❓ Mrs Edwardes questions the incorporation of WorkCover WA into the Department of Employment and Consumer Protection, raising concerns about employer input. Mr Kobelke clarifies that only some parts of WorkCover will be incorporated, ensuring the WorkCover commission's independence and industry representation.
AnsweredQoN 104Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WORKCOVER, INCORPORATION INTO DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
Given the Government’s stated intention to incorporate WorkCover WA into the new Department of Employment and Consumer Protection - (1) Is the minister aware that employers in industry, and particularly small businesses that fund the operation of WorkCover through their workers compensation premiums, are opposed to such incorporation? (2) How will the minister ensure that employers have a say in how their money is spent to ensure that they do not end up paying for a new super government department and its function? Mr KOBELKE
Given the Government’s stated intention to incorporate WorkCover WA into the new Department of Employment and Consumer Protection - (1) Is the minister aware that employers in industry, and particularly small businesses that fund the operation of WorkCover through their workers compensation premiums, are opposed to such incorporation? (2) How will the minister ensure that employers have a say in how their money is spent to ensure that they do not end up paying for a new super government department and its function? Mr KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) The premise of the question is wrong. It is not the intention to incorporate WorkCover into a larger department. There is an intention to incorporate some parts of WorkCover. The reason for the important distinction - as the member who asked the question well knows - is that WorkCover is a very important organisation that is established under an Act of this Parliament, but it is funded by employers through a levy on their workers compensation premiums. It is not funded from the consolidated fund. Therefore, WorkCover’s establishment ensures that the industry is represented on the commission that makes decisions regarding the funding that covers its operations. It is not my intention to interfere with that part of WorkCover, but it may be appropriate to place some organisational parts under the control of a larger agency. However, it will not take away the independence of the WorkCover commission and the important role it plays.
(1) Is the minister aware that employers in industry, and particularly small businesses that fund the operation of WorkCover through their workers compensation premiums, are opposed to such incorporation? (2) How will the minister ensure that employers have a say in how their money is spent to ensure that they do not end up paying for a new super government department and its function? Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(2) The premise of the question is wrong. It is not the intention to incorporate WorkCover into a larger department. There is an intention to incorporate some parts of WorkCover. The reason for the important distinction - as the member who asked the question well knows - is that WorkCover is a very important organisation that is established under an Act of this Parliament, but it is funded by employers through a levy on their workers compensation premiums. It is not funded from the consolidated fund. Therefore, WorkCover’s establishment ensures that the industry is represented on the commission that makes decisions regarding the funding that covers its operations. It is not my intention to interfere with that part of WorkCover, but it may be appropriate to place some organisational parts under the control of a larger agency. However, it will not take away the independence of the WorkCover commission and the important role it plays.
(2) How will the minister ensure that employers have a say in how their money is spent to ensure that they do not end up paying for a new super government department and its function? Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(2) The premise of the question is wrong. It is not the intention to incorporate WorkCover into a larger department. There is an intention to incorporate some parts of WorkCover. The reason for the important distinction - as the member who asked the question well knows - is that WorkCover is a very important organisation that is established under an Act of this Parliament, but it is funded by employers through a levy on their workers compensation premiums. It is not funded from the consolidated fund. Therefore, WorkCover’s establishment ensures that the industry is represented on the commission that makes decisions regarding the funding that covers its operations. It is not my intention to interfere with that part of WorkCover, but it may be appropriate to place some organisational parts under the control of a larger agency. However, it will not take away the independence of the WorkCover commission and the important role it plays.
Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(2) The premise of the question is wrong. It is not the intention to incorporate WorkCover into a larger department. There is an intention to incorporate some parts of WorkCover. The reason for the important distinction - as the member who asked the question well knows - is that WorkCover is a very important organisation that is established under an Act of this Parliament, but it is funded by employers through a levy on their workers compensation premiums. It is not funded from the consolidated fund. Therefore, WorkCover’s establishment ensures that the industry is represented on the commission that makes decisions regarding the funding that covers its operations. It is not my intention to interfere with that part of WorkCover, but it may be appropriate to place some organisational parts under the control of a larger agency. However, it will not take away the independence of the WorkCover commission and the important role it plays.
(1)-(2) The premise of the question is wrong. It is not the intention to incorporate WorkCover into a larger department. There is an intention to incorporate some parts of WorkCover. The reason for the important distinction - as the member who asked the question well knows - is that WorkCover is a very important organisation that is established under an Act of this Parliament, but it is funded by employers through a levy on their workers compensation premiums. It is not funded from the consolidated fund. Therefore, WorkCover’s establishment ensures that the industry is represented on the commission that makes decisions regarding the funding that covers its operations. It is not my intention to interfere with that part of WorkCover, but it may be appropriate to place some organisational parts under the control of a larger agency. However, it will not take away the independence of the WorkCover commission and the important role it plays.
(1) Is the minister aware that employers in industry, and particularly small businesses that fund the operation of WorkCover through their workers compensation premiums, are opposed to such incorporation? (2) How will the minister ensure that employers have a say in how their money is spent to ensure that they do not end up paying for a new super government department and its function? Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(2) The premise of the question is wrong. It is not the intention to incorporate WorkCover into a larger department. There is an intention to incorporate some parts of WorkCover. The reason for the important distinction - as the member who asked the question well knows - is that WorkCover is a very important organisation that is established under an Act of this Parliament, but it is funded by employers through a levy on their workers compensation premiums. It is not funded from the consolidated fund. Therefore, WorkCover’s establishment ensures that the industry is represented on the commission that makes decisions regarding the funding that covers its operations. It is not my intention to interfere with that part of WorkCover, but it may be appropriate to place some organisational parts under the control of a larger agency. However, it will not take away the independence of the WorkCover commission and the important role it plays.
(2) How will the minister ensure that employers have a say in how their money is spent to ensure that they do not end up paying for a new super government department and its function? Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(2) The premise of the question is wrong. It is not the intention to incorporate WorkCover into a larger department. There is an intention to incorporate some parts of WorkCover. The reason for the important distinction - as the member who asked the question well knows - is that WorkCover is a very important organisation that is established under an Act of this Parliament, but it is funded by employers through a levy on their workers compensation premiums. It is not funded from the consolidated fund. Therefore, WorkCover’s establishment ensures that the industry is represented on the commission that makes decisions regarding the funding that covers its operations. It is not my intention to interfere with that part of WorkCover, but it may be appropriate to place some organisational parts under the control of a larger agency. However, it will not take away the independence of the WorkCover commission and the important role it plays.
Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(2) The premise of the question is wrong. It is not the intention to incorporate WorkCover into a larger department. There is an intention to incorporate some parts of WorkCover. The reason for the important distinction - as the member who asked the question well knows - is that WorkCover is a very important organisation that is established under an Act of this Parliament, but it is funded by employers through a levy on their workers compensation premiums. It is not funded from the consolidated fund. Therefore, WorkCover’s establishment ensures that the industry is represented on the commission that makes decisions regarding the funding that covers its operations. It is not my intention to interfere with that part of WorkCover, but it may be appropriate to place some organisational parts under the control of a larger agency. However, it will not take away the independence of the WorkCover commission and the important role it plays.
(1)-(2) The premise of the question is wrong. It is not the intention to incorporate WorkCover into a larger department. There is an intention to incorporate some parts of WorkCover. The reason for the important distinction - as the member who asked the question well knows - is that WorkCover is a very important organisation that is established under an Act of this Parliament, but it is funded by employers through a levy on their workers compensation premiums. It is not funded from the consolidated fund. Therefore, WorkCover’s establishment ensures that the industry is represented on the commission that makes decisions regarding the funding that covers its operations. It is not my intention to interfere with that part of WorkCover, but it may be appropriate to place some organisational parts under the control of a larger agency. However, it will not take away the independence of the WorkCover commission and the important role it plays.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.