 16 also relates to the insertion of new subclause (6a).

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For the reasons outlined earlier, we have had no indication from any stakeholder of opposition to this package of amendments.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 56.

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

Amendment No 22 [Darley–1]—

Page 69, line 12—Delete 'physical'

I will speak on this amendment and the next amendment together, as they both relate to the same issue; namely, the distinction that has been drawn between physical injuries and psychiatric injuries. That said, and for the reasons I am about to outline, I will still move amendment No. 23, even if it is defeated. Clause 56 provides for compensation for loss of future earning capacity by way of a lump sum payment for those workers with a permanent impairment from a physical injury above 5 per cent. The amendments seek to remove the word 'physical' so that the entitlement applies equally to psychiatric injuries.

We have heard at length the reasons these amendments are necessary, and I will not repeat those explanations other than to say that these payments for economic loss are going to prove extremely important to those workers who are cut off the scheme after two years. Rather than putting more barriers in their way, the least we can do is ensure that those workers with psychiatric injuries are entitled to the same level of payment as those with physical injuries.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I will speak to just this first amendment. I understand that Mr Darley has not yet moved the second amendment. I understand this amendment works with previous amendments 9 and 10, which were not supported by the committee, to remove the exclusion of workers with a psychiatric injury receiving an economic lump sum payment and allow psychiatric and physical injuries to be combined for the purposes of the whole person impairment.

As I said previously, this would be a significant risk to the new scheme. This amendment will also promote a culture of illness and a sense of entitlement which we are trying to move away from, as well as significantly increase the cost of the scheme, and therefore the government will not support the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For reasons we outlined earlier, we will not support the amendment either.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens, of course, will be supporting this amendment, and we have a concern that a minister would use the term that this would 'promote a culture of illness' with regard to psychiatric harm. I think that that does a disservice to any talks about mental health and removing stigma around mental health. People do not choose to be mentally ill.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I cannot let that pass. This is seeking to do just the opposite. It is seeking to avoid any sort of psychiatric illness which would be incurred through the processes that people need to go through under the current system. We are trying to move away from that and avoid that scenario completely.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 23 [Darley–1]—

Page 69, lines 13 to 15—Delete subclause (3)

I have already outlined the purposes of this amendment. At the risk of repeating what I have already said, I would urge honourable members to reconsider their positions and support this provision. There is no rhyme or reason to the government's position that a worker suffering from a psychiatric injury or consequential mental harm, or a worker suffering from noise-induced hearing loss, should not have access to lump sum payments for economic loss.

As I understand it—and the minister may wish to correct me—noise-induced hearing loss is not limited simply to partial hearing loss. A worker could be left completely deaf as a result of a work injury and miss out on a payment of economic loss even though their actual loss is immeasurable.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government rises to oppose this amendment. Again, it works with previous amendments that have not been supported in committee. This amendment allows an economic loss lump sum to be paid for psychiatric injuries, consequential mental harm and noise-induced hearing loss. I guess the point we need to understand is that at the moment you do not get non-economic loss lump sums for psychiatric illness under the current scheme. Consistent with previous amendments, this would have a significant cost impact on the scheme and be contrary to the benefits provided by other workers compensation schemes across the nation. For those reasons we oppose.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We do not support the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens do support this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 57 passed.

Clause 58.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Amendment No. 33 is consequential.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Darley, your amendment No. 25 is the same. Do you want to speak to it?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: No, it is consequential.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Amendment No. 34 is also consequential.

The PRESIDENT: Is amendment No. 26 also consequential, Hon. Mr Darley?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clauses 59 to 70 passed.

Clause 71.

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

Amendment No 27 [Darley–1]—

Page 84, lines 25 to 30—Delete subclause (2)

This amendment is equivalent to my amendment No. 23. It is yet another example of the government's token acknowledgment of common law rights, this time in relation to psychiatric injuries. Generally speaking, common law damages claims are based on the negligence of an employer and if a worker is successful in establishing a causal link between their employment and their injury, then they would be entitled to such an award of damages.

The government has sought to introduce a higher burden for psychiatric injuries by requiring that they be primarily caused by the negligence or other tort of the worker's employer. To add insult to injury, they have also sought to ensure that such claims cannot be made by workers who suffer from consequential mental harm. This higher test does not apply to physical injuries, it applies only to psychiatric injuries. As I have said throughout this debate, there is absolutely no reason why psychiatric injuries should not be subject to more onerous tests than those that apply to other injuries and this amendment reflects that position.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Clause 71 details the boundaries for which an award of damages under common law can be made. This amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Darley and the same amendment Ms Franks has tabled, applies to common law and removes the restriction and access to common law for psychiatric injuries. The new scheme is focused on strengthening the nexus between employment, the employer and the support available under the return-to-work scheme. Common law provisions proposed in these schemes strengthen that nexus. The proposed amendment, however, weakens that nexus and allows common law action for psychiatric injuries that were not primarily caused by the employer's negligence or other tort, and for that reason the government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party opposes the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It will come as no surprise that the Greens support this amendment and we have that same amendment for which we will see this as a test. As previously indicated, the Greens both support and move this amendment because as the bill currently stands it is setting a high threshold for access to common law and compensation for psychiatric injury and precludes consequential mental harm. The Greens believe that that threshold should be lowered, as does John Darley's amendment in this case.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 72.

The CHAIR: The next amendment is No. 36 to clause 72. The Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will indicate that all of my amendments at clause 72 are consequential, but I am considering dividing on clause 73.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Darley, you have amendment No. 28 to clause 72.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: It is consequential.

Clause passed.

Clause 73.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This clause will be opposed by the Greens. As we have already indicated, our concern with the changes to seriously-injured workers and that terminology we believe will really be to the detriment of this new scheme and so for that reason I indicate our strongest opposition to this fundamental change, and also indicate that we will divide on this clause.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: This amendment is the same as I have proposed in my amendment No. 29. It removes some of the restrictions on claims for common law damages for seriously-injured workers. If seriously-injured workers are to have access to common law, then that should include all the usual heads of damages, including pain and suffering, past and future loss of earning capacity, voluntary services, care and maintenance, future medical treatment, and the like. Without this I think you seriously have to ask, 'What is the point?'

I think this is the general consensus amongst members of the legal fraternity and other stakeholder groups as well. I have heard anecdotally that it is a view shared by many union representatives, that they are not willing to stand up to the government or stick out their necks for injured workers on this occasion. Likewise—and we have already been through this—there should be no barrier to making a claim for both redemption of a liability to make weekly payments and damages for future economic loss. In its submission the Law Society states:

The circumstances in which a worker may claim common law damages are so restrictive that in practice only a handful of workers are likely to take advantage of these provisions.

It considers the common law provisions under part 5 of the bill as illusory, not likely to be pursued by seriously-injured workers, unlikely to improve work safety and containing minimum entitlements compared with those available at common law in other jurisdictions. As I said during my contribution on this bill, at best what is being offered is Clayton's law.

It is estimated that as few as 1 or 2 per cent of injured workers will be able to meet the 30 per cent WPI threshold. Once again, we are being asked to make drastic changes that will impact on the livelihoods of injured workers without all the information. This is not good enough, and injured workers deserve better.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Clause 73 sets out the provisions that apply to a seriously-injured worker who has a right of action against the employer. The reason for the limitation is primarily because, for injured workers where eligible under the National Injury Insurance Scheme who will be seriously injured, there is a requirement for the provision of lifetime care and support. As such, this cannot be the subject of damages. Lifetime care and support will be provided for all seriously-injured workers.

To remove this clause will allow all common law damages to be payable and not just economic loss. This is a significant risk for the new scheme and is likely to represent a significant additional cost to it. There is no access to common law damages for medical support and future care to ensure that the new scheme is consistent, as I said, with the state government's obligations under the National Injury Insurance Scheme. For those reasons we oppose the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We oppose the amendment as well and this, as the minister has outlined, is one of a number of amendments that would make it impossible to achieve the goal of trying to reduce significantly the premiums and costs to small businesses and businesses in South Australia. The goal of this legislation reform package is actually to reduce the cost to business so that we can tackle the problem of trying to create jobs in South Australia. Our economic performance is appalling and our job creation prospects and performance are appalling, and one of the issues is the level of state government taxes and charges and in addition to that the issue of business costs, which can be influenced by government policy.

So, what is driving the reform here? Again, as we said in the second reading, the government in our view has created this mess over 12 years. The reality is that in South Australia you have small business operators who are having to pay double, sometimes more than double, the workers compensation costs that the equivalent small business operator pays in Queensland, New South Wales or Victoria, which makes it impossible for those businesses to compete in a national and international market with them, and makes it impossible for them to actually create jobs.

If we as a parliament are to be genuinely interested in trying to tackle the appalling economic performance of the state, we have to do something about reducing the costs of doing business. As we indicated in the second reading, at least there would be an argument in having a rolled gold, gold plated (whatever euphemism or phrase you want to use) workers compensation scheme if you had a scheme that was performing magnificently compared with others in terms of returning injured workers to the workplace, but we have an appalling performance in that area as well.

The scheme is a cot case whichever way you look at it, whether it is from the perspective of the businesses that are trying to employ people and create jobs, or whether it is from the viewpoint of injured workers in terms of being returned to work, whether that be with their pre-injury employer or with some other employer. In terms of trying to tackle the issue of creating jobs in South Australia for young South Australians, you have to be able to do something about reducing the costs for small business operators in terms of running their businesses, and this is one area where our costs are just completely out of whack compared with the position in virtually every other jurisdiction in Australia.

The minister has outlined other reasons, in terms of national commitments between the state and federal governments under various schemes that have been already entered into, for not being able to support this amendment. However, as we did in the second reading, I want to occasionally remind the parliament that the purpose for trying to undertake this reform is that, if we are genuinely interested in trying to create jobs for young South Australians, we have to do something for small business operators in terms of the costs of running their businesses.

Unless we are prepared to tackle that part of the problem, then we will forever consign small business operators in South Australia to the performance that we have had in the last decade or so, and we will forever consign young South Australians to a future of increasingly having to leave the state to find employment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: After considerable deliberations, our party decided that we would try to get certain amendments through to make it fairer for workers and those who support workers. The party instructed me that, because of the devastation of WorkCover and the impacts that the Hon. Rob Lucas has just put forward on the economy, jobs and the problems there, whilst I was in a position to be able to make amendments that might improve things, we had to give the government a chance to try to get some better structure into a system that it ruined as a result of appointing certain people to the corporation. I put that on the record.

If this clause was to get up it would not ruin the scheme but, as a matter of principle and trying to get some balance into it, whilst we will not be stopping the overall bill and the intent of the bill (and, in any case, Liberal and Labor have got together on that so the numbers are there), based on what I have just said and the debate late last night and the situation as it stands right now, we will be opposing this clause.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 15

Noes 5

Majority 10

Clause thus passed.

Clause 74 passed.

Clause 75.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Mr Chair, amendment No. 45 is a consequential amendment.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Darley, you had the same amendment?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Yes, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: The next amendment is No. 46.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Consequential.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Darley?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Consequential.

Clause passed.

Clauses 76 to 83 passed.

Clause 84.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Clause 84 reads:

84—No damages for nervous shock injury to non-workers

No damages for pure mental harm may be awarded against an employer in respect of the death of or injury to a worker in a case where this Part applies if the pure mental harm arises wholly or partly from mental or nervous shock in connection with that death or injury unless the pure mental harm is in itself a work injury under this Act.

This clause will be opposed by the Greens. As stated in the Law Society's submission which was provided to all members of this place, this provides that no damages for pure mental harm may be awarded against an employer in respect of the death or injury of a worker if that 'pure mental harm' arises wholly or partly from mental or nervous shock in connection with a death or injury, unless the pure mental harm is itself a work injury under the bill.

This provision will have a really significant impact on actions which might otherwise be brought by partners, family members and children under the Civil Liability Act 1936. For example, if a crane collapses on a work site and the worker is killed or seriously injured in negligent circumstances, the partner and the children are subject to the same claims for nervous shock. These claims would not be extinguished under the Greens' amendment and I note the Hon. John Darley has a similar amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: My amendment is the same as that of the Hon. Tammy Franks.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Clause 84 prohibits the awarding of damages for pure mental harm except where pure mental harm is the work injury itself. The clause currently provides that damages for pure mental harm cannot be awarded against an employer for the death of or injury to a worker if the pure mental harm arises wholly or partly from mental shock associated with that death or injury, unless the pure mental harm is a work injury under the act. The act establishes a scheme that supports workers who suffer injuries at work.

Income support counselling services, a funeral benefit and a lump say payable upon death are provided to a deceased worker's dependants in the event of death in compensable circumstances. The act is not intended to respond to common law actions initiated by non-workers for damages and consequent losses arising from nervous shock. For those reasons, the government will oppose the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I just clarify with the government whether claims under the current scheme are able to be taken in the circumstances that have been outlined?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: No.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is the government indicating that the claims and circumstances outlined cannot be taken under the current scheme and this is broadly reinforcing that position, or is there a change to the position?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that this is a change. The change is being introduced because the act now opens up common law and, without this provision, I understand there could be applications under the Civil Liabilities Act.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Thank you for that clarification. So it is clear that under the current arrangements, actions cannot be taken, and under the reform package the same situation will continue; that is, you will not be able to take action in the circumstances that have been outlined. We think that is a sensible position and we will certainly support the government's position on this amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: What is the impact of this clause under the Civil Liability Act?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that this will work with the Civil Liability Act but that it bars any action under this section.

Clause passed.

Clauses 85 to 96 passed.

Clause 97.

The CHAIR: Amendment No. 48 [Franks-1].

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It is consequential, Mr Chair.

Clause passed.

Clause 98.

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

Amendment No 1 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 97, after line 28—Insert:

(2) Despite section 27 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014, the Tribunal will conduct a review of a reviewable decision as a hearing de novo.

Clause 98 confers jurisdiction on the South Australian Employment Tribunal to deal with reviewable decisions. The government amendment amends the Return to Work Bill 2014 to state that when the South Australian Employment Tribunal is conducting a review of a reviewable decision under the Return to Work Bill 2014 that initial review is to be heard as a hearing de novo. Concerns were raised that if the initial review of the reviewable decision was by way of re-hearing, the tribunal would be restricted in the submissions and information it was able to consider. The Minister for Industrial Relations agrees that the first hearing by the tribunal should be de novo and this amendment is intended to achieve this.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Lucas, you have an amendment to clause 98 as well.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will not proceed with that amendment. Unless the Hon. Mr Darley has changed his position this morning, it is consequential on his most recent position as indicated by a vote last evening on the issue of SACAT and the employment tribunal. I think as I outlined last night, all of the amendments on my seven pages, with the exception of one, relate to that issue and are consequential on that vote that we had last evening.

In relation to the government's amendment to the same clause, which has been moved, the Liberal Party has had no indication from any stakeholder in opposition to the government's proposed amendment. Indeed, we have had some indication of support. So, for those reasons, we will support the government's amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens support the government amendment to the section. The government proposes to allow the tribunal to conduct a review of a reviewable decision as a hearing de novo. Currently, the tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the reviewable decision. A hearing de novo will allow the tribunal to rule on the evidence and matters of law without giving deference to the previous tribunal's findings and we welcome that.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 99 passed.

Clause 100.

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

Amendment No 33 [Darley–1]—

Page 98, line 2—Delete '1 month' and substitute: '3 months'

This amendment relates to the time period for making application to the tribunal after the receipt of notice of a reviewable decision. The amendment seeks to extend the one-month period to three months. I have had this amendment drafted as an alternative one to my next amendment, which removes the circumstances around when an extension of time would be allowed. I should indicate at this point that if these proposals are not supported I will be supporting the changes proposed by the Hon. Tammy Franks. Those circumstances are outlined in clause 100(2), which provides that:

(2) The Tribunal must only allow an extension of time…if satisfied—

(a) that good reason exists; and

(b) that another party will not be unreasonably disadvantaged because of the delay in commencing the proceedings.

Once again, these proceedings fail to take into account completely the needs of injured workers; they are a complete denial of access to justice. As the Law Society points out in its submission, upon receiving a letter a worker may take several weeks to seek an appointment with a lawyer and they may not be able to get to see the lawyer for several weeks thereafter. By the time the worker sees the lawyer 30 days may have already passed. It might take an injured worker that long to deal with matters as a result of their injuries.

The proposed changes could also disadvantage non English-speaking workers, those suffering from poor understanding and literacy problems. The special circumstances listed in subclause (2) are also particularly harsh, and a dramatic change from the current provisions of the act, which provide a broad discretion in allowing an extension of time. As alluded to by the ALA, the Fair Work Act 1994 provides a similar test and extensions of time are rarely granted.

The feedback I have had is that the current rules are well known and interpreted fairly for all parties, including the compensating authorities. My view is 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' However, at the very least it is only fair that we adopt one or the other position, certainly not both. I have had these provisions drafted separately so that in the event that one is not supported, consideration may still be given to the other. That said, I think the most reasonable outcome would be to support the deletion of the subclause. With that, I urge honourable members to support either this amendment and/or the next.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Clause 100 sets a time limit of one month, subject to extension, within which an application may be made to the South Australian employment tribunal after the applicant receives notice of a reviewable decision. This clause is largely unchanged from the provisions of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986, apart from the fact that the tribunal must only allow an extension of time if satisfied that good reason exists and another party will not be unreasonably disadvantaged. I understand that language was changed in the other place from a proposal to have 'special reasons' to 'good reasons' to try to meet some of the concerns expressed by the Hon. Mr Darley.

The Hon. Mr Darley's amendment changes the time frame within which an application to the tribunal for review of a reviewable decision must be made from one month to three months. It is in the best interests of all parties that applications for review be resolved expeditiously. The ability to review decisions long after they have been made creates uncertainty, draws out the dispute resolution process and shifts the focus from recovery and return to work, which is where we want it to be. One month is a reasonable time frame for a scheme which is so heavily focused on early intervention and response. In addition, subclause 100(2) already provides that the tribunal may allow an extension of time if good reason exists (as I said earlier) and delay in commencing proceedings does not unreasonably disadvantage another party. For that reason the government opposes this amendment and the foreshadowed amendments.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I actually listened, online, to the debate in the other place on this particular clause.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Indeed; hear, hear. It was quite late at night, and in fact I was lying in bed (I am sure most of the members in the other place would have preferred not to be in the parliament that night). The original clause provided that 'special reasons' exist, and, first, I would like to hear from the government why it chose those words. Then, in the debate, in the interchange between the member for Bragg and the minister, the member for Bragg asked (to my recollection; and I must say that I have not read the Hansard, I am going on my listening to it that night) why the words 'special reason', and what sort of legal interpretation could be made of 'special reason', why those words were chosen—and I echo those questions. The minister, in retort, said, 'Well, how about we change it to 'good reason' then?' My questions are: on what premise was the wording 'good reason' chosen, and what is a 'good reason'?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The honourable member invites me to make some learned commentary on the legal status of the words 'special reason' and 'good reason', which were agitated for by the member for Bragg to the Attorney-General. I must confess that I have no such expertise and cannot give her an answer.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I would assume that the minister would have briefing notes on why a 'good reason' must exist, and why, in fact, the clause does not read 'a reason exists'.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I have no advice to handle this matter. If the honourable member would like I will seek some advice during the luncheon break, if I can, to bring back to her. However, as I said, I do not have any expertise so I cannot ad lib this one. I will have to go back and get a response.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I would say that I echo the sentiments of the Hon. John Darley: it is not broken at the moment, so why are we seeking to remedy it with something that may make it worse by inserting the words either 'special reason' or 'good reason'? If a reason exists, surely that should be enough. I would like the legal background on why 'special reason' was chosen and then why it was changed to 'good reason', seemingly on the floor of parliament in the other place.

That raises grave concerns with me that simply it was a late night interchange in the parliament without proper reference to how it would be interpreted into the future. If those notes are not with the minister now, that actually strengthens my grave concerns, and I would seek some response on that to be contributed to this committee stage, so that when this is interpreted into the future we actually do have some understanding of what we are doing with this clause.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I, along with the other speakers in this debate, am not a lawyer, but my non-lawyer's understanding of what occurred in the lower house, having not been listening to it online but having read the transcript, is that we had two lawyers with some experience in the jurisdiction talking and that it is quite possible when the official explanation comes back that there is some greater legal precedent in terms of interpreting the word 'good' as opposed to the word 'special'. Those who follow football will know that Bruce McInerney loves the word 'special' and he has his own particular definition of which particular footballers deserve the title of 'special'.

I suspect it is likely to be along the lines of it is clearer in terms of legal interpretation, and that is why the two lawyers gasbagging across the chamber late in the evening decided that maybe, rather than getting parliamentary counsel on the floor and asking why they originally drafted 'special' and the difference between 'special' and 'good'. As the minister has outlined, he will bring back an answer on that, and I suspect it is going to be perhaps along those lines, but in relation to the principal issue, for the reasons that we outlined earlier, we will be supporting the government's position on this particular clause.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Mr Chair, I actually have not spoken to the amendment. I would like to ask questions on the clause.

The CHAIR: If you had stood up, I would have recognised you, the Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If you had looked up, you would have seen me.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, don't waste our time. Just get to the point.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If you had looked up, Mr Chair, and paid attention to the floor, you would have seen me. The Greens raised concerns with respect to this section 100. In fact, our answers have not been provided today. This was the subject of quite a contested debate in the lower house. I am very disappointed that the government has not been able to provide an answer to why the word 'special' was exchanged for the word 'good'. We are talking about excluding the rights of people to appeal within a small time frame and making that bar even higher. When you already have a system that is going to be more difficult for injured workers, surely that very entry point should not be as restrictive as you are currently doing with that. With that, we strongly support John Darley's amendments.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 34 [Darley–1]—

Page 98, lines 5 to 8—Delete subclause (2)

I have already outlined the reasoning behind this amendment. I would urge honourable members to support it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I have already outlined the reasons to oppose, and the government will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting John Darley's amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We support the government's position.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 101 to 103 passed.

Clause 104.

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

Amendment No 2 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 100, line 15—Delete 'section 43(10)' and substitute 'section 43(14)'

This technical amendment corrects the reference in clause 104 from section 43(10) of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Bill 2014 to section 43(14) of the same bill. This is as a consequence of amendments that were made to clause 43 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Bill 2014 in the House of Assembly that affected the numbering.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We adopt the government's position.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 105.

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

Amendment No 3 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 100, line 22—Delete 'section 49(1)(a) and (b)' and substitute 'section 51(1)(a) and (b)'

This technical amendment corrects the reference in clause 105 from section 49 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Bill 2014 to section 51 in the same bill. This is as a consequence of amendments that were made to the South Australian Employment Tribunal Bill in the House of Assembly that affected the numbering. Sir, with your indulgence, I move amendment No. 4 as well:

Amendment No 4 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 100, line 26—Delete 'Section 49(1)(c)' and substitute 'Section 51(1)(c)'

Again, a technical amendment that corrects a reference in clause 105 from section 49(1)(c) of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Bill of section 51(1)(c) of the same bill. This is as a consequence of amendments that were made to the South Australian Employment Tribunal Bill in the House of Assembly that affected the numbering.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 106.

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

Amendment No 5 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 101, line 2—Delete 'section 104(2)(b)' and substitute:

section 43(13) of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014

This is, again, a technical amendment that corrects a reference in clause 106 from section 104 of the Return to Work Bill 2014 to section 43(13) of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Bill 2014. This, too, is as a consequence of amendments that were made in the House of Assembly to remove provisions that were previously in the Return to Work Bill and insert them into the South Australian Employment Tribunal Bill. My second amendment No. 6 is of a similar nature and therefore I move:

Amendment No 6 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 101, line 28—Delete 'Section 55' and substitute: Section 57

This technical amendment corrects a reference in clause 106 from section 55 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Bill, section 57 of the same bill, for the same reasons.

The CHAIR: Just for clarification, the Hon. Ms Franks has one amendment to clause 106 and the Hon. Mr Darley also, so we will address your amendment No. 5 now, Minister. Are you moving your amendment No. 50, Ms Franks?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am indeed, and I indicate that we support the government's amendment previously spoken to; however, I will move amendment No. 50—

The CHAIR: Let's do this one first.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes, that is how it would normally work, but you are the one who jumped ahead.

The CHAIR: Alright, Ms Franks.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: Amendment No. 50, the Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Mr Chair, I am sorry to interrupt. You have only moved amendment No 5. I moved both 5 and 6.

The CHAIR: Mainly because there is an amendment in between.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I understand and I apologise.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 50 [Franks–1]—

Page 101, lines 21 to 27—Delete subclause (7)

This amendment is actually based on the Law Society's recommendations, as I previously mentioned, which all members would have received and be aware of. The Law Society opposes this section of the bill as it provides that, in cases of disputation over an amount of permanent impairment compensation, a worker must recover more than 10 per cent over what is offered by a compensating authority to settle the matter in order to be entitled to recover costs. The Law Society is generally opposed to requiring a worker to achieve an outcome more than 10 per cent over an offer made by the compensating authority in order to recover these costs.

In other jurisdictions there would be an entitlement to costs, provided an amount is achieved which is greater than the amount offered. Given that the government has previously argued that we are going for parity with other jurisdictions, there is a question there to be answered as to why we are on a race to the bottom on this particular clause. It would be unfair to a worker if the worker were to have an assessment of a 30 per cent whole person impairment and be the subject of an offer to settle on the basis of a 29 per cent whole person impairment and then not be entitled to recover costs where the tribunal finds that the worker does not reach that critical threshold of 30 per cent whole person impairment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This amendment moved by the Hon. Ms Franks, which is identical to the one proposed by the Hon. Mr Darley, concerns a removal of costs provision relating to permanent impairment compensation. If a worker disputes the amount of permanent impairment compensation determined by the compensating authority, and the tribunal awards less than, the same as or less than 10 per cent above the amount offered by the compensating authority to settle the matter, then the worker is not entitled to costs.

Balanced against the generous cost provisions of the act's dispute resolution system, the aim of this provision is to encourage early settlement of permanent impairment compensation reviews to ensure that only 'merit worthy' reviews proceed to a hearing. Consequently we do not support the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For the reasons we have outlined earlier, and confirming that we have received a copy of the Law Society's submission, we do not support the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: This amendment deals with the issue of costs against the relevant compensating authority. Clause 106 of the bill provides that a party is entitled, subject to some exceptions, to an award against the relevant compensating authority for the party's reasonable costs of any consideration of a decision under division 4, which deals with seriously-injured workers, and any subsequent proceedings for resolution of the matter before the tribunal.

Subclause (7) goes on to provide that, if the amount of permanent impairment compensation is disputed by a worker and the amount the tribunal awards is less than or the same as, or less than 10 per cent above an amount offered by the relevant compensating authority to settle the matter before the matter proceeds to a hearing before the tribunal, the worker is not entitled to costs.

To put it more simply: in order to recover costs a worker must recover more than 10 per cent over what is offered by the compensating authority to settle the matter. As pointed out by the Law Society, this would be particularly unfair to a worker, who has an assessment of 30 per cent of whole person impairment, who is the subject of an offer to settle on the basis of 29 per cent whole person impairment, and as a result is not entitled to recover costs where the tribunal finds that the worker does in fact reach the critical 30 per cent threshold.

The position represents a common theme throughout this bill. It is yet another example of marginalising injured workers and punishing them for pursuing entitlements for compensation. I ask honourable members to give consideration worthy of the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I have already moved this amendment, but I am happy to move it again. I move:

Amendment No 6 [SusEnvCons–1]—

Page 101, line 28—Delete 'Section 55' and substitute: Section 57

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 107 passed.

Clause 108.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 51 [Franks–1]—

Clause 108—This clause will be opposed.

This amendment opposes clause 108. We move this, as stated before, because it is based on one of the Law Society's recommendations on this bill. The clause is opposed because we oppose the proposed limit of recovery of costs to the scale of the representation costs. The society has noted that the wording of this section is identical to the terms in section 88G of the current act. The operations of section 88G have not been gazetted, and it is the position of the Law Society that it has not been gazetted for good reasons. These reasons include that (a) such provisions can only operate with respect to proceedings before the tribunal and (b) regularly solicitors are representing parties to disputes before the tribunal in relation to multiple issues and frequently where some issues are before the tribunal and some are not.

There is no good reason or principle as to why a solicitor should be entitled to charge a higher rate for representation when there is no dispute, compared with representation where there is a dispute. Moreover, it would be difficult and time consuming for a solicitor who sees a client in relation to multiple topics to then create multiple files and divide the attendance to cross those various files.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes the striking out of this clause. The clause, as the Hon. Ms Franks has said, is mirrored in section 88G of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986. To date, a scale of charges for work involved in or associated with representation has not been fixed by regulation. The government has not had the need to do so, as the charging and the recovery of representation costs have been adequately dealt with by the rules of the Workers Compensation Tribunal.

Rule 31 provides that a representative of parties shall not charge excessive costs. It provides that costs in excess of the Supreme Court scale will be regarded as excessive unless exceptional circumstances exist. If a representative of a worker wishes to charge costs greater than those payable by the compensating authority, the representative must advise the worker of rule 31 and their rights under the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act SA 1981 relating to costs disclosure and adjudication.

A worker who believes representation costs have been incurred improperly or without reasonable cause or have been wasted by undue delay, negligence or by other misconduct or default, may advise the registrar of the tribunal of their belief. He may then refer the matter to a presiding member to deal with the matter in accordance with the costs liability of representative provisions set out in section 95A of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

Under those provisions, the tribunal may order that all or any of the costs between the professional representative and the worker be disallowed or repaid to the worker, the professional representative pay all or any of the costs ordered to be paid by the worker, or the professional representative pay all or any of the costs of any party other than the worker. The government considers this rule provides adequate protection to workers from overcharging and has no intention at this time to promulgate a regulation pursuant to clause 108, and we ask that the committee retain clause 108.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party supports retention of clause 108.

Clause passed.

Clauses 109 to 121 passed.

Clause 122.

The CHAIR: The next amendment has two of the same: amendment No. 36, Mr Darley.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: It is a consequential amendment.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, is amendment No. 53 consequential?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes, consequential.

Clause passed.

Clauses 123 to 136 passed.

Clause 137.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 21 [Lucas–1]—

Page 118, after line 15—Insert:

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of a report under subsection (2) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 6 sitting days after receiving the report.

This is the one remaining amendment in the seven pages of amendments that relate to a separate issue to the issue of SACAT. This simply requires the tabling of the report referred to in clause 137 within six sitting days of the minister receiving it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government rises to support this amendment. This amendment applies to provisions around the WorkCover board setting the average premium rate. In the event the board intend to set the average premium rate above 2 per cent, clause 137 requires the board to furnish the minister with a report setting out the reasons it has not been able to achieve a rate of 2 per cent or less, including information about the rate that is to apply and the assessment of the corporation's ability to set a rate of 2 per cent or less in the next financial year. I understand this amendment will require the board's report to the minister to be tabled before both houses of parliament within six sitting days.

In relation to a question asked by the Hon. Ms Franks a little earlier, I understand and my advice is that the wording was changed from 'special reason' to 'good reason' because it was felt that 'special reason' set too high a bar. 'Good reason' is something compelling; it is not a 'the dog ate my homework' sort of reason. That is the legal advice you could only get from the highest legal man in the land, I suppose.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 138 to 178 passed.

Clause 179.

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

Amendment No 17 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 143, line 20—After 'employer' (first occurring) insert '(or a representative of such an employer)'

This clause imposes an obligation on the corporation to provide a worker's employer with a copy of any report prepared by health practitioners within seven days of receiving a request from the employer. This amendment provides for the ability of an employer's representative to request a copy of a worker's medical reports.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We support the amendment.

The CHAIR: Do you want to move 18 as well?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I can, Mr Chairman. I move:

Amendment No 18 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 143, line 20—After 'employer' (second occurring) insert '(or the representative)'

I advise the committee that my amendment No. 18 provides for the corporation to provide a worker's medical reports to an employer's representative who has made a request for a copy, as per the previous amendment.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 180.

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

Amendment No 19 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Page 144, after line 40—Insert:

(11a) Section 17(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1972 does not apply in relation to a review under subsection (8).

Clause 180 sets out the nature and extent of the right of the worker to access copies of material relevant to a claim and the right of a worker to inspect all non-documentary material in the possession of the corporation, or a delegate of the corporation, subject to certain exemptions. This amendment specifies that the Return to Work Bill overrides the requirements of section 17(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1972, which would operate to prevent the State Ombudsman proceeding with investigations relevant to self-insured employers.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Can I ask whether the minister sought advice from the Ombudsman on this matter and the next amendment?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is yes; this was requested for the sake of clarity.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I had a similar question to the Hon. John Darley. It is the Greens' understanding that this amendment has been drafted by the government after their consultation and a request from the Ombudsman. We have received correspondence from the minister's office to that effect, and we accept that, although we have not been able to contact the Ombudsman directly to confirm that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We support the government's position.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 181 to 202 passed.

Clause 203.

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

Amendment No 37 [Darley–1]—

Page 156, line 15—Delete 'on the expiry of 3 years from its commencement' and substitute:

on a 3 yearly basis

Amendments Nos 37 through to 41 all deal with provisions regarding reviews, and I will speak to them as a package. That said, if the first two of these amendments are not passed I will still move the third amendment because I think this is a very important measure that is able to stand alone. Members will recall that during the 2008 WorkCover debate, the only amendment that we managed to get through this place was one I proposed for a review of the new provisions.

Those changes resulted in the Cossey review which was released in 2011. The feedback that I have received is that this review was extremely worthwhile. That said, some commentators have said that much more could be learned about the impacts of the changes to the scheme if such reviews are conducted on a continual basis. This would certainly enable us to track more effectively the outcomes of any changes proposed by the government especially in this instance where we are going to see the most dramatic changes to the WorkCover system.

I support that position and, as such, propose that reviews be conducted every three years following the commencement of this bill. Specifically I think it is important that reviews consider the extent to which the changes have provided an effective and fair scheme, whether or not the threshold for being characterised as a seriously-injured worker has been set too high, and whether or not there is further scope to alter common law rights.

These additional considerations are all contained within amendment No. 39. The benefits of these sorts of provisions speak for themselves. I urge honourable members to support this package of amendments and enable the changes that are to be implemented by the government to be properly scrutinised.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Darley provides for a review of the act to occur every three years, rather than one review after three years. The government considers the frequency of such reviews to be unduly burdensome and the diversion of focus from the scheme's legislative objectives and, consequently, the government will be opposing the amendments and the subsequent amendments.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party does not have extraordinarily strong views on this particular issue other than in the end our position on balance is not to support the amendment. One of the reasons for not being unduly concerned about whether this amendment was supported or not is that it is our view, as I think others have expressed that, given the history of workers compensation legislation, it is highly likely that there will be changes, if not before the expiry of three years from the commencement of this new reform package, once the first review is conducted.

It is highly likely that there will be some recommendations for change and, at that particular time, whoever happens to be in the parliament then can make a decision as to whether everything is as the government intends it to be, rosy in the world of workers compensation. I might just say that that is highly unlikely, but if it was well then the parliament probably would take a view that there is no particular need to be locking in three-yearly reviews.

If there are still significant issues, then they may well take a decision that they might want another review more quickly than three years—a two-year period or one year down the track. We have supported reviews on the basis of 12 months and two years in some areas previously. So for those reasons we will not be supporting this amendment. But we would certainly be open upon receipt of the first review some time after three years from the commencement of this reform package, to considering whether or not we should lock in another review after that. At this stage we are not going to be supporting a position that from now until the end of time there should be a review of the scheme every three years.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting this amendment put forward by the Hon. John Darley for not only one three-year review, but a review every three years. We believe that we are entering into a situation, as I said in my second reading speech, which illustrates the irony of the words of the Leader of the Opposition telling people to vote Labor, because this is probably the best Liberal WorkCover bill we have seen in a long time, but it is, of course, being implemented by a Labor government.

I'm sure that the Labor Party might have great confidence in being power in six years' time but I suspect the Liberal Party thinks that they are going to be on the government benches and would not want that second review to be occurring but would be quite welcoming of the first review. We are entering a situation where it has been admitted by the government that it is the budget bottom line that counts here and that we are sacrificing the standards for injured workers in this state. A review in three years and then a review in six years is hardly too much to ask for in that situation.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: Amendment No. 38 is consequential, the Hon. Mr Darley.

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

Amendment No 39 [Darley–1]—

Page 156, after line 16—Insert:

(aa) the extent to which this Act has provided an effective and fair scheme to support and compensate workers who have been injured at work; and

(ab) without limiting paragraph (aa)—

(i) whether the threshold for being characterised as a seriously injured worker has been set too high; and

(ii) whether the affect of Part 5 on rights at common law should be altered or adjusted; and

As I mentioned earlier, this amendment will ensure that a review into the act considers specifically the extent to which the return-to-work scheme has provided an effective and fair scheme to support and compensate injured workers. Whether or not the threshold for being characterised as seriously injured has been set too high and whether or not common law rights need to be altered or adjusted, it is critical (moving forward) that these matters are appropriately considered and this amendment reflects that. I urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes this amendment. The amendment will provide for further specific areas for review. We believe the already existing provisions for review do not exclude the proposed items being included and therefore cannot support it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For similar reasons to the ones I have just outlined in relation to the earlier amendment from the Hon. Mr Darley, we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 1 [SusEnvCons–4]—

Page 156, after line 21—Insert:

(ab) without limiting paragraph (a), whether the jurisdiction of the South Australian Employment Tribunal under this Act should be transferred to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; and

This amendment expands the provisions requiring the minister to commence a review of the return to work act, its administration and operation, three years from its commencement. Currently, the review must include an assessment of the extent to which the return-to-work scheme and dispute resolution processes under this act and the South Australian Employment Tribunal act have achieved a reduction in the number of disputed matters and the time taken to resolve disputes. This amendment expands the scope to include an assessment of the merits of moving the jurisdiction for review of matters under the return to work act from the employment tribunal to a stream of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Clause 203 already requires a review to be completed within six months and for the report to be laid before both houses of parliament within 12 sitting days.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This was originally, and is now I guess, the government's attempt to adopt an alternative position to the position the Liberal Party had outlined originally, which was to transfer the jurisdiction to SACAT in 2015 and then the actual amendment we moved, which was successful earlier yesterday and then was defeated late last evening, was for transfer to SACAT in July 2018. We will not oppose this amendment. Contrary to the comments from the Hon. Tammy Franks, I can assure the Hon. Tammy Franks that those of us on this side of the parliament never assume anything in relation to future election results and we have the sad results of history to demonstrate the wiseness of that particular position. So, we make no assumptions, and I certainly make no assumptions, as to who will be in government and opposition post 2018.

It is my view that if the Labor government is re-elected in 2018, that this review is simply words. The government, in particular Premier Weatherill and those who drive him, is violently in support of the employment tribunal model and this, under a Weatherill-led government, would be just a sop, that a review would be done to have a look at it. That is fine, that is the Hon. Mr Weatherill's policy and position; however, it is one that we strongly disagree with. When we get to the employment tribunal bill I will make some more detailed comments at clause 1 of the committee stage of the debate, so I will not unduly delay this particular provision.

In the case that the Liberal government is elected in 2018, then our policy position is clear and we will not need a review to confirm a policy position. Our position is clear: we think it is good policy that SACAT be used for the purposes that are being supported in the parliament. That is, to be an all-encompassing body that can do a whole variety of things, one of which should be the work of the employment tribunal. That is a policy position we have put down here, and we will campaign on it leading up to 2018. Should we be successful in 2018, we would use that wonderful phrase 'claim a mandate' to the crossbenchers and others to say, 'We have campaigned on this issue and will seek to implement that policy change for good policy reasons, in terms of why we have supported SACAT as a matter of principle.'

As I will outline in the employment tribunal debate, in our view there are other reasons why, if you want to have a sensible jurisdiction in this area and if you are trying to reduce costs in this area, the current operations of the Workers Compensation Tribunal and the proposed employment tribunal are inconsistent with that policy aim. I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire referred, in debate last evening, to the Labor government's current policy in ensuring that many fellow travellers are appointed to the employment tribunal, or to the Workers Compensation Tribunal to be transferred over to the employment tribunal. In our view, that makes it clear that the operations of this tribunal will be inconsistent with what is supposedly reform of workers compensation legislation; that is, in terms of trying to reduce costs as well as having a fair and efficient workers compensation system.

As I said, we will not oppose the amendment, but we do not hold our breath that, if a Labor government is re-elected, it will mean anything more than ensuring that the appropriate person, from a Labor government's viewpoint, conducts the review, and that he or she will be selected, in part, so that when this particular provision is reviewed the recommendation will be for a continuation of the employment tribunal arrangements. As I said, if the Liberal government is elected we will have a clear policy position. The legislation will require that a review be conducted, but we will have a clear policy position that indicates that we believe SACAT is the appropriate vehicle to oversight the work that will be conducted over the next three years or so by the employment tribunal.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be opposing the amendment put forward by the government. I will remain agnostic, and I will listen to what is clearly going to be, over the coming years, the arguments put for including the employment tribunal in SACAT. At this stage, this part of the debate has been raised so late in the piece that there has not been adequate ability for proper consultation; however, both the Greens and I have been approached by many in the legal community with grave concerns about moving the employment tribunal into SACAT. The Law Society has specifically said that it has really quite significant concerns, but has not had the capacity to provide a formal submission, given the timing and their resources and the way this debate has unfolded.

Certainly, it would be advantageous had these issues been raised much earlier in the piece. If the Liberal opposition, as they have just stated, plan to make this a centrepiece of their election campaigning and will be seeking a mandate on that and putting the crossbenches on notice that they may have indeed a mandate on this issue, should they come to government (although I understand that they see that as a hope rather than a certainty), then obviously those reasons and those debates will be had in the fullness of time and with all stakeholders being able to not only have an opinion but put that opinion forward for the benefit of decision-makers and the community to see those debates.

With that, we do not see that there has actually been enough information put out in a timely manner on this issue to support either the opposition or the government's intent here to look at that merging of the employment tribunal into SACAT.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be opposing this amendment for the same reasons as outlined by the Hon. Tammy Franks.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just a couple of comments. Can I just hasten to say that nothing I have said should lead anyone to believe that this will be a centrepiece of the Liberal campaign leading to 2018.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mandate ain't centrepiece, let me assure you. The centrepiece of our campaign will be on issues such as cost of living, government waste and management, and a whole variety of other issues like that. Nevertheless, our position on this issue is that it will be of some significance to a very small number of people in the community, I suspect the lawyers and those actively engaged in workers compensation and legislation. I just clarify that that is the case.

The second point I would make is that this issue has not been raised right at the end, because to be fair, the minister and others indicated right from the word go, when this was first being consulted with stakeholders, that the original intention was for it to be in SACAT. Whilst all these confidential discussions were going on, as some members will be aware, I am assuming that employers and certainly employee representatives in the very early days, key people within the government and others, were supporting the model of SACAT being the appropriate vehicle, because it just makes sense. That is why some key people in government were supporting it be SACAT.

What then happened was there was this significant lobby, which may or may not have included—I do not know—the Law Society and the ALA, but certainly did include key representatives and employer associations and certainly did include Premier Weatherill, who obviously is not without influence within the current government. So the position did move from SACAT to the notion of a continuation of the workers compensation tribunal, but just called the employment tribunal.

For the record's sake, it is important to note that the debate about whether this should be a SACAT is not something that has just happened in the last 48 hours. This has been a raging debate going on amongst those who have been involved in, firstly, the confidential discussions about the workers compensation reform package, and then over recent weeks, once it became public as to what is going to be the appropriate forum for this, I can say—and again, if I can remind the Hon. Tammy Franks if she was reclining in bed listening to the online debate of these bills in the House of Assembly—it was an issue that was top of mind from the member for Bragg and one or two others in the debate during both the Return to Work Bill and I think also the Employment Tribunal Bill, where there was a discussion.

I will stand corrected—I just cannot find it at the moment—but I am pretty sure that minister Rau during that debate many weeks ago did indicate that his major opposition, which he has repeated to me, was just that it was administratively impossible for Justice Parker and SACAT to take it on in July 2015.

Again, I stand to be corrected—the minister might have the exact words if I am wrong—but my recollection of what he said was that there may well be an argument further down the path that SACAT take it over. There was no violent implacable opposition from minister Rau in the House of Assembly debate to the argument. It was essentially that it was just not possible to do it, as the Liberal Party members were raising, by July 2015. As I said, I think he did indicate that it may well be sensible or possible over the medium term for it to occur.

I want to put on the record that this is an issue that has been debated for quite some time. It may well have some more significance to some within this debate than others, but it is not something that has been cooked up by anybody just in the last 48 hours or so.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In response to that, I would say that I am certainly heartened to hear that it is not to be a centrepiece of your re-election bid, but it will probably be no surprise to you that the Greens have not been privy to that raging debate you talk of. Indeed, our briefing on this bill was given after it had already passed the lower house. What I would say is that obviously by that stage the opposition and the government had come to their arrangement that has been referred to many times in indicating the opposition's support of this bill throughout this debate.

The crossbenchers were not privy to the original discussions and certainly have come in at a point where the lobby by and large has been told to email us all, to write to us all and to communicate to us all not to support any crossbench amendments and that pretty much this piece of legislation is a done deal between opposition and government.

This issue has been, in fact, pretty much the sole point of contention between opposition and government, it would be fair to say, and in that situation we are now seeing a government amendment that has been filed and tabled in this place in the last few sitting days—not months ago, not in the original bill. So, I fail to see the argument that this raging debate and that this informed debate has actually occurred: it has been a private debate and it has been a private done deal.

The crossbenchers will speak for themselves but, as a member of the crossbench, if we are going to have this debate, let's have it in a transparent, timely and appropriately undertaken way where everybody is aware of the issues and we do not come to this place with deals already stitched up.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The only point I would make again is that Hansard is not a private debate: Hansard is on the public record and it has been there for quite some time in terms of the issues the Liberal Party, the member for Bragg and others were raising. I can only repeat that we publicly raised the issue so that aspect was not a private discussion. It was there for all who were prepared to listen or read Hansard.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Just briefly, we are now debating a government amendment that has been put up in these last few sitting days.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: Are amendments Nos 40 and 41 [Darley-1] consequential?

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Yes.

Clause as amended passed.

Schedules 1 and 2 passed.

Schedule 3.

The CHAIR: We now have amendment No. 54 [Franks-1] to schedule 3.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This amendment goes to the longstanding campaign to ensure that members of the CFS were given presumptive recognition under WorkCover, similar to that which has now been accepted by the government for the MFS.

Obviously we are pleased with the government's recent announcement, and it is the first time the government in this council has actually voted for parity for the CFS, of course with the provision that a CFS firefighter have a 10-year proviso, which is a slightly less equal accordance of rights that the MFS now enjoys.

With that, I will not move these amendments standing in my name, but obviously the Greens were prepared to champion this clause in the bill. Had the government kept to the review timetable it promised at the state election, these amendments would not have been necessary, but would have been embodied in the Return to Work Bill when it entered the lower house.

The CHAIR: Is that all your amendments to schedule 3, the Hon. Ms Franks?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: They all lapse.

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

Amendment No 3 [SusEnvCons–3]—

Schedule 3, clause 1, page 160, after line 9—Insert:

(1a) If—

(a) a worker suffers an injury of a kind referred to in the first column of the table in this Schedule; and

(b) the worker was a member of SACFS presumptively employed by the Crown as a firefighter—

(i) on or after 1 July 2013; and

(ii) before the injury occurred; and

(iii) for the qualifying period referred to in the second column of the table opposite the injury; and

(c) the injury occurred—

(i) on or after 1 July 2013; and

(ii) in the case of a worker who is no longer a member of SACFS presumptively employed by the Crown as a firefighter—no more than 10 years after the cessation of that presumptive employment; and

(d) during the qualifying period referred to in paragraph (b)(iii), the worker was exposed to the hazards of a fire scene (including exposure to a hazard of the fire that occurred away from the scene),

the worker's injury is presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to have arisen from his or her presumptive employment by the Crown.

This amendment recasts the reverse onus of proof provisions to the South Australian Country Fire Service firefighters as related to certain types of cancers listed in schedule 3. The consequence of the new provisions is that there is no longer a requirement for a volunteer firefighter to have been exposed to the hazards of fire scene 175 times in a five-year period during the relevant employment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens strongly support this amendment.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 4 [SusEnvCons–3]—

Schedule 3, clause 1, page 160, line 10—Delete 'subclause (1)' and substitute 'subclauses (1) and (1a)'

This is a minor technical amendment. It is consequential to the recasting of reverse onus of proof provisions, I am advised, for the South Australian Country Fire Service providers. This amendment ensures that clause 1(2) operates for the purposes of both subclause (1) and new subclause (1a).

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 5 [SusEnvCons–3]—

Schedule 3, clause 1, page 160, lines 18 to 42 and page 161, lines 1 and 2—Delete subclauses (3) and (4)

This amendment is consequential.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Schedule 4 passed.

Schedule 5.

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

Amendment No 20 [SusEnvCons–2]—

Schedule 5, clause 5, page 164, after line 15—Insert:

and

(c) without limiting subclause (3), sections 17(1) and 25 of the Ombudsman Act 1972 do not apply in relation to a matter referred to the Ombudsman.

In relation to a review regarding compliance with service standards, this amendment specifies that the Return to Work Bill overrides the requirements of section 17(1) and section 25 of the Ombudsman Act 1972, which would operate to prevent the State Ombudsman proceeding with investigations relevant to self-insured employers and would impose additional reporting requirements.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Schedule 6 passed.

Schedule 7.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My amendment No. 57 is consequential.

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

Amendment No 42 [Darley–1]—

Schedule 7—Delete Schedule 7 and substitute 'Schedule 7—Prescribed sum—economic loss'

My officers spent a great deal of time trying to come up with some concessions that will make up for the harsh and unjust consequences that the provisions in this bill will have on injured workers. One of the greatest challenges was trying to address the magnitude of the difference in entitlements afforded to those workers who are at the higher end of the 30 per cent whole person impairment threshold. Take, for instance, the worker who has an assessed WPI of 29 per cent: the difference between the entitlements they receive, compared with a worker of a 30 per cent WPI, is extremely considerable: where one will benefit from lifetime payments, the other effectively will be cut off the scheme after two years.

As mentioned earlier, the Law Society states that a person, for instance a clerical officer, may suffer a significant injury that may have little impact on their ability to earn. That clerical officer could very well be assessed as having a WPI of 30 per cent. On the other hand, a firefighter, police officer or ambulance officer may suffer a chronic back injury that would prevent them from making a living in their profession, yet they would not be entitled to lifetime payments. They would, in fact, be cut off the system after two years of payments and a further year of medicals. It just does not add up.

The aim of this amendment is to some extent to provide some middle ground for those workers who do not reach the 30 per cent threshold but are assessed as having an injury between 20 per cent and 29 per cent. In those instances, the compromise that I am proposing would see those workers receive an additional 50 per cent to what the government is proposing in their lump sum payment for economic loss. It is not a perfect scenario but it is something and, at this stage, I certainly think something is better than nothing. I urge honourable members in the strongest possible terms to support this amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Schedule 7 sets out the prescribed sum to be applied with regard to the worker's level of whole-person impairment to determine the quantum of a lump sum for economic loss. The prescribed sum is dependent on the level of the whole-person impairment. It ranges from $5,000 indexed for 5 per cent degree of whole-person impairment to $350,000 indexed for a 29 per cent degree of whole-person impairment. The Hon. Mr Darley's amendment works to increase the amounts payable for economic loss lump sum payments and, in the 29 per cent case, as I mentioned, the current proposition is $350,000, and the Hon. Mr Darley seeks to take that up to $525,000 at a maximum level. This will increase amounts payable and will have an adverse cost impact on the scheme. It has not been modelled and has not been costed and, for those reasons, we oppose the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: We will be supporting the Darley amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For the reasons we have outlined earlier we will not be supporting the amendment.

Schedule passed.

Schedule 8 passed.

Schedule 9.

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

Amendment No 6 [SusEnvCons–3]—

Schedule 9, new Part, page 173, after line 8—Insert:

Part 7A—Amendment of Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986

22A—Amendment of section 31—Evidentiary provision

(1) Section 31(2b)(b), (c) and (d)—delete paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) and substitute:

(b) the worker was a member of the South Australian Country Fire Service (SACFS) presumptively employed by the Crown as a firefighter—

(i) on or after 1 July 2013; and

(ii) before the injury occurred; and

(iii) for the qualifying period referred to in the second column of Schedule 2A opposite the injury; and

(c) the injury occurred—

(i) on or after 1 July 2013; and

(ii) in the case of a worker who is no longer a member of SACFS presumptively employed by the Crown as a firefighter—no more than 10 years after the cessation of that presumptive employment; and

(d) during the qualifying period referred to in paragraph (b)(iii), the worker was exposed to the hazards of a fire scene (including exposure to a hazard of the fire that occurred away from the scene),

(2) Section 31(4a)—delete 'subsection (2a)' and substitute 'subsections (2a) and (2b)'

(3) Section 31(4b)—delete subsection (4b)

Division 11A—Review of provisions relating to firefighters

66A—Review

(1) In addition to causing a review of this Act to be conducted as required under section 203, the Minister must, as soon as possible after 1 July 2018, appoint a person to carry out a review concerning the operation and impact of—

(a) the amendments to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 made by the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Firefighters) Amendment Act 2013 and Part 7A of this Schedule; and

(b) Schedule 3 of this Act.

(2) The person appointed by the Minister under subclause (1) must present to the Minister a report on the outcome of the review no later than 4 months following his or her appointment.

(3) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days after receiving the report, have copies of the report laid before both Houses of Parliament.

Amendment No 9 [SusEnvCons–3]—

Long title—

After 'WorkCover Corporation Act 1994' insert:

, the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986

This amendment provides for consequential amendments to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986, the effect of which will recast the reverse onus of proof provisions for South Australian Country Fire Service firefighters as it relates to certain types of cancer listed in schedule 2A of that act. The consequence of the new provisions is that there is no longer a requirement for a volunteer firefighter to have been exposed to the hazards of a fire scene 175 times in any five-year period during the relevant employment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: We will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 7 [SusEnvCons–3]—

Schedule 9, clause 27, page 175, line 4—Delete subclause (4)

This is a technical amendment; it is consequential to the amendment to clause 2 which inserted a statement regarding the date of operation of clause 27 of schedule 9. As a consequence the statement regarding the date of operation of clause 27 of schedule 9 is redundant.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks: amendment No. 58 is consequential?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes.

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

Amendment No 43 [Darley–1]—

Schedule 9, clause 36, page 177, lines 5 to 42 and page 178, lines 1 to 8—Delete subclauses (1), (2) and (3) and substitute:

(1) In this clause—

(a) a qualifying worker, in respect of an existing injury, is a worker who, immediately before the designated day, was still entitled to receive a weekly payment during an entitlement period in respect of any incapacity for work in respect of that injury; and

(b) a reference to an entitlement period is a reference to an entitlement period under Part 4 Division 4 of the repealed Act.

(2) Subject to this Part, a qualifying worker who, in respect of an existing injury, is incapacitated for work at any time beginning on the designated day and ending 5 years from the date on which the incapacity for work first occurred, will be entitled to weekly payments in respect of that incapacity under section 39 of this Act (with any period for which weekly payments of compensation were paid under Part 4 Division 4 of the repealed Act in respect of that injury being taken to be compensation that has been paid under this Act).

(3) Subject to subclauses (4) and (5), a worker has no entitlement to weekly payments under this Act or the repealed Act in respect of an existing injury after the end of 130 weeks (whether consecutive or not) in respect of which the worker has had an incapacity for work (taking into account periods both before and after the commencement of the designated day).

This is a transitional provision regarding weekly payments for workers.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Sir, what amendment number are we dealing with?

The CHAIR: Amendment No. 43 [Darley-1], schedule 9, clause 36.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Mr Chairman, it is consequential.

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

Amendment No 8 [SusEnvCons–3]—

Schedule 9, new Division, page 188, after line 23—Insert:

Division 11A—Review of provisions relating to firefighters

66A—Review

(1) In addition to causing a review of this Act to be conducted as required under section 203, the Minister must, as soon as possible after 1 July 2018, appoint a person to carry out a review concerning the operation and impact of—

(a) the amendments to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 made by the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Firefighters) Amendment Act 2013 and Part 7A of this Schedule; and

(b) Schedule 3 of this Act.

(2) The person appointed by the Minister under subclause (1) must present to the Minister a report on the outcome of the review no later than 4 months following his or her appointment.

(3) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days after receiving the report, have copies of the report laid before both Houses of Parliament.

This amendment is consequential to the amendments recasting the reverse onus of proof provisions for South Australian Country Fire Service firefighters. It inserts a requirement for the minister to appoint a person to review the operation and impact of the reverse onus of proof provisions for firefighters as soon as possible after 1 July 2018. The resulting report must be tabled before both houses of parliament.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Long title.

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

Amendment No 9 [SusEnvCons–3]—Long title—After 'WorkCover Corporation Act 1994' insert:

, the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986

This technical amendment changes the long title of the bill to account for the consequential amendments that are proposed for the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 as related to the volunteer firefighter provisions.

Amendment carried; title as amended passed.

Bill recommitted.

Clause 4.

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

Amendment No 1—

Page 16, after line 30—Delete 'jurisdiction transfer date means 1 July 2018;'

Amendment No 2—

Page 19, after line 4—Delete:

SACAT means the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal established under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013;

Amendment No 3—

Page 19, after line 5—Delete:

SAET means the South Australian Employment Tribunal established under the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014;

Amendment No 4—

Page 20, lines 5 and 6—Delete the new definition of 'Tribunal' and reinstate the old definition, that:

Tribunal means the South Australian Employment Tribunal established under the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014;

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is a natural consequence of the vote that was taken late last evening, so we accept that it is consequential on the fact that the Liberal Party position was unsuccessful.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (12:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.