"Private consultant Margaret Wagstaff and her partner Philip Bentley - long time friends of Premier MIke Rann - are receiving about $100 000 a year of taxpayers money for government board and committee appointments." Michael Owen The Advertiser 13/12/08.
Private consultant Margaret Wagstaff and her partner Philip Bentley - long time friends of Premier MIke Rann - are receiving about $100 000 a year of taxpayers money for government board and committee appointments.
Details of their joint taxpayer funded income are in the Government's register of boards and committees for June 30 , 2008.
As reported by The Advertiser on Wednesday, Ms Wagstaff has since September been paid $250 an hour to help families Minister Jennifer Rankine, for up to 28 hours a week with her portfolio challenges.
Opposition Uppper House MP and former Liberal government treasurer Rob Lucas yesterday called on the Government to reveal "whether any other consultanices or appointments have been given to Ms Wagstaff or Mr Bentley in the interests of transparency and accoutability".
But Ms Rankine, who has admitted to waiving tender rules because she wanted only Ms Wagstaff, has for two days refused to answer questions sent to her by The Advertiser, including how ling she has personally known Ms Wagstaff and Mr Bentley.
Ms Wagstaff and Mr Bentley yesterday coninued to ignore requests for comment.
Ms Rankine has at her disposal at least six highly paid ministerial and political advisors and department and agency chiefs, as well as 5750 full-time public servants.
According to the terms of reference of Ms Wagstaff's last contract, she is to provide "high level liaison"between the department chief executive and the minister.
The boards and committes register shows Ms Wagstaff is on the premiers's social inclusion Board for $9050 a year, chairs the Boundary Adjustment Facilitation Panel for $190 a meeting and gets $160 every time the SA strategic Plan community Engagement board meets.
Her partner, Mr Bentley is paid $6520 as chair of the WorkCover Board, $6900 for sitting on the Worker's Rehabilitation and Compensation Advisory committee, $9798 as a member of the WorkPlace Injury Management committee and $4899 for WorkCover's investment and Finance Committee. He also receives $160 a meeting on the Mining and Quarrying Occupational Health and Safety Committee.
Mr Bentley has an industry appointment as chairman of Thoroughbred Racing SA, which pays about $44,000 a year.
Really if these government consultants were doing their job the wages would not be questioned. I know Mike Rann appointed Bentley to "roll some heads" in the sajc issue and I am wondering why he doesnt use the same action against workcover!
Because several of the Workcover board members are high donators to the SA Labor Party thus they have bought their protection.
Why else would one of the board members be allowed to work with the claims agent to set up "nominated providers" which refer rehabilitation cases to the board member's rehabilitation company and other rehabilitation companies that have done deals with her and are well known for their lack of rehabilitation and return to work, not to mention their actioning Section38's?
And let's not forget Peter Vaughan, who's Business SA was advertising Return to Work Coordinator training BEFORE they even got the contract from WorkCover.
The fact is these certain board members are profiting from the SA workers compensation scheme, have corrupted it and continue to corrupt for their own conflicts of interests, meanwhile there has been NO improvement in return to work by EML since it's contract began over 2 and a half years ago, and the rehabilitation companies continue to sit on cases and not provide sufficient rehabilitation and return to work due to being corrupted by EML who are continuing to overstep their role as the claims agent because they are being directed to do so by the members of the WorkCover board.
Get rid of the board. Get rid of EML and EML management, bring claims inhouse and set up an truly independent body to manage WorkCover who have no conflicts of interest, get rid of rehabilitation providers who DO NOT rehabilitate and have no experience in vocational rehabilitation, and you will see a huge increase in return to work, not to mention a decrease in long-term claims. One of the major barriers is the claims agent EML who meddle in rehabilitation and return to work when they should just be managing the claims aspect, and they have been given full support to do with by the WorkCover board who have their own financial interests at heart.
I have noticed Bentley has written to The Advertiser to defend comments that he has links with SAJC board members. He stated he didnt have connections before the Bentley report was written, but what about after that date?
Treasurer Kevin Foley warns Budget is heading for deficit
Article from: The Advertiser
RUSSELL EMMERSON, STATE POLITICAL REPORTER
December 16, 2008 02:05pm
A LIKELY Budget deficit of $94 million shows the State Government has squandered the good years, the Opposition says.
Responding to Treasurer Kevin Foley's admission that the state will face a deficit in this Friday's mid-year Budget review, Opposition leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said the Government's delay was "an insult" to South Australians.
"Mr Foley and (Premier) Mr Rann have not managed the state economy well during seven of the best years we have ever had," he said.
"Today Mr Foley has used the D word, deficit. He's admitted we will be going into deficit not just this year, but in future years.
"That's a testament to his inability to manage a Budget over seven years.
"Just like the banks, they've had a wonderful time taxing and spending and now they've been caught out. They've got insufficient surplus and insufficient money in the bank to see us through this downturn."
The Liberal Party is forecasting a $94 million deficit and an increase of unfunded superannuation liabilities from $7 billion to $9.5 billion.
A 3.2 per cent fall in GST revenue – which makes up about half the State's revenue – and an 11 per cent fall in property taxes underpin the calculations.
Mr Hamilton-Smith said the delayed release of the review was a further insult.
"It's not good enough, but the biggest insult of all is that in the shadow of Christmas, virtually on Christmas Eve, Mr Rann and Mr Foley are going to hand out the bad news."
There was a flurry in parliament to push through the workcover reforms when WorkCover reached a Billion dollar unfunded liability.
There seems to be no hurry to address and reform the State Government superannuation liabilities which are expected to blowout to $9 Billion dollars. THats nine times as much as Workcover which they claimed was drowning..
Perhaps its its high time a few of MIke Ranns mates got the Big A.
Perhaps also this government ought to take a good hard look at the way they are spending their bucks- seems its all for them and none for the private sector.
But there again if the pool of money dries up they may all start marching of their own accord.
Mr Rann worked alongside Mr Bentley in the years of the Dunstan government.
"[He's] terrific, marvellous - that's why I appointed him (to the WorkCover board)," Mr Rann said.
"He's got enormous experience - head of industrial relations in Victoria, deputy head of industrial relations in South Australia, chair of WorkCover - someone who's actually run a racecourse as well on the side for a few years in Victoria.
"So there's no-one more qualified ... to bang a few heads together and sort this out."
Well when is this "banging of heads" gonna start Mr. Bentley?
How many months have you been chair now? And still people are dealing with the same old workcover shit.
But I'm sure Sandra has taken you out for many expensive lunches to soften you up, eh Phillip? After all, she's good friends with Rann too so you have something in common, that and you both got your jobs because Labor's "jobs for mates".
Posted by labor's friends with benefits at 2:53 PM, 17/12/2008
On the 12th day of Christmas my WorkCover gave to me....
12 corrupt board members
11 incompetent case managers
10 million wasted on court cases
9 section 38's
8 fruit baskets to Mike Rann
7 investigators spying on my family
6 doctors trying to get on the independent medical panel
5 non-relevant work hardening placents
4 unions who have sold out their workers
3 or so EML nominated rehab companies racking in the cash
2 thousand families of injured workers living on the povertyline this Christmas
1 Labor party which is completely corrupt...
And a partridge in a pear tree.
Posted by Santa Vaughan & Ms. Santa De Poi at 5:41 AM, 18/12/2008
Bruce Carter supposedly resigned from the chair of the WorkCover board to concentrate on other positions, particularly as Chairman of the State Government’s Economic Development Board and head of the Olympic Dam taskforce.
Well Mr Bentley, now that you are in charge of the SAJC inquery can we expect a resignation from the WorkCover board?
Most people involved in Horse Racing are gamblers.
How else could you account for a billion dollar unfunded liablity?
Obviously they took too many gambles and none of them paid off- one was keeping injured workers on the system.
THey will need to reap the odds to claw back the superannuation unfunded liability.
Quote for the advertiser today.
"Mr Foley said now the Government was going to have to put more money into superannuation liabilities which at June 30 this year were $19.3 billion."
While Workcover was only a billion and they chnaged the legislation- whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Sack the public servants and cut off their super like they have done to injured workers.
State in debt over the next 4 years to the tune of $1 BILLION add that to the cost of the unfunded liabiltiy of WorkCover that is already at $1 BILLION, we are seeing the State Bank Disaster all over again. Enough is enough if the Rann-Foely Consortium had any respect for the people of South Australia they would resign and go to an early election, but they are going to hold onto power regardless of the finacial mess they will leave all of South Australia in. These people have no respect and worse they have no shame.
Posted by: Injured Worker of 2:23pm today
It makes you wonder whether the treasurer has taken a leaf out of the Workcover Corporations book all these years to get to where thier both at. After all these years a lot of our state money has slipped by the radar. I thought Mr Foley was part of a team to never let this happen or do you just put it down to bad luck. I think not.At the end of the day from where I sit his superanuation package is looking very inviting from 2010 onwards!!!
Posted by: John of Cheltenham 12:11pm today
Comment 48 of 55
I work for a small business and this is just plain horrible and continues the Rann Government's discrimination against small business in South Australia. My employer has already informed me that come January I will have to go to 3 days per week instead of working full-time, and he squarely blames the state Labor government. So until I find another part-time job (I can't quit because then he would have no business - I'm the only employee) I will have to rely on a Centrelink top-up. I've been applying like made to jobs in the last week, but most employers - or better yet their recruitment agencies - don't even bother replying to applications. Big surprise too that Peter Vaughan seemingly has no problems with this, despite his lack of "statement". Vaughan works for the big-end of business - as can be seen my the enormous amount of money Business SA charges in fees. He is also a WorkCover board member. ENOUGH SAID.
Posted by: small business worker of adelaide 8:28am today
Comment 2 of 12
I just stumbled on this blog. Its amazing to hear these stories and how long its been happening. I was an injured worker who worked for a self insurer and although they were credited for having a better track record than EML it was not pleasant to say the least. One thing I can say is they offered a redemption which released me from the bullying tactics. The redemption was minimul because I was on restricted hours so at least if my injury requires more time off in the future I can still claim partly. The workcover home page does not update any news and I think their last update was months ago.
Good luck and congratulations to who ever set it up and I will continue to visit as its interesting reading.
How about the truth about costs. WorkCover 2002 managed by 1 CEO and 1 Board, WorkCover 2003 spilt in half to create WorkCover and Safework SA now 2 CEO's and 2 Boards. We are about to get a Deputy CEO for WorkCover. So my guess is SA could save about $600 thousand per year just in CEO salaries, superannuation and bonus payments, plus what ever it costs to maintain a full Corporate Board and support staff. Then we need to look at the number contract employees that the various goverment offices have. At one stage SA water had more contract employees in one section than they had permanent staff -all the contract staff were being paid more than the permanent staff. Kevin Foley has fudged, shifted and blurred the figures until even he would not know what he has or has not done. The one thing he hasn't done is tell the truth, and considering he is the Minister for Public Corporations, he is very aware of what the truth is.
Posted by: let's hear the truth of 11:25am today
Comment 26 of 26
One will have to wonder if any back room deals were done between the Labor government and businesses when the WorkCover reforms were pushed thru targeting injured workers.
Posted by: Andrew Pascoe of Burnside 11:18am today
Comment 25 of 26
small business worker I totally agree - Business SA don't give a toss about genuine family run small business. They also have their snouts in the trough that feds big business only. It is genuine good people like yourself and the small business owner you work for who are the victims of big business, the monopolies govt has allowed to run the little guy into the ground and the overburden of taxes / stamp duties etc. If Business SA were truly concerned with all business, they would be hitting the govt for the same concessions that are afforded our big industry and some more.
Posted by: down the gurgler of 11:15am today
Comment
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Advisory Committee
Department of the Premier and Cabinet
Adelaide, 18 December 2008
HIS Excellency the Governor in Executive Council has been pleased to appoint the undermentioned to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Advisory Committee, pursuant to the provisions of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986:
Member: (from 1 January 2009 until 30 November 2010)
Tracy Leanne Secombe
Andrea Costa
David Frith
Robin Shaw
Thomas Earls
Joe Szakacs
Natalie Catherine Morris
Sonia Romeo
By command,
GAIL GAGO, for Premier
Andrew Pascoe the answer to your question is yes, knowing it and proving it though are 2 different issues. Mike Rann knows exactly how close Jay Weaterall was to voting against the WorkCover legislation, and if Jay had stood firm a great many of the back benchers would have stood with him and now we would have Premier Weatherall . So deals were done, promises were made and will at some stage be called . Injured workers were sold out, so were employers. The Unions don't care because the number of union members is falling, so the big smoke screen of the censor motion could be seen as a show of strength smoke screens though have no substance. Business SA are just as bad, they have sold out the rights of employers to select claims agents. So theanswer is yes deals were done, just what deals and what the implications of the deals we won't know for quite some time, but we will all pay for the ego's of power drunk Rann.
Posted by: Injured worker of 12:16pm today
Comment 28 of 28
Peter Vaughan needs to get off his butt and join myself and other public servants working short staffed in essential health services. Then he might learn what hard work actually is.
Posted by: Lee of Adelaide 4:03pm today
Comment 2 of 5
What would Peter Vaughan know. He hasn't done a day of work in his life by the looks of him. Just sat around lunching with other overweight private sector boffins.
Posted by: Brian of Thebarton 3:31pm today
Peter Vaughan lost credibility (with me) the first time he opened his big biased mouth. And yep, I have run a business and I have worked in the public service. He hasn't got a clue what he's on about. Come to think of it, he would do well in Parliament House !
Posted by: Rob of Wynn Vale 8:04am today
Comment 7 of 8
Is that not a pre-requisite for WorkCover employees, claims managers and the like.
If one delves into WorkCovers administration it is easy to find that they lack any real expertise.
I guess that is why they clocked up a BIllion dollar unfunded liability although I wonder how much expertise that would really take- it is quite a unique achievement to include on a resume.
Peter Vaughan cant even look after his green mouldy teeth, so its no surprise he is incompetent at looking after both business and WorkCover. I cant wait to see how business reacts when their WC levy increases next year, oh then you have the Business SA fee increases. Good job Peter.
De Poi Consulting provides exemplary injury management and employment services to our clients. Our aim is to empower our clients to achieve their results and return to work in a timely manner.
Due to the growth of the business, we are seeking an experienced Receptionist/Administration Officer to be the "face of the company" and work as part of the Administration Team. You will be required to provide exemplary services to the Rehabilitation Consultants, Physical Assessment Unit and Psychology Unit. The hours are 9.30 am - 5.30 pm, Monday to Friday.
To be successful in this role, you should be corporately presented, have a high level of customer service, excellent phone manner and the ability to relate to a variety of demographics. You will need to be proactive in nature and have the ability to adapt to a changing environment.
Duties and Responsibilities
Reception
Switchboard
Medical Typing
Data Entry
File collation and preparation
Assist Consultants in sending out plans, reports, letters, etc
Co-ordination of appointments for Psychology Unit and Physical Assessment Unit
Administration support for the Rehabilitation Consultants, Psychology Unit and Physical Assessment Unit
Education, Qualifications, Skills & Experience
At least 2 years previous experience in a receptionist role in a medical or legal environment
Typing speed of 50 wpm
Data entry skills
Interim to advance skills in Word, Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint, etc
Excellent time management and organisational skills
It is preferred that the successful candidate has completed (or near completion) Certificate III or IV in Business Administration.
The successful applicant will be required to be an Australian Citizen or Australian Permanent Resident.
Applications close 4th January, 2009.
Tonia Marafioti
Executive Assistant
De Poi Consulting
Suite D, 83 Fullarton Road
KENT TOWN SA 5067
The above job description is a well known employment targeting description for "injured workers" for section 38s. How can De Poi in their own description ask for so many aptitudes?
Discriminating against disabled workers maybe?
I would suggest any injured worker who been matched to a Receptionist or Administration role should keep a copy of De Poi's requirements and take it with them to show the Medical Panel for suitability purposes!
De Poi would never hire an injured worker. Sandra is all about IMAGE plus she despises injured workers hence the sect 38's. One must wonder what happened to the other receptionist - quit perhaps? Who could blame them working for that ice queen. Ive heard shes very demanding.
Tonight on 7 news a story aired about case files stolen from a CRS memebers car, I was one of the persons whos file was stolen and though told by CRS that the imformation contained in it was negliable and of no real use to anyone. Seeing the amount of paperwork in those files on tv tonight leads me to believe I have been lied to about the content of the files. Not only was this an irreasponsable act to leave the files unattended in a public place, from which they were stolen, but those files have now been reviewed by channel 7 and the person that found the case. Infact she went on to describe what I believe to be my file on TV. I was told this case was locked and secure yet there it was on tv open with these files spread out for the whole world to see! This is a gross misconduct not only by Workcover and CRS but also by the media exposing these files and obviously reading them as I was contacted at home on a private phone number by 7News this afternoon, asking me to appear on TV to beef thier story up, they showed no concern for the fact that all my workcover and private details were illegally sitting on their desk only the story mattered! What will workcover say when I demand a better explanation of this, and why I was led to believe there was no sensitve material in the files in CRS's "Securely Locked Brief Case" after the holiday break.
I dont know what you are so worried about. My 107B files are filled with other injured workers information all the time. Everything from redemption talks, medical history and case conference notes. I even had one note where a senior EML officer told a case manager she lied to an injured worker to get out of trouble.
How could WorkCover be concerned that they were stolen?
Nearly every time someone does an FOI request to them they receive someone elses medical reports or file notes.
I know for a fact this issue has been raised with management and nothing was done about it
ANd as for confidentiality do they really care? It is a well known fact around the traps that there have been instances of dissemination of information about injured workers by WorkCover board members to employees of other unassociated companies.
This is not always the case. The biggest current stuff up in government is the WorkCover management and the CEO seems to be a protected species!
Posted by: John Richards of Norwood 10:00am today
Comment 14 of 20
Does this mean that every time we see Minister Cacia he will be telling us just how wonderful WorkCover is, and then Ms Davison will come out and tell the truth -for a change- about how woeful WorkCover is...I'd like to see that.
Posted by: Injured Worker of 12:53pm today
Comment 18 of 20
One only needs to visit the Workers Compensation Tribunal to realise how bad the problem has become. And the irony is that self-represented litigants are a further drain on court resources as they 'learn as they go' further entrenching the problem. But the answer lies in money, and quite frankly it just will not happen.
Posted by: Ryan of Adelaide 6:07pm December 24, 2008
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/comments/0,22638,24839435-2682,00.html
Ive also heard this term in relation to Vaughan and De Poi. Apparantly they are rather large donators to the SA labor party hence why they havent been removed and why their conflicts of interest remain unopposed. Rob Lucas has on several occasions mentioned them in lists of labor appointments and associates in the SA parliaments, but its obvious he is being held back from attacking them directly by liberal heavyweights who will need business support if they have any chance of winning the 2010 election - which is doubtful considering Hamilton-Smith is a piss weak leader and the Unions (all of them) will support labor in the election - like labor betraying their core values for power.
Amazing isnt it how so many people and the workers compensation system can suffer because of the corruption of a government. Frankly it's made me see that state governments should be abolished and the likes of Vaughan, De Poi and the trecherous Unions should he hung out to dry - total complete corrupt scum.
Posted by They deserve to be extinct at 10:37 PM, 25/12/2008
The new arrangements for legal costs were due to start on 1 January 2009. However, further consideration and consultation is required before these changes come into effect.
WorkCover will keep stakeholders informed of progress on these changes in due course.
I wanna Job! Sure I have resrictions but I'm not useless! Did the company I worked for care? Nah, they gave me inappropriate duties to perform and they couldn't wait to get approval to sack me. Could I ever be loyal to another employer again after this game of charades? No Way!
Nearly 3 years now and 5 casemanagers later, has changed nothing! Each one telling me there are employers who take on people with injuries but can someone tell me who they are? Cause it seems to be the best kept secret over at Waymouth and Flinders streets!
I even applied for a job at EML and got turned down, yet they want me to get a job and they had vacancies, where is the logic in that? Get a security licence they said, wow wasn't that a waste of time and money, their isn't an Orthopedic in Adelaide that will clear me for anything other than patrol work, and even then only for a few hours a day, so another dead end! Life goes on and I'm approaching 50, so even without injuries I'm disadvantaged in the job market, then we have the oncoming recession to deal with and if that don't smack you in the face we've got the April 1 2009 changes that'll be sure to push me over the edge. Will a life of theft and crime be all that is left, maybe shooting a couple of Board members will help? I hope Media Mike is happy with himself now, after breaking Commonwealth Human Rights Laws in regards to anti-discrimination of people with disabilities. I'm sure you've have heard it all before, but I had to get this out of my system.
WorkCover is nothing but a group of leeches..sucking the life out of injured workers.
What a bunch of scum taking advantage of injured workers and litigating them to the brink.
Seems to be the nature of the whole workcover culture. What injured worker actually gets fair compensation when they are injured?
Funny thing is all the employees follow their leaders, supervisors and managers right up to the board like sheep.
Problem is that none of them know what direction is nor how to manage a workers compensation scheme.
Nothing but a mob of scumbags.
Study of Suicide After Being on the WorkCover System.
A link to the details of the study and comment section are available at
http://safetyatworkblog.wordpress.com/study-of-suicide-after-being-on-the-workcover-system/
Comment will be valuable for determining how many people committ suicide as a result of being traumatised on workcover.
Judge says non-complainers should not miss out on compo
Written by: Norrie Ross ,Herald Sun
December 17, 2008 01:16pm
THE determination of an injured worker to get on with his life without complaint may have worked against his compo claim, a judge said today.
Justice Geoffrey Nettle said if Geelong man Brett Dwyer had been more of a whinger his claim for accident compensation would probably not have been disputed by WorkCover.
Mr Dwyer, 44, of Grovedale, suffered horrific injuries to his arm when a crane fell on him in March 2000. Today the appeal court ruled he had the right to claim compensation after an epic battle that went all the way to the High Court.
Justice Nettle said Mr Dwyer's strong character and determination to get on with his life may have worked against him. "I suspect that, but for the way the appellant (Mr Dwyer) has been prepared to put up with his pain
and suffering and get on with his business as best he can, the respondent (WorkCover) may well not have disputed his claim," Justice Nettle said.
"It would be unfortunate, and in my view wrongheaded, if in future such an applicant were treated less favourably than another who, being of less strength of character, simply resigned himself to his injury."
The ruling that Mr Dwyer suffered a “serious injury" under the Accident Compensation Act means that WorkCover will have to make an assessment of appropriate compensation.
Slater & Gordon lawyer Danny Connor says WorkCover's rejection of Mr Dwyer's claim was inexplicable. "Brett has been penalised for being a good bloke," Mr Connor said. "Eight years ago he suffered a terrible injury which
means he wakes in pain every day and his right arm is permanently deformed, with a loss of strength and function. "He gave up social activities including
golf and motor cycle riding, and the injury affected relationships with his family.
"Despite this, earlier courts ruled that this was not a serious injury, and for three years we have fought for justice, from Grovedale to the High Court and back.
"The court today effectively found that WorkCover discriminated against Brett because of his strength of character, his work ethic, and his ability to handle
pain and try to get on with his life." Mr Connor says he will enter negotiations with WorkCover to finalise Mr Dwyer's compensation.
Queensland Premier Anna Bligh may take stand in Gordon Nuttall trial
Article from: Agence France-Presse
December 19, 2008
QUEENSLAND Premier Anna Bligh and her predecessor Peter Beattie are expected to take the stand as witnesses in the corruption trial of former minister Gordon Nuttall.
It is alleged Mr Nuttall, 55, corruptly received $60,000 from WorkCover Queensland director Harold Shand.
Mr Shand has also been committed to stand trial on a charge of making the April 2002 payment.
The Brisbane Magistrates Court today heard the trial was expected to last at least four weeks, with both the premier and former premier taking the stand for up to a week.
The pre-trial hearing has been set down for April 14 to 17.
Makes you wonder how much De Poi & Co. are swindling into their bank accounts.
And yes the Rann Government will never allow an IC in this state. It's one of the most corrupt governments this country has ever had and will protect itself at any cost - even if the people of SA suffer miserably for it.
Premier Rann will you explain to the people of South Australia just how the unfunded liability of WorkCover went from $67million in 2002 to over $1BILLION in 2008. Please don't use the normal dribble of blaming injured workers who have no control over what case managers do, for a change actually tell the truth. Next please tell the people of South Australia how many contract employees the Public Service has, not just contract teachers, but contract workers doing every job at a higher cost to the Public Purse than fully employed public servants cost. Now tell the people of South Australia about your plans to move to Federal politics within your role as Labour President. And lastly either confirm or deny the rumor of a pending move to Tuscany. I like many others look forward to standing on the steps of Parliament House on the 21st March 2010 and watching you move out of Parliament after you are soundly defeated.
Wake up SA it's time for the Mr Rann to go. I am just waiting for the voters to turn off to Rann and his do nothing Govt. Hopefully next year the people of SA will say enough is enough. Some statistics Workcover $3 Billion un unded liability, State super $9.8 Billion unfunded liabity and getting worse by the day. We cannot possible afford MR Rann well into the next decade at his current rate. Please wake up SA its time for change let 2010 be the time.
Posted by: Mark O'Brien of Glenleg 9:33pm today
Comment 5 of 13
The new WorkCover legistslation has gone very quiet lately.Makes you wonder whether the unfunded liability is on its way down at the expence of the injured worker or has the Labor goverment got it all wrong again. May be Michael Wright may have the answer, he was the minister at the time who signed off on this document then moved on to another portfolio to escape the public back lash. A true Labor leader. The scary part about it is that he got the directive right from the top which means they are all tarred with the same useless brush. Lets wait and see how much more damage they can do before the next election because after that its game over for Labor.
From today onwards after 6 and a half months if an injured worker is not back at work they will have their payments cut by 80%. Its going to be interesting to see whether EML's rehab providers actually start rehabilitating as they will only have 6 months to get these people back to work before their families start suffering and starving. I doubt EML's incompetence and lack of action within claims management will help either.
^
im sure the poster was referring to the fact the the 2nd stage of the workcover legislation begins today. This includes further cuts and rehab coordinator training - advertised by Business(rip-off)SA. In a few months the true impact of the changes will be revealed and no doubt workcover and eml will turn on their own rehab companies (minus de poi of course who will be protected at all cost).
Yeh, the rehab co-ordinates are going to be a real pain for Business now. Lets hope Peter Vaughan can explain to his many members why these positions are justified. Can you imagine the workplace tension when a work mate tells you that although you are injured "stiff s**t".
If businesses have internal rehab coordinators that work with the injured worker and the claims agent, then how can the use of an external rehab provider be justified ? Especially when as proven by the low and non-improved return to work rate rehab providers aren't doing their job. EML's rehab providers should be very, very concerned, not only will they be put out of business but all the blame will be focused on them by EML and WorkCover.
You will notice some of the previous workcover prefered rehab companies are now doing commonwealth and veteran affairs work now as the workcover referalls will start to slow down. There would still be work for rehab companies for injured workers who are employed with companies under the 30 employee bracket though (no hope of staying in same employment).
I have been on WorkCover for 3 years now as my former boss could not find any work for me because of my permanent injury. I am wondering if the medical panels can see me fit if there has been no rehabilitation into a new job. The consultant i have at the moment is just trying to find me an unskilled job for me and I have had a couple of placements without any of them giving me a job. Can the new system kick me off if there has been no rehabilitation? EML have also tried to do a redemption which I am confused about because if they can simply kick me off after April why would they offer a redemption. My lawyer and my Doctor told me a redemption on my full wages would be a very stupid thing to accept. (I dont know how much they will offer). Can anybody help?
If WorkCover was managed properly and legislation was fair?
If WorkCover was managed properly and legislation was fair it would be very easy to answer yoru query. THe biggest problem is that it is run by incompetent claims managers, the legislation was pushed through on recommmendations of a chairman of the board who is no longer on the board.
All these problems mount up to a massive problem in that nobody is at the wheel- its a train running fast with lots of peoples lives at stake and they do not know what they are doing.
Is not much good asking your case manager- thats like someone with poor vision asking a blind man for directions.
I would suggest if they offer you a fair amount of money and you can leave it all behind you and get on with your life- it might save youa lot of grief, depression and hurt in your life.
Many workers who are injured find that the sytem causes them to become depressed, socially isolated, the corporation drives you next to bankrupt in litigation based on morally corrupt decisions (all the while using money that woudl be better off spent on rehab, payouts or staff that know what they are doing) and what is more they follow you and yoru family around hiding behind cars and bushes, peeking in your bedroom windows at night, snooping into your personal life and that of your loved ones- if you want all of this stay on the system..
There is no hard and fast rule for how they calculate redemptions.
Generally thecase managers have an approximate limit. They request permission to offer a redemption for an amount and thats the figure.
Depending on the economic climate a higher figure is around $100,000 for a section 43.
Some get more some get less.
They are a corporation that has not had very good financial management for many years and have squandered most of the money they receive by way of levies on office leases, incompetent employees, investigations, excessive administration, board members who have different agendas to rehabilitating workers, advertising which is almost comical for a workcover corporation, litigation- spending Millions of dollars defending themselves against injured workers who want to get back at them for years, administration on claims that have never been finalised and which carry on infintely.
Yes there is a problem and if there was some set pattern one could say injured workers are due for this amount of compensation as they would be under common law, however with the current system they line their own pocekts first and rip the injured workers off.
THats the way of the current government.
What do workcover lawyers use for birth control?
Their personalities.
What is the difference between a tick and a workcover lawyer?
A tick falls off of you when you die.
Why does the law society prohibit sex between workcover lawyers and their clients?
To prevent clients from being billed twice for what is essentially the same service.
What do you have when 100 workcover lawyers are buried up to their neck in sand?
Not enough sand.
What's the difference between a dead rabbit in the road and a dead workcover lawyer in
the middle of the road?
There are skid marks in front of the rabbit.
What is black and brown and looks good on a workcover lawyer?
A Doberman.
Why are workcover lawyers like nuclear weapons?
If one side has one, the other side has to get one. Once launched, they cannot
be recalled. When they land, they screw up everything forever.
What do workcover lawyers and sperm have in common?
One in 3,000,000 has a chance of becoming a human being.
Did you hear that the Post Office just recalled their latest stamps?
They had pictures of workcover lawyers on them ...and people couldn't figure out which
side to spit on.
Workcover lawyer's creed: A man is innocent until proven broke.
What's the difference between a female workcover lawyer and a pit bull?
Lipstick.
What do you call 20 workcover lawyers skydiving from an airplane?
Skeet.
If you see a workcover lawyer on a bicycle, why should you swerve to avoid hitting him?
It might be your bicycle.
Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, an honest workcover lawyer and an old drunk are walking
down the street together when they simultaneously spot a hundred dollar bill.
Who gets it?* The old drunk, of course; the other three are mythical creatures.
It was so cold last winter ... (How cold was it?)
I saw a workcover lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.
A man walked into a workcover lawyer's office and inquired about the workcover lawyer's rates.
"$250.00 for three questions", replied the workcover lawyer. "Isn't that awfully steep?"
asked the man. "Yes," the workcover lawyer replied, "and what was your third question?"
You're trapped in a room with a tiger, a rattlesnake and a workcover lawyer.
You have a gun with two bullets. What should you do?
You shoot the workcover lawyer. Twice.
Do you know what happens when a workcover lawyer takes Viagra?
He gets taller.
A nice article in The Advertiser 03/01/09 about the relationship between Mike Rann and Philip Bentley. One has to wonder now if he is the right person for the WorkCover job?
You can help us by:
• treating our staff with courtesy and respect
• being open and honest in your dealings with us
• advising us when your personal details change
• raising your enquiry, concern or complaint with the
appropriate party at WorkCover or Employers Mutual
• providing all the information you hold or are aware
of to assist with queries and investigations
• providing us with feedback on our services
• contacting us if we have made a mistake.
What a joke! why complain to workcover or EML when there is a workcover ombudsman now?
Even complaining to the Ombudsman is useless and a waste of time. No doubt he's been bought out too like most working in the industry. The don't call him the "toothless tiger" for nothing.
Posted by Corrupt to the core at 8:36 PM, 3/1/2009
The above comment questioned if Bentley was the right person for the workcover job. It depends on the way you look at it. If an organisation is corrupt then it requires the right sort of person!
The quote "treating our staff with courtesy and respect" is on the workcover web site.
Works both ways doesnt it? Treat injured workers with "courtesy and respect" and I am sure this workcover mess wouldnt be the way that it is!
How long do you see Mr Rann as premier:
Out at next election
72% (528 votes)
Premier after 2010 election
12% (93 votes)
Premier after 2014 election
1% (14 votes)
Out after 2014 election
3% (22 votes)
Still going in 2018
8% (63 votes)
Out in 2018
1% (9 votes)
Total votes
Total of 729 votes
Its now 71% with 720 votes against Rann winning the 2010 election. Interesting how no comments have been published yet, im sure the one I posted at 1am this morning, over 10 hours ago wont be.
How long do you see Mr Rann as premier:
Out at next election
72% (528 votes)
Premier after 2010 election
12% (93 votes from his italian mates)
Premier after 2014 election
1% (14 votes from the Kiwi's)
Out after 2014 election
3% (22 votes from his family and mates)
Still going in 2018
8% (63 votes from his parliamentary mates)
Out in 2018
1% (9 votes from the workcover employees and board members)
Total votes
Total of 729 votes
I would suggest any "genuine" injured worker who has a permanent injury should not accept a redemption on their "full" working hours.
Why would a worker accept $100k except if they have a minor injury and want to milk the system? This stays on them for the rest of their lives. No job prospects, no income insurance. Be very careful!
Does anyone know CATEGORICALLY that once these medical panels are established and they say that and injured worker has the capacity to do something that they will automatically be kicked off the system or does rehabilitation have to be provided and a suitable job sought that fits this capacity? I have heard so many conflicting views about this, from various lawyers, Doctor's etc. Some say that they do have to be provided with rehabilitation and others say they they don't and they will JUST BE KICKED OFF NO QUESTION!!!!!! It seems to me that no one really truly knows.
In addition to this, do medical panels only assess an injured workers PHYSICAL capacity? Because what about the physcological side of things? What if the medical panel says you can do something but the injured workers physcologist says that he/she is mentally unfit for it?
I just can't see any of this working. Also, if workcover hasn't properly been following the workers comp law (workers rehabilitation & compensation act 1986) for the last 10 years, then why should we think that they will follow these new laws properly? I just can't see it!!!!!!!
I cant answer all your questions, but there are some lawyers waiting to contest the validity of kicking off injured workers by the new law. So in other words no one really knows whats going to happen until the Supreme Court starts hearing the appeals.
Your other question about mental capacity, if you have a mental issue then a pshychiatrist has to be appointed to your medical panel. If one is not appointed and they do not deal with a specific injury then this could be appealed under Admin law.
I work in the workers compensation system and I can say without a doubt there will be no independance with these medical panels. Dont expect outcomes in your favour they just wont happen.
If WorkCover were actually concerned with rehabilitation they wouldnt have given EML complete and unquestioned control over its claims and setting up its nominated rehab provider system - companies which have formed "cooperatives" and done deals with corrupt WorkCover board member Sandra de Poi. I have seen the CAPO statistics for these companies - the same statistics that EML & WorkCover refuse to reveal publicly and in response to questions concerning de Poi's corruption in HANSARD. These EMLrehab companies have little to NO return to work rates and more do Sect38's than anything.
Worker's have a very good case against WorkCover in regards to lack of rehabilitation, it all depends if you have the $$$ for lawyers to take them on- WorkCover do they have millions in government (i.e. Taxpayer) funding in the legal kitty.
Posted by Richard Hilton - Rehab Provider Relationship Manager, EML at 2:13 PM, 5/1/2009
^
Why do you think so many doctors and specialists refuse to take on people on WorkCover? Because most of the time it can take months if not years to get paid not to mention the paperwork involved . You will find most lawyers wont get involved if they have to rely on being paid by WorkCover, most firms also demand an initial payment (a few grand) be put in the firm's account before legal issues commence.
fat chance of getting workcover to pay your legal fees! they will find away around it you watch! arent they supposed to by law rehabilitate and get people back to work???
What is not known is that the Malinauskas family has done well out of the Labor Government, and not just Peter Malinauskas. Rob Malinauskas (Peter's much younger brother) is in his early 20s, and, I understand, was just a third year cadet journalist at The Advertiser and, can I say, he is a nice young man and a promising journalist. He is a younger brother of the head of the SDA, and he has just been appointed to a position in Deputy Premier Foley's office with a salary of almost $90,000 a year, having jumped as a 21 or 22 year old from a salary in the low $40,000s as a third year cadet journalist. As I said, it is a huge jump which comes a result of being the younger brother of the head of the SDA. He pops into the Deputy Premier's office and jumps in salary from just over $40,000 to $90,000.
It does not end there; there is more. Elizabeth Malinauskas, sister to Peter and Rob, is also employed in Attorney-General Atkinson's office as a liaison officer. We have three members of the Malinauskas family all happily employed and ensconced in various positions within the government. As I said earlier, this is basically becoming a job network for the SDA within the Rann Government.
That article was actually posted months ago and is nothing but a rehash by AdelaideNow.
Like last time I commented twice on this article mentioning De Poi and Bentley by name and also mentioning "corruption" and "labor" in the same sentence. Interesting how ONCE AGAIN the comments werent published.
It appears that the employer had no duties that could accommodate those restrictions, and the worker continued in the hands of rehabilitation providers until 8 June 2005 (p.82). By then, the rehabilitation consultant had negotiated with the employer the provision of a supernumerary role one day a week, allowing him to experience some of the lighter aspects of his pre-injury work.
11. Unfortunately, the worker’s disability was exacerbated by these duties, and Dr Tattersall then expressed the opinion that the worker would not be able to return to work again with the pre-injury employer (the applicant).
When the cost of Boards is the price to keep Ministers looking good then the price is far to high. Jobs for friends to provide the friends with an extra income as well as access to influence public policy. We only have 419 days to go until this government can be tipped out on the behinds and drag their friends with them, as well as the tame CEO's like the puppet that runs WorkCover. That is unless Rann finds some internal fortitude and decides to face the public early, however he knows he only has 419 days until the people speak so he is going to cling to power and keep his mates in places to make him look good.
Posted by: Vote Now of 11:23am today
Comment 47 of 48
Sounds to me a bit like work cover. Delay things until after the next election. More reports with specific terms of reference is not an appropriate report as it will deliver the result the politician wants. Shame on you Garrett and RANN.
Yeh, there was a few calls about the subject. An employer rang up and was scathing towards workcover. Wonder how long before his levy is increased now...
Alot of employers are unimpressed with WorkCover, especially since they are being forced to work with incompetent and corrupted EML case managers - and it will get worse when the levies increase this year due to EML mismanagement of cases. Let's hope within the next year it will all come tumbling down, just in time for a state election in 2010.. Arrogance brought the Liberal party down federally, hopefully the same will happen to Media Mike.. I doubt even Lance Armstrong can help poor old Mikey and his legion of corrupt Labor ministers.
More spin than nunderstanding with new legislation
Under the new legislation, injured workers who are able to return to work, but who have failed to do so, will no longer receive weekly payments. Injured workers who cannot work because they are not well enough will continue to be supported by the Scheme. Injured workers who have returned to work to the full extent they are able to, will also continue to receive ‘top-up’ payments until they can fully return to work.
Now let me understand this correctly and I ask anyone else reading this for some input.
1)"Under the new legislation, injured workers who are able to return to work, but who have failed to do so, will no longer receive weekly payments" ie they have recovered. So what the ???? are they doing on workcover anayway?
Dont tell me the dopey ????heads at workcover pay injured workers who can goi back to work and thats why there was such a massive unfunded liability.
2)" Injured workers who cannot work because they are not well enough will continue to be supported by the Scheme."
Well thats a "no brainer"
3)"Injured workers who have returned to work to the full extent they are able to, will also continue to receive ‘top-up’ payments until they can fully return to work."
Again a no brainer- employees will have to make work available for injured workers at their workplace. ie no bullying and sacking injured workers.
So the problem I have difficulty understanding is that it seems all these changes are brouhght about by the gross mismanagement of workcover in that it has failed to put non injured workers back to work.
Thats the only difference I can see. or are they hiding something?
Why do they pay injured workers if they are well enough to go back to work anyway - is that what section 38 is for?
Very interesting comments. I can only suggest workers who have lost their position and not returned to work will be asked to front up in front of the medical panel. It would then have to be proved that they have been rehabilitated enough to work in a different employment (hense the lack of rehab and why there are so many redemptions at the moment). Injured workers would need to return to 100% of employment before they are kicked off, but what happens when the pay is considerably lower due to losing ones trade etc? does the top up continue or has the rehabilitation failed due to lack of returning to meaningful employment? (could earning half your normal wage be classified as meaningful employment?). This new system will work to remove the not so genuine injured workers but we all know this is not the problem and thats why a lot of opinions are stating this will not fix the system.
You see the blame has been towards injured workers so of course the reforms targeted such. If the real problem was targeted in mis management then the reforms would have dealt with it.
Workcover never cease to amaze.
On 22 July 2008 Thompson had his conviction in the Magistrates court overturned on appeal becuase Workcover had withheld evidence from him during the trial. This was also referred to by Her Honour Judge Kelly in her Judgement.(paras 100-103)
It then seems rather odd that the corporation publishes a negative comment some 3 months out of date in its Annual newsletter to parliament that he was convicted. (Nothing about his appeal being overturned.).
Now it seems really odd that they would publish something like that when he was acquitted and they had in fact caused the trial to be unfair and they themselves had caused a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Why should he be wearing all the negative publicity?
This is a typical case of spin and cover up from the current workcover board and lineup.obviously they have no conscience.
I got an email forwarded to me from a friend who works in the rehab industry. Apparantely EML's rehabilitation providers are disputing their CAPO statistics and have complained to associations ASORC & ARPA that EML's statistics are inaccurate, leading to them getting lesser rehabilitation referrals than they hoped.
Given that the return to work rate by rehab providers is extremely low though, I don't see why they have any business complaining - though I'm sure it's got something to do with EML sending referrals to only a couple of the larger providers - such as De Poi Corruption Services, CapSecur & Beckmann & Associates.
(Burzacott: …time to talk WorkCover … hello Rosemary …and special guest tonight is Opposition Industrial Relations Minister, Duncan McFetridge … now of course we’ve been talking to Rosemary forever …about the whole journey with WorkCover and I’ve asked several times, I’m glad you’ve come on board tonight Duncan in terms of for all the – we hear about the flaws in the system and where the system is going wrong and the changes which came in to effect last year and how that’s going to penalise workers and the Opposition has been, from my point of view, strangely quiet) McFetridge: … I don’t think really quiet on it, it’s a matter of letting the Government get on with what they say is the answer to WorkCover and I honestly don’t think it is, you look at the history of WorkCover and even the Government’s own report … said in 2002 when we left WorkCover it was in a healthy position with an unfunded liability of $56m, now you’ve got an unfunded liability of $1.4b if you add in the self insured and the public sector … and it’s going downhill fast, the Government insist that they have the answers, I don’t think they have, the Liberal Opposition doesn’t think they have and that’s why we’ll be making sure there’s a complete review of the WorkCover system once we get in to Government (Burzacott: …we’ve heard those stats quite a bit, they’re hard to argue with and where do you think – after the Liberals lost power and then things started heading south in terms of the WorkCover an the unfunded liability, where did it start going wrong?) McFetridge: I think the Minister didn’t keep an eye on the ball … Michael Wright and now Paul Caica have got a lot to answer for, the need to make sure that the fund is managed well … you only have to look at the self funded, or the self insured side of the whole industry, it had the same legislation, same issues to work with, they weren’t dealing with massive unfunded liabilities, they weren’t looking at the highest premiums in Australia for this instance scheme, it’s a disgrace the way the Government really hasn’t handled this well and they have not answered the questions that have been put by people like Rosemary and others out there of what will be the long term outcome for injured workers with this legislation and I don’t think they know … there’s big rifts in the Labor Party over this (Burzacott: …really? That’s interesting) McFetridge: The Labor Party were tearing themselves apart with this legislation that’s been put through and if it hadn’t been for the bully boys who run the show in there, there would have been people crossing the floor, I know other members in there who were just beside themselves over this legislation, they knew it wasn’t the answer, they knew it would have a very sad effect on some injured workers and so the Opposition’s attitude was, well you reckon you’ve got the answers, Business SA came in behind the Government, they were pushing as well, so we said, okay we’re not going to support this change because we don’t believe it’s the answer, but we won’t oppose it, we will just let it go through … you’ve got your own legislation now, you’ve got your own CEO, you’ve got your own board, you’ve got your own case managers in place, you picked the whole thing, you better be able to fix this and fix it soon because it’s going down the tube very fast … even in the Clayton Report, when he looked at it for the Labor Government, he said in his report that there is no guarantee that this is going to work and we don’t think it will (Burzacott: …we’ve just had Mick Atkinson ring up, are you happy to talk to him live on air?) McFetridge: Happy to (Burzacott: Mick, welcome aboard …) Atkinson: … the reason I’ve called is that Duncan McFetridge really gives it away from the Liberal Party when he says the Liberal Party don’t know what to do, they don’t know what to do either … all this legislation that Duncan McFetridge is complaining to your listeners about tonight is legislation for which he voted and every Liberal, so what’s this all about? McFetridge: Mick Atkinson said, ‘that we don’t know what to do either’, so is he saying that they don’t know what to do? … Atkinson: No, I’m quoting you McFetridge: The Business SA were pushing for this legislation to go through. The Government insisted that this was going to be the answer to the whole of the problem of WorkCover and so we weren’t going to get in their way and we’ll see the proof in the pudding will be within 6 to 12 months when we start seeing figures coming out on what the unfunded liability is going to be. The numbers of people who have been treated shabbily by the current legislation. It will be a very interesting picture to watch. Atkinson: I’ve never known there to be a system of workers compensation or WorkCover … where there aren’t hundreds of people who don’t claim that they were treated shabbily. Lots of people claim that they were treated shabbily whatever the system is and that’s in the nature of litigation or civil disputes and that was happening before I was born but what Labor has tried to do is carry out the recommendations of the Clayton Report and to get the unfunded liability down to try to get the premiums down and nevertheless still to have for injured workers the most generous workers compensation scheme in the whole of Australia and that’s what we’re aiming for. McFetridge: Well I don’t think that is going to be the case Mick and Rosemary and Geoff and all your listeners out there because what we’re seeing now is the hypocrisy of Government is best illustrated in the redemptions that they’re paying out at the moment. They are paying out millions of dollars in redemptions to get people off the scheme because they know that they have limited redemptions to almost infinitesimal occasions under this new legislation and that will come into affect I think first of April which is no April Fools Day. They are paying out millions. In fact just today I had an email from one lawyer and a phone call from another lawyer who were working for people to try and get them fair results from WorkCover under the current legislation and it’s just not working. Atkinson: Well the answer to that is I have a constituent from Dudley Park who was a welder. He’s from Afghanistan. He was a refugee. He was working as a welder here in South Australia and the frame collapsed on him and gave him injuries. Very thorough going injuries which mean he will never be able to work in his trade again. His lawyer came to see me with him. He asked for redemption. He got a redemption therefore he is off the system. He clearly used that redemption to get out of rented premises and to buy himself a home. Duncan, what’s wrong with that? McFetridge: … what’s wrong with that is, it was explained to him if he gets back into work again and gets injured again the fact that he has already taken a redemption will then be taken into account in any future WorkCover plans. That’s a real issue. … Atkinson: He’ll never be a welder again. He can’t work in his trade. He’s been injured at work. One thing we know …is if the Liberal Party took office in this state injured workers would be worse off. They were before under the Liberals and they will be again because the Liberals are always on the side of the big bosses … The only reason Duncan you voted for this legislation, the legislation you’re now criticising. The reason you and the Liberals voted for it is because you liked the part of it that involved reductions in premiums because that is good for business and that’s the interest you represent in parliament. McFetridge: What you have to understand here is we are paying the highest premiums in South Australia. We still pay an average of 3%. The aim of this legislation was to get it down to 2.75%. I would be very surprised if that happened. I would be delighted if that happened. Atkinson: … If your aim is to get premiums down, and you say it is, how can you come on this program … pretending to cuddle up to injured workers when in fact the only way you can get the premiums down is by cutting the benefits. You’re trying to have it both ways. … your trying to criticise the legislation but you voted for it. McFetridge: Not at all. Why has the whole scheme, which Clayton said in 2002 was in a healthy position, why has this whole scheme gone from a funded position, 93% fully funded to 60% funded now from a $56m unfunded liability to, if you add in the public service side of things, a $1.4b unfunded liability … Atkinson: That’s easy. We all know why that happened and that is that as an election gimmick, for the 2002 general election, the Government of which you were a part, cut the premiums beyond the capacity of the scheme to afford it to try to win the election of that year. McFetridge: Well, Clayton must be wrong then because he said that in 2002 it was in a healthy position … Atkinson: Yes and then you cut … the premiums with no regard for what affect that would have on the capacity of the scheme to pay injured workers, therefore it blew out. McFetridge: The bottom line is that we now do not have the fairest scheme in Australia. If you go across South Australia, Com Care, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, and Clayton did all of this in reports … we don’t have the most generous payments in Australia any more. The Com Care facility there, it’s much more generous, paying 100% 26 weeks and then … it drops down after 53 … Atkinson: Just a bit, Duncan. McFetridge: … to 80%, from 80% to 75%, but you will find that the changes that have been brought in are … more than just a drop in the workers’ entitlements. What they are doing with medical panels, with the changes to the legislation, in fact, it’s interesting to see that the changes to … paying the legal costs, that has been delayed because there’s still some issues there. The whole of the changes to WorkCover, it’d be nice to see the Minister for Industrial Relations, Paul Caica, come out and talk on this program rather the Attorney General, but I’m happy to talk to Mick … Atkinson: … if you’re happy to talk to me … let’s talk about my portfolio, Duncan … why did the Liberal Party oppose the Government ordering the DPP to appeal against the sentence on Paul Habib Nemer for shooting the newspaper delivery man … McFetridge: I’m happy to talk to you about WorkCover … Isobel Redmond will run rings around you on that being a legal issue. Atkinson: … why does the Liberal Party believe that Paul Habib Nemer should never have spent a day in jail? Explain to the listeners that. McFetridge: … legal affairs will be left with Isobel Redmond and I know she and you are more than able to [unclear] … Atkinson: So you’re not keen to talk about my portfolio, Duncan? You’re not that versatile? McFetridge: … I’m happy for you to talk about anything you want other than your portfolio, Mick. (Burzacott: … can you explain to me how, it seems like an incredible leap … the unfunded liability to go from … $56 million to $1.4 billion and you explain that away in premiums?) Atkinson: Well the beginning of it was that as an election gimmick to try to get re-elected at the 2002 general elections, Rob Kerin’s Government ordered unsustainable cuts to the premiums … so we inherited that system and because the premium income wasn’t covering what was going out in payments to workers, the unfunded liability went up. Labor had to do something about it and had to try to balance the interests of injured workers with the interests of employers and that’s why we’ve changed the scheme. (Burzacott: … does that premium, lack of income in terms of premium, does that account for that entire deficit?) Atkinson: Well you’re right, not wholly. (Burzacott: So where’s the rest of it? How else has it gone wrong, do you think?) Atkinson: … the system just isn’t going as well as it should … that’s why we had an inquiry and we changed it … it’s very unpopular to change any existing system to bring it back into balance, but we had to because if South Australia has much higher WorkCover premiums than the states for which we’re competing for business, businesses will just leave the state and go to those states with the lower premiums … it’s an important matter for competition between the states for business. (Burzacott: … Michael, thanks for coming on board … and one for you Duncan McFetridge as well, I do find it interesting that while you’ve said, look, we supported the legislation and now we’re going to sit back and see how it unfolds, it does surprise me to actually vote for something that you felt was wrong, and then just sit back and let bad things happen. Can you explain that to me?) McFetridge: We’ve had serious doubts about this legislation … if you look at the speeches on this, I spoke for three and a half hours on WorkCover, and I outlined all the views of the various lobby groups that were put to me. We had serious doubts about the legislation, the business groups were lobbying us to pass this legislation, they had been led to believe by the Government that it would be all hunky dory, the Government insisted it would be all hunky dory. But to look at what Michael was saying about the changes in the levy, South Australian average levy rate in ‘07/’08 was three percent, New South Wales was 1.86%, Victoria, 1.4%, Queensland, 1.1%, and the average levy being paid by self insurers in South Australia, same legislation, the same rules and regulations, same problems, was about one and a half percent. Why were they able to run their schemes, same legislation, about half the percentage of levy rates and not have an unfunded liability? They’re in the black … Local Government Association, in the black. (Burzacott: … a lot of people would probably agree that the system is wrong and broken and needed some serious fixing, but … I didn’t get a satisfactory answer in terms of why step back and let legislation that you knew was wrong, why let that happen?) McFetridge: … I obviously don’t have the numbers in the Lower House unfortunately because of the result of the last election, the Government do claim the mandate on this, so okay, they have got their mandate they are claiming, they have got the CEO, they have got the full board, they have got the claims manager they want and now they’ve got the legislation they want. They say this is going to fix it. I really don’t think this is going to fix it and I think that the … classic example of that is if you look at the numbers of redemptions they’re offering now, that they’re about to eliminate redemptions, [unclear] in the next month or so. (Burzacott: If you were in power right now what would you do?) McFetridge: You’d have to go right back and look at the way the claims are managed … just today I had … an email and a phone call from lawyers talking about the way the claims are being managed, there are significant issues with the way claims are being managed in South Australia … they talk about the changes to claim managers, or case managers, they talk about the rehabilitation and the issues there, they talk about the medical system, there are so many other things that need to be looked at and refined … they need to be made sure that we are giving workers not only just a fair compensation scheme but also, as the Act says, it’s a rehabilitation compensation scheme, we need to make sure we’re rehabilitating these workers, getting them back to work, getting them back to having a decent lifestyle and a decent family life. (Burzacott: … which is a lovely idea … but in terms of actually what would you do … first of all probably the biggest issue is in terms of people’s pays being cut progressively over the weeks, to readdress that and make sure that people stay on the sort of money that they were on before they had their accident, you’d need to reign in the costs, I suppose, of the system and to wind back this unfunded liability. How would you do that?) McFetridge: Most of the costs involved in this system are because cases aren’t being managed as efficiently as they should be, workers are not being put into a system where their cases are being handled so that are least stress to them, the most efficient way of getting them into rehabilitation, the most efficient way of getting them back to work, the same as the self insurers are doing … if you look at the Local Government model, where they’re working with unions, they’re working with numbers of different organisations … look at the Self Insured Association of South Australia, how they’re working, this is the same legislation, just handling those cases much more efficiently … that doesn’t mean kicking people off the scheme or reducing benefits … they were working under the same legislation before but they are in the black, so why is it that the Government managed scheme is in such a mess? (Burzacott: … Duncan McFetridge, thanks for your time tonight … Rosemary … ) (Caller Rosemary: … I’d like to thank the Attorney General for stepping in because I have invited the Minister, for those people who are wondering, to join me in this section and the Minister’s office has declined the invitation, but I do thank the Attorney General for stepping up to the plate … he made a comment about an injured worker who is a master welder and who will never work in his trade ever again, he took a redemption, paid his house off, etcetera. My biggest fear for that gentleman is, if he should ever return to work and I hope he does return to work, I hope he never again has another workplace accident because he will be deemed by the system to be still in receipt of the income he was earning whilst he was a welder … if he was earning, say, $600 a week and he gets a job just shifting trolleys around a car park … where he will be earning, say, $300 a week, the system will say that … you are still in receipt of your original income so therefore we don’t pay you anything, even though you now have a new workplace injury … that’s the system that we have, there’s nothing fair about that … there’s no time out for any injured worker. Myself, if I was injured again I would be taking down from the income that I am on now to $210 a fortnight, that’s what I was earning when I was injured the last time … there is so many things wrong with this system, yes it needs to be fixed but the legislation that came in was grossly wrong … ) (Burzacott: … I really do appreciate Duncan coming on board tonight but I still am scratching my head in terms of why you’d let stuff go through … I know in terms of people lobbying and what have you, but you felt in your gut and everything was screaming at you saying, no it’s wrong and broken, don’t let it happen, but then … ) (Caller Rosemary: … I had more than a few choice words to say to the Shadow Minister … none of them could be said on air … ) (Burzcott: … thank you.)
Atkinson blaming the Liberal party for the unfunded liability? WHAT A FUCKING JOKE.
As for Rosemary, I don't believe she generally cares for injured workers. Anyone who truly knows Rosemary will understand that she used to pretty much run a sweatshop years ago where she got injured workers to come in and work for her AND NOT PAY THEM.
Plus Rosemary has recieved quite a bit of funding for her enterprises through WorkCover and other private sources, which is all a bit fishy.
I think the whole thing is a bit smelly.
Perhaps those who run the workcover show are all so corrupt they do not know what the word actually means.
I read in my claims file that my case manager took my whole claims file home to work on it.
That might explain all of the missing file notes.
Case Managers are NOT supposed to be taking client files home with them.
Then again WorkCover & EML aren't supposed to do alot of things but do - and they get away with it with De Poi & Vaughan pretty much run the SA Labor party.
I think Atkinson had fallen for the old two card trick in blaming the Liberals for the unfunded liability blowout. This just proves there is no credibility what so ever in the ministers that pushed thru these reforms. I remember reading somewhere that a Labor minister also blamed for the state bank disaster because the state bank board had some Liberal "mates" on it.
Why is labor protecting the workcover board????
It would be interesting to see if they attempt to change the process in calculating the unfunded liability in WorkCover to give a lower indication as they have done here in the superannuation. The difference is that the WorkCover calculation is a figure used to set the levy to charge employers. So if the calculation has been wrong then it could be said employers have been over charged.
The levy is just another tax. Un-Employment will be high hense less levy revenue. Dont be fooled, the unfunded liability cant be too low as this will mean less income.
Labor's "jobs for mates" is costing this state a fortune and their mates on the WorkCover board have corrupted the workers compensation system costing employers financially and workers financially and psychologically. I hope voters are willing to make Rann & Co. pay next election for their treachory, unfortunately corrupt types like Bentley, Vaughan and De Poi will just take the Liberals out for expensive lunches and donations to keep their grubby corrupt paws in the WorkCover honeypot.
Posted by Bentley'd outta shape at 11:53 AM, 16/1/2009
Video surveillance in South Australia compared to other states
I note in an article in the mercuty that video taping of hoons in the street is inlawful.
Wonder why this government has dnoe nothing to protect the civil rights of people here.
Perhaps its time we had a change of govt with poeple that respect otehrs privacy.
Lawyer and Mercury columnist Greg Barns strongly condemned Mr Gallagher taking the law into his own hands, saying: "I have no sympathy for these vigilantes.
"What he is doing is conducting surveillance without a warrant and any evidence he obtained is unusable in court because it was illegally obtained.
"I don't support in any way the assault but this person put himself in a position where he must have expected that to happen."
However, in recent months, police have welcomed the public obtaining video and phone-camera evidence of unruly behaviour.
Sgt Delpero said: "If people act lawfully and safely [while filming], then video-taping such things can be an appropriate measure."
YOu can see the article here,
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/01/17/50071_tasmania-news.html
If readers of this blog have not already worked it out. This government has a motto.
Injustice is law.
It is now up to the people of South Australia to stand up and protect their rights.
Posted by Injustice is law in SA at 9:11 AM, 18/1/2009
I have been on workcover for 7 years and have lost my rentle house and now live with mother/step father.
I feel that they onley care about the bottom line as all of use suffer.
I had a back opperation and now take pain killers every day to deal with the pain.
I have two children that don`t see me as a resolt of workcover they have left me high and dry.
To days goverment has lost touch with the real man and i think that they sould join us in the real wold,
i take pain killers to get through the day. I dont have a lot
of money to by food with,
If it wasent for my mother i would be homeless and or dead as the goverment members make more
money for themselves.
I dreamt of buying a house, but now i know i will never be able to aford it now.
Now i am on less moneys than when i was 15 years old, and i feel that i dont mater to them.
I injurd my back at work and no one cares...
The sa housing trust will not help me get in to my own plase, i have been on the list for9 years.
I would like them to try and live on very little moneys. child suport has left me with less money
again.
I wan`t my inderpendece back.
The Liberals don't stand a chance in 2010 with Martin Hamilton-Smith at the helm. I desperately want to vote AGAINST Labor and the Rann government, but my vote wont be going to the Liberals until I see a party that is determined to stand up and fight Labor on issues such as WorkCover, an issue which the Liberals sold out the workers of SA on along with Labor with the new legislation.
Posted by: Lucius of Adelaide 9:04am today
Posted by De Poi Corruption Services Pty. Ltd. at 10:48 AM, 20/1/2009
I used to be a Union supporter, but the majority of the Unions have been taken over by people who have their own agendas (that usually financially benefit them) which go against the workers they are supposed to represent.
Posted by: former unionist of adelaide 1:03pm today
ADELAIDE NOW EDITED THIS COMMENT THEN PUBLISHED IT. BOTH JANET GILES OF UNION SA AND PAUL CAICA ALONG WITH WORKCOVER WERE MENTIONED.
With these new laws does anyone happen to know that when there is conflicting opinions between the medical panel and an injured workers doctor's, how does this dispute get resolved? For example, if the medical panel says an injured worker has the capacity to do some type of work but the injured workers doctor's say that they don't, how does this get resolved? Will the medical panels opinion flat out override the opinion of the injured workers Doctor's? If that is the case then that is just totally ridiculous, because anyone with half a brain would realise that the medical panel will not be independant and that they will basically be direct employees of workcover who get paid to provide biased opinions.
If the medical panel says that an injured worker has the capacity to do some type of work, does an actual job doing this work have to be provided or is it that once the medical panel says you have the capacity to do something you will be INSTANTLY kicked off the system?
I believe the medical panel overides what the treating your Doctor states. Unfortunately there is nothing much you can do but I believe there is a site ready to be set up to name and shame Doctors who support WorkCover. This hopefully will keep them honest.
Also this from the WorkCover site:
"Work capacity reviews
The South Australian workers rehabilitation and compensation system was designed to provide rehabilitation support and fair compensation in the short-term for all injured workers, and adequate ongoing compensation and support for the most seriously injured. It was not intended that the Scheme provide ongoing compensation for less seriously injured workers who could return to work.
The new legislation aims to strengthen the test that determines whether an injured worker is entitled to ongoing compensation beyond 130 weeks or 2.5 years. The test ascertains whether an injured worker is well enough to return to work, either full-time or in some part-time capacity.
The Clayton-Walsh report recommended a ‘bookend’ approach to the test. At one end, a strong focus on early and durable return to work, created by strong rehabilitation activity. At the other end, a boundary point where workers with capacity to return to work have no ongoing entitlement to weekly payments.
The Victorian model, which has been adopted under the new legislation, creates an effective test to determine which workers are capable of returning to work and which are not. This test is called a work capacity review.
Under the new legislation, injured workers who are able to return to work, but who have failed to do so, will no longer receive weekly payments. Injured workers who cannot work because they are not well enough will continue to be supported by the Scheme. Injured workers who have returned to work to the full extent they are able to, will also continue to receive ‘top-up’ payments until they can fully return to work.
This change becomes effective from 1 April 2009 and from this date will apply to all claimants who have been entitled to receive weekly payments for a period of 130 weeks".
Just to recap
"At one end, a strong focus on early and durable return to work, created by strong rehabilitation activity". Obviously this has not happened with current injured workers.
the car park attendane at a weekend market was bashed and spent time in hospital, why hasn't this been highlighted in the paper as well. All work place assaults need to be printed in the paper not just the hotel workers. Maybe then people would understand how easy it is to become an injured worker through no fault of your own, but still be subject to the disgusting WorkCover system.
Posted by: Injured at work of 4:50pm today
The employers should report the incident to WorkCover as there are now rewards for early reporting.
Posted by: John Richards of Norwood 12:07pm today
Just wondering how many case managers & rehabers other people have had lately, 4 casemanagers 2 rehab companies and that is just since Nov, Oh did I mention 2 IME's because the one's in Aug & Nov didn't say what they wanted to hear! After years on this system this is what is called intensive help to get back to work??? Not to mention those stolen case files which apparently are still lost, even after requests to EML for case details by my new rehaber none were provided! What the F*#K are they doing over there, does anyone of them know what they are doing?
To the above comment from the comment above that! :)
No, no redeption offer, and sometimes I wish they would so I can get off the system and actually have a chance of finding employment, Workcover itself I have found with all the redtape that goes with it, is the single biggest barrier to obtaining new employment, why would employers even consider someone that can only work certain hours and must obtain approval from workcover and a doctor, then likely have their premises looked over by some OHS group before you can even start when they can employ some 16 yo who has no idea of their rights at work, they screw him/her up and proceed to move on to the next victim. It's a joke and supports the typical Labor policy to have a large pool of unemployed people, who can't get work or don't want to.
April 1 should be really interesting reading the comments above, for if the medical panel goes against the "expert" doctors you have already seen and they have placed in writing that you are no longer fit to perform certain things, then the medical panels written descision could be use in court as evident of malpractice against the doctors that certified you unfit and rightly so, I can see the lawyers having a field day with this one! I wonder if Mikey ever thought about this? I now The Advertiser would never publish these comments either, the editor there supports kicking injured workers of the system and believe we all get too much compensation, I wrote him a letter last year asking how he'd like to lose both his arms and legs, both eyes and penis then receive just over $200,000 for this, of course it wasn't published but it did shut the bigot up!
Get on down!!!! At least the defence force can see that money spent on litigation goes nowehere. Maybe WorkCover shoudl take a page out of their book. There are cases where WorkCover has pursued injured workers spending over a million dollars on one court case with no chance of recovering anything. Perhaps it is more to do with intelligence.
Posted by: Steve Christos of Adelaide 8:21am today
Be very careful in accepting a redemption. I was on WorkCover for 4 and a bit years and i couldnt go back to my pre injury employment and about 9 months ago I had a section 38 done on me and workcover dropped my wage down to $230 a week from $680. Of course i could not survive on that so I appealed and won and got my wage reinstated. I was so stressed out so i asked for a redemption. After negotiations I ended getting $70K. After a while I soon realised I did a terrible mistake. Because I appealed my section 38 i actually got my hours put back up to full hours which meant i ended up being redeemed for the full hours. So now there is now way in the world could I ever receive compensation in the future because I am deemed to be earning $680 a week on full hours. I should have kept my section 38 hours and the got a redemption.
So if you are wanting to get off the system, let me do a section 38 on you or send you to work part time then get a redemption.
For those of you too young or stoned to remember, in 1991 the federal speaker of the house The Dishonourable Mr Leo Wanker, fell off his push bike while supposedly riding to work, he broke his leg and was placed on Workcover while his leg healed, Ok that's fair enough but what happened next shows the corruption within both Workcover and the Labor Government, with no disabilities or permanent injury he received a $65,000 section 43 payment, at the time this would have been close to 70 or 80% total incapacity! I can remember the Libs pushing for answers as to how he obtained this but Hawk, Keeting as well as mr Wanker just laughed at them, saying he was entitled to this and the matter was brushed under the carpet! This is just another story The Advertiser won't print about Workcover and it's links to Corruption!
A section 38 is already being done on me the 3rd one and results are likely to be the same as the previous one or according to the letter I received anyway. So now about that part time job, where did you say it was and doin what?
What I am saying is dont take a redemption on your full hours. If you are still suffering from your workplace injuries there is a possibility you would continue to be incapacitated. The redemptions been paid are only one or two years wages. Stay on the system and have your medicals paid and continue to receive your weekly wage. In two years time when you have spent your redemptions you will regret taking one. Remember you have to be totally recovered before they kick you off. It would be better if you are recovered and get kicked off than still been injured and redemption runs out. Trust me.
WorkCover is currently trying to redeem "EVERY" injured worker who has been on the system prior to 2006. They dont want you on the new system and they would prefer if you are off without ever getting back on with an injury that is related to pre leglislation changes. Section 38s are done to scare you in taking a redemption. I say let them do sec 38s and keep you on the system.
Thanks for clarifing that mate, I couldn't get my head around the parital redemtion you were suggesting and how that would work, but things are now clearer, Thing is I want to work, but my injury is permanent or so about 6 orthopedics which includes their own doctors have reported, and if I understand you correctly then I'll never get back to a normal life. Im always going to be subject to the frustrating rules and regulations which make it so hard to find employment., and are so close to pushing me over the edge, and that scares me cause I don't know what I'd do. Go gun crazy in a maccas resturant or get a sniper rifle and start takingout people at random from a tall building, who can say what a person is really capable of until they've finally snapped and by then it's just too late?
Posted by Totally Frustrated at 2:47 PM, 21/1/2009
To Totally Frustrated. staying at home for years on end is no fun. Add you injury and it is much worse. Unfortunately WorkCover have this opinion we chose this life and no matter what some people might think it is very hard to "get on with it" with all the restrictions, bullying tactics and even fearful of suivallence by investigators (every file has some done in the life of a claim). By all means take a redemption but never on your full hours.
I would doubt it very much sec 38s are done now as this will keep files open indefinetly.
The person commenting on redemptions and sec 38s might be on something. When redemptions were not being paid and section 38s were issued the unfunded liability ballooned. Why? because it kept everybody on the system. How ironic how everything is now reversed.
Yes Sec38's are still being done I have mine in front of me now, it's due to take effect in about a month, then a month later the new changes come into force, talk about overkill!
To to comments above, how about naming and shaming the rehab providers putting you through this. These corrupt providers who have done deals with EML need to be unmasked. Just a few I know of:
De Poi Consultancy
Capsecur
Beckmann & Associates
Innovative Applied Services
Posted by Well Known Section 38ers at 4:35 PM, 21/1/2009
Sec 38s is still in the act and could be used for future injured workers but if WorkCover need to clean the current list of injured workers by redemptions then you would think it would be prefered by redeeming at full incapacity hours. If you have three thousand injured workers on the list with partial incapacity then these would have to be calculated for the unfunded liability by the actuaries. So I guess its a gamble EML would have to take. Risk reducing hours and injured workers not taking a redemption or redeeming at full hours. The ball is squarely in Ruth's court!
Ps: excuse my writing as I am just a truck driver!
If this is the case for abled workers, then what chance has injured workers got?
Group calls for overhaul of welfare to work rules
Thousands of newly unemployed people are likely to end up on the streets due to harsh welfare to work policies, a peak welfare group has warned.
People receiving unemployment benefits must regularly search for jobs and participate in work-related activities or risk losing their benefits for eight weeks.
In the 2007-08 financial year, about 32,000 people copped the penalty, introduced by the former Howard government.
The Rudd government has proposed changes to water down some of the rules, but wants to keep the eight-week penalty.
The National Welfare Rights Network says thousands will be forced onto the street this year unless the complex penalty system is scrapped.
Network president Kate Beaumont says 2400 penalised people were made homeless in 2007-08 because they could not pay their rent.
"The newly unemployed will have to deal not only with the loss of income, but also the risk of falling foul of the complex compliance system," she warned.
"Many people who have never dealt with Centrelink are ignorant of the rules and may find themselves joining the queue needing the assistance of homelessness services which are already overstretched."
Ms Beaumont urged the Government to amend its legislation, to be voted on in the Senate when parliament resumes.
Constantly changing case managers and rehab providers is nothing new for EML. Ever since EML took over all claims, that's exactly how they treat them as - claims, and given the extremely high turnover of case managers (most end up leaving for the private sector or to find other jobs), most injured workers have to deal with at least 6 case managers a year.
As for rehab providers, it's generally due to either case managers (in other words Ruthless Mitchell) not liking a certain rehab consultant, or they have been instructed to move the case to another rehab provider that is favoured by Ruthless or Sandy De Poi. They don't care what an injured worker wants, as far as they are concerned injured workers have no rights.
The South Australian government have bought in new laws to kick injured workers off the system after 130 weeks. How are these workers going to compete getting work when most still have an injury. If non injured workers are subject to these centrelink complex compliance system then what do injured workers do?
Posted by matey on 21/01/2009 9:48:42 PM
Martin Hamilton-Smith should look at new ways to work with people. There are a lot of annoyed Labor voters who would vote for an independent labour candidate because of the way that Labor has sold out to Big Business. It is willing to override local communities to give developers certainty. What this certainty means is that the slums of the future are being planned now because the rules are being rushed through for the benefit of developers. There are a lot of ordinary people who are being persecuted because of the Bikies laws. Injured workers are being left in poverty because of Workcover changes. Teachers are being left as the poorest paid in the nation. However until he stops just going along with Mike Rann on key issues he will not get far.
Posted by: Elaine of Woodville 9:36am today
One wonders how many Labor members who wanted to vote against the WorkCover reforms would also like to become Independants. But than again, if they were weak in not standing up to what they believed in the first place then they wouldnt stand up now!
Posted by: John Richards of Norwood 9:22am today
I was told there are about 100 section 38s (Work capacity reviews) which would require medical questions asked by the new "Medical Panel" ready and to be served from April 1st. You would think that these are the very less injured and presumebly be total return to work targets. This should take a few weeks as each worker has to be given notice. One wonders how non-medical questions are answered, for example; job suitability or lack of vocational rehabilitation etc.
In any way, I doubt whether there would be enough time for the actuaries to adjust before the annual report needs to be finalised.
I am having redemption talks now and a questioned I asked my case manager is can I have half my hours redeemed as an insurance if my back requires further surgery. He told me this was not an option. So I guess I just have to wait until they do a section 38 and then re apply for a redemption again....
Why just stop at naming rehab providers, why not name and shame those at EML who treat you like dirt! Put their name here so we can all see who the arseholes are, that way their trechery will stay with them for life and hopefully fly back in their faces in the future!
Just read the story how a group of Post Office workers were terrorised and one was bashed with a shotgun today, the story turned to workcover within The Advertisers Comments so I think it's worth a mention here!
The Comment I made but likely to be unpublished there below.
"How many people have given thought to the possibility that the offenders who were "desparate" as stated by Acting Chief Inspector Seamus McDaid, were driven to desparation by the very system that some of these workers will now face namely WORKCOVER and EML. And after April 1 there may be more of the same, as more people are kicked off the system. But The Advertisers Editor Mr Mansell supports these changes, so I doubt he'd have any sympathy for these workers today, to him they are just more Workcover Rorters! "
What many people do not also realise is that the gravy train will also stop when the changes come in to force. Workcover employees will lose their jobs, people like Garth Daniels will be forced to retire and as things tighten up so will the accountability of workcover to the public and employers.
WIll be interesting times.
Someone will soon have to fix decades of cover ups, and poor management and accountability.
People are aware what the underlying mentality in workcover is and it will come back to haunt them all soon enough.
John Richards, a few people here understood what you meant. Workcover is a horror of a place to deal with when all you want to do is recover! As a victim of a crime similar to this, i know the fear and pain it causes. i hope the people involved get over this the best they can in the shortest time possible. dont forget that the bad people of society are the minority. being out there with the good people makes it worth while to rejoin society when you are ready. but dont rush it, as the fear can consume you. best wishes.
Posted by: brad of perth 4:42pm today
Comment 34 of 34
One hopes that justice is served!
Posted by: Clayton of Gawler 4:36pm today
Comment 33 of 34
I am not sure how to take Johns comment . I hope he was referring to WorkCover and not the poor employees in this robbery. Maybe he was trying to say that these workers after experiencing a traumatic situation may be off work for a lenghty period and will have their pay decreased and receive no compensation for any mental disfigurement. Unfortunately most of the comments on here have ignored the crime due to Johns comments.
Posted by: Wags of Adelaide 4:33pm today
Comment 32 of 34
Oblivious to reality. I fully support John. I have seen a relative injured at work by a person who committed a crime at work. The ugliest thing in our society is that it is not only the injury that hurts. The aftermath and administrative nightmare is the real trauma. Fighting with bureucracies like WorkCover who do not want to pay compensation, the CCI fund which will only pay a small amount-less than a years wages regardless of whether you can work again or not. And at the end of the day the only people who actually make any money out of it all are not the robbers, not the njured workers, but the gov employees at workcover, or the lawyers fighting for justice or the prison wardens.. Something seems a little wrong with our society.
Posted by: Steve Christos of Adelaide 4:32pm today
Comment 31 of 34
Have a listen to all you ignorant fools having a go at John for voicing his opinion you should all go back to Russia. If your that dumb and cant understand what he meant I'll make easy for you meat heads he is not having a go at the workers, he is having a go at Workcover system and the long process it will take for these people too see compensation.
Posted by: Rusty of 4:07pm today
Comment 30 of 34
1. offnders are caught. 2. Before the courts, police are racist,corrupt,inept and trumped the charges up. 3 offenders plead guilty. 4 get a 25% discount of sentence if they get one., FOR NOT DELAYING THE COURTS .5 court ordered reports, allude to poor upbringing of the offenders. 6 victims are disregarded in process.7 offenders get bond/suspended sentence. 8 IT ALL STARTS AGAIN.
Posted by: steve williams of adelaide 4:01pm today
Comment 29 of 34
Looks like the Liberal staffers are blaming Labor again... It must have been hell for the staff, and I wish them well in their recovery. It is sad that people will use circumstances like this to put the boot into someone else.
Posted by: Adam of Adelaide 3:56pm today
Comment 28 of 34
Victims of Crime (may) pay some compensation later down the track........Workcover will cover all medical expenses, etc. with the employer copping a hefty increase in their workcover levy........this from previously experiencing a similar incident. Changes are required in not only the sentencing laws for these criminals but also the workcover legislation that holds an employer responsible for all costs when it is a criminal matter.
Posted by: controlled of wingfield 3:49pm today
Comment 27 of 34
Tom of Magill. This robbery has nothing to do with the economy or unemployment. The people that committed this crime have probably never had a job and have no intentions of ever getting one. They will continually get a paycheck from our government every second week, because of who they are (courtesy of you and I), and they will continually rob others to subsidize what the government doesn't give them to buy their drugs and booze. And everybody has had enough of it. What to do??? See comment 9 from Phil Black of Exeter.
Posted by: Dman of Adelaide 3:48pm today
Comment 26 of 34
I think that Victims of Crime & Workcover is the least that is on their minds at the moment. To the staff involved hope you all have a speedy recovery, To the government when are these so called stiffer penalties coming into effect.
Posted by: Ron of Virginia 3:43pm today
Comment 25 of 34
The majority of you people are idiots. The first comment about WorkCover was obviously a reference to the perception that WorkCover doesn't pay out on legitimate claims and causes people a great deal of trauma. You'd have to be an A-1 moron to see it as an attack on the integrity of the post office workers. Idiots.
Posted by: Idiots of 3:39pm today
Comment 24 of 34
reading John's post I think he's referring to the painfully long process in claiming from Workcover (and whoever said victims of crime is probably right) rather than the workers 'rorting the system'. Its such a shame that people aren't safe in their own work environment anymore. I also think these thieves targeted that time in the morning when workers were still sorting out their routines for the day. I for one am extremely grateful my office doors are electronically locked and we can control who can and cannot enter. My thoughts are with the post office staff, it must've been awful.
Posted by: sarah of adelaide 3:36pm today
Comment 23 of 34
John is missing one thing with his sad comment, they are Commonwealth employees as it is Australia Post and are cared for by COMCARE not WORKCOVER.
Posted by: Blue of Melrose Park 3:28pm today
Comment 22 of 34
I am a regular customer of this Post Office. The staff are always so lovely and friendly. I am devastated to hear they had to go through such distressing ordeal. My thoughts are with them and their families.
Posted by: Resident of Brooklyn Park 3:21pm today
Comment 21 of 34
John you are a wanker... People like you mate aren't needed in society. We already have problems with these undesirables. We don't need extra problems from you. My condolences to the staff. Nothing can prepare you for this
Posted by: Aaron of Findon 3:19pm today
Comment 20 of 34
In fact these people will get paid by Victims of Crime not Workcover.
Posted by: Kazz of Adelaide 3:15pm today
Comment 19 of 34
Just want to send all best wishes to the victims of this horrible crime, I hope they recover quickly with no lasting problems. After working 20 years for the UK Probation Service, it sounds as if Australia face the same problems where the punishment does not fit the crime and does not deter criminals whatsoever. Radical non-intervention, although cheap doesn't really help at all.
Posted by: Jim of Whyalla 3:04pm today
Comment 18 of 34
I think John of Norwood must be one of the rorters on Workcover.He seems to have heaps of time to make rediculous comments about these types of crimes. I fail to see how a police matter becomes a Workcover issue in the first instance,unless he has his articles mixed up or is looking for some mileage for his own situation. Sour grapes maybe!!
Posted by: John of Cheltenham 3:01pm today
Comment 17 of 34
how many times do you read or hear on the news that the drunk driver who killed a pedestrian or another innocent victim or a the 22 yr old who stabbed another youth in a fight get off with a 12mth suspended sentence or another ridiculous comparable sentence if you can call it that. The legal system needs to really punish people like these because we simply can't feel safe in our own community knowing they're still out there.
Posted by: Kim of 2:50pm today
Comment 16 of 34
John Richards, you do not know these people at all, they happen to be extremely good friends of mine so in future keep your cynical opinions to yourself. All they need right now is the support of their family and friends!!!! It is an extremely traumatic time, whether you think so or not!
Posted by: Supportive of 2:32pm today
Comment 15 of 34
John, these people will be mentally scared for ever, some may not be able to return to their place of work. You try being faced with 3 enraged males yeilding a sorn off shotgun and knife and start cracking jokes then
Posted by: Kara of adelaide 2:23pm today
Comment 14 of 34
It seems that the same group of people are responsible for these types of cowardly and violent crimes and it seems that the courts act leniently and allow them reduced or suspended sentences, when and if they are ever caught. Perhaps if we cared less about apologising and making excuses for their actions and concerned ourselves about enforcing law and order and allow the police to do their job properly without restraint, then possibly these cowards would be incarcerated for a very long time.
Posted by: Citizen of Adelaide 2:09pm today
Comment 13 of 34
This is bad news. With the economy in such a mess and unemployment tipped to keep on rising, there is little doubt these types of offences and home break and enters will increase too.
Posted by: Tom of Magill 2:01pm today
Comment 12 of 34
tina. I can't see what is cynical about John's comment. I'm sure he is referring to the additional trauma these victims will indure as their claim drags on indefinately on the workcover treadmill - at least I hope he was! Anyway, best of luck to the police in finding the scum that did this. Shame we can't expect the same support from the Court system as we get from the boys and girls in blue!
Posted by: daz of torrensville 1:53pm today
Comment 11 of 34
Whats the bet it is aboriginal youth members of the Gang of 49, and that they are currently on parole? I wonder if Centerbet is taking bets on this one because its a sure thing.
Posted by: Wayne of Adelaide 1:52pm today
Comment 10 of 34
I want to see a Government have the Gonads to use the Death Penalty - too much crime and too many Do-Gooders
Posted by: Phil Black of Exeter 1:50pm today
Comment 9 of 34
John Richards of Norwood, I hope I have mis-interpreted your comment, because it sounds to me as callous, as the dirt bags that did this, are cowardly. After being bashed and threatened (at work) the absolute least the victims need is the support of the public, not ill informed rhetoric. As for WorkCover, that's what it is there for, to assist injured workers.
Posted by: Paul of Adelaide 1:39pm today
Comment 8 of 34
Tina, I think John is being cynical about that dysfunctional organisation called WorkCover, not the traumatised workers.
Posted by: piefloater of Adelaide 1:32pm today
Comment 7 of 34
How terrifying for those poor postal workers. I wonder if it was the same sawn off shotgun used at the Para Hills post office yesterday afternoon.
Posted by: Kathryn of Country SA 1:16pm today
Comment 6 of 34
It is very high time we were informed as to exactly what percent of these crimes are committed by individuals with already extensive criminal records. It may not prove that they all ought to be in jail, but it might prove that the conditions under which they are allowed to remain in the community are sadly inadequate. Also, John of Norwood is not entirely wrong. The unfolding financial catastrophe must put the brakes on large payouts or they will put the brakes on financial recovery. The lawsuit mentality is a vermin that must be eradicated. We might then have more money with which to manage serious offenders.
Posted by: Gareth of Adelaide 1:02pm today
Comment 5 of 34
John, you are a very narrow minded individual, keep such bias opinions to yourself, SA has the most generous compensation system in Australia. As far as the robbery goes it would be terryfying and one hopes if caught the system will not release them as it has in the past.
Posted by: Blue of Melrose Park 12:56pm today
Comment 4 of 34
John of Norwood get over yourself are you serious, where is your compassion!!!!
Posted by: Oliva of Adelaide of 12:54pm today
Comment 3 of 34
John of Norwood, I am sure if the shoe was on the other foot you wouldn't be so cynical.
Posted by: tina of adelaide 12:26pm today
Comment 2 of 34
The real trauma starts when these injured workers put in a claim with WorkCover!
Posted by: John Richards of Norwood 12:09pm today
Comment 1 of 34
You forgot to mention Minter Ellison. Workers using lawyers will also diminish which will in fact cause less work for Minter Ellison. Wonder when their contract is due for negotiation?
As long as Sandra de Poi stays on the Board they will stay. Minter Ellison are her preferred lawyer and also represent her rehab company. It's not only Media Mike who rewards his mates with contracts. De Poi was instrumental in EML getting their contract too, despite EML applying after the cut-off date. ;)
Posted by Friends with Benefits at 6:58 PM, 23/1/2009
Sandra de Poi on the board of Workcover is a conflict of interest and no matter how you look at it! A criminal colaboration by the state government who we already know are corrupt to the core. Looking at her rehab company website one gets the impression it is a haven for lesbians and womens right's campainers, talk about inequality in the workplace! Personally I hope many of EML's case managers do lose their jobs! Workcover employees will be safe for a while as they are not directly dealing with the injured workers. Doctors who have been wrongly certifing people unfit, and recommending termination of current employment with the purpose of furthering their own financial gains, will likely leave the state to avoid civil court actions. Judges and magistrates will be rollin in the doe as thousands of cases come before them! And Mike Rann will once again blame it all on someone else in the true socialist style, they claimed for decades to despise in the form of the United Soviet Socialist Republic.
Now doesn't that ring a bell? Labor wants Oz to be a Republic, they are also a group of Socialists, and are always going on about us being United in one way or another! You don't have to look too hard, to see that all the rotten apples do fall from the very same tree!
Job Title:
Rehabilitation Consultant Required
Source:
QPL Limited
Job Code:
CO/16PTAL23374
Location:
Adelaide, SA Australia 5000
Date:
23-01-2009
Residency:
Must have residency
Job Type:
Permanent
Job Description
Description:
* Industry Leading Company
* Established history within their field
* Fantastic opening
Our client is expanding due to phenomenal business growth, and are currently seeking experienced Rehabilitation Consultants.
The successful individual will be required to prepare and implement suitable rehabilitation programs in accordance with the current Rehabilitation and Workers Compensation Ac.
Due to the nature of the role our client is seeking an individual who has a Degree in Behavioural or Social Sciences, or a Degree with Post Graduate Studies in a Behavioural or Social Sciences.
The successful candidate will need to be eligible to be an approved Provider of Return to Work Services as per section 27 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
This role will require you to maintain a caseload, assess rehabilitation potential, and coordinate rehabilitation programs in accordance with WorkCover requirements. The role will involve dealing with a wide variety of people. Strong interpersonal skills are a must along with negotiation and counseling skills. You will be required to have worked in vocational rehabilitation and/or industry. As the role involves travel to various clients you will be required to have a current drivers license.
This is a unique opportunity, with a competitive salary of up to $65,000 , this is an opportunity not to be missed!
To apply for the above opportunity, please send your Resume to mtallis@qpl.com.au or follow the link below. Alternatively, contact Mike Tallis on 08 8127 9005.
QPL is your specialist Recruitment and HR Advisory services provider with proven expertise in delivering quality outcomes within Banking, Insurance, Wealth Management, Financial Markets, Accounting, ICT and Business Support. With dedicated industry specialists located in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide, QPL's capability is to assist organisations and individuals with a range of temporary, contract and permanent resourcing and career solutions.
For a list of current vacancies, please visit our website: www.qpl.com.au
How many more years of mismanagement and corruption?
A definite conflict of interest, especially when Workcover's own documents reveal her rehab company has made millions since EML became the sole claims agent. Not to mention the fact she employs ex EML managers and wines and dines Ruth Mitchell and Richard Hilton and Mark McKie.
I was once a stern Labor supporter, but after being involved with Workcover & EML, I have seen how rotten and corrupt Labor really is - not that I'm saying Liberals are any better but at least you know the Liberals are total bastards. The Labor party is no longer what it was, it is no longer for the people. It's for Mikey, Krudd and their mates.
I had an interesting but predictable convo with a woman about Workcover today. Her son was on Workcover for several years and wasnt rehabilitated, sent to several providers, had dozens of case managers... Can we see a pattern here?
Years of mismanagement due to corruption and board members with financial conflicts of interests and STILL nothing done.
The Rann government must explain why members of the WorkCover board are being paid more to sit less, Liberal MLC Rob Lucas says.
My Lucas said the WorkCover board had only six meetings last year, about half the number of meetings held in recent years.
The WorkCover board met 10 times in 2006/07, 12 in 2005/06 and 13 times in 2004/05.
"WorkCover board members ...were being paid $32,660 for board meetings and additional payments for sub-committee meetings" Mr Lucas said.
Posted by Advertiser 24/01/09 at 8:57 AM, 24/1/2009
You gotta be shittin me! $32,660 for 6 meetings and this is no doubt over and above what they receive for just for being on the board, which I would guess is likely to be around $90,000pa. Just how corrupt is that, and more to the point are the general public aware of this, I mean has this been made public? One must wonder if this sort of tyranny is occurring at Workcover and this is just one of many state government departments, how many more of these things are happening throughout the rest? It would also be logical to assume that Mike is also taking care of his mates in parliment including himself in the same way. If such things are occurring then these people need to be brought up on treason charges by the Commonwealth, and parlimentry privaliage needs to be abloshised so they cannot escape the hangman's noose as John Bannon did! To my knowledge treason is still a capital punishment crime in Australia, and sounds like these guys are flaunting it in the face of the public again just as they did in 1990, 2010 elections will be too late even if voted out, the state will be broke and once again in the grip of a recession, and Mike and The Advertiser will blame workers on Workcover for the whole thing. This time the Libs may not be able to bail the State out, there is nothing left to sell this time and Labor will then get away with their crimes again. Mike knows this and just has to keep investigators of his back till then.
Don't believe this? Then just think about how Rudd is throwing money at welfare at the moment, not to mention all his mates and where did that money come from, not Hawk or Keeting's mismanagement! Come 2014 Labor will then again say what have the Libs done for you? they've brought this state to it's knees at your expense, can you afford more of this? And like sheep to the slaughter the mindless welfare idiots and loudmouthed pissheads in this state will put them back in government for another 3 terms of russian roulette just as they did on a federal level, now some of these have woken up and taken their heads out of the beer troff, but all too late! And they say History never repeats? Well that is unless you live under a Labor government in Australia!
Posted by Former Only Honest Labor MP, John Kerin (sacked) at 3:36 AM, 25/1/2009
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - DAMAGE - CAUSATION - GENERALLY
DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES
The plaintiff redeemed her entitlements to workers compensation and later suffered a further work injury, for which her then entitlements were reduced by the amount of weekly payments at redemption. She claims not to have understood the effect redeeming had in the event of a subsequent work injury, and sues her former solicitors for negligent advice and for consequential damages.
Held: 1. The plaintiff has established a breach of the duty of care in two respects, namely inadequate advice in relation to the effect of redemption in the event of further work injury and as to the true value of her present entitlements at that time.
Held: 2. Damages should be assessed by restoring the Plaintiff to the position she would have been in had she not acted on the advice of the defendants. This commences with the aggregate value of weekly payments forgone, then reduced to reflect the difference between what she received by way of a lump sum for permanent disability and what she would most likely to have been awarded by judicial determination in the Workers Compensation Tribunal and by other adverse contingencies.
Conclusions
For the reasons identified above, the memory of Mrs Shore is deficient in relation to the advice given to her by the practitioner. The court therefore finds she was advised in terms no less than those expressed in the letters passing between the parties and as recorded in the file notes. On the other hand the court is not prepared to accept the advice went any further than these, because of the complete absence of contemporary records to the effect that any further entitlement to weekly payments would be reduced “dollar for dollar” or by $532.70 or anything like it, or that the plaintiff was advised of the potential capitalised present-day value of the entitlements she was relinquishing. Accordingly the practitioner’s advice fell negligently short in those two respects.
On the question of damages flowing from the deficient advice, the Court finds the aggregate value of weekly payments forgone was $27,129. This must be reduced to reflect the difference the plaintiff was likely to receive by way of judicial determination based on the findings of incapacity made above and the sum of $66,992.67 effectively allocated to that portion of her claim, and by a further $2,500 on account of additional legal costs she is likely to have incurred by pursuing that course of action.
The parties are accordingly entitled to be further heard on the precise calculations to be undertaken consistent with these reasons, as to interest, as to costs, as to which persons or entity judgment is to be entered against, and any other consequential matters, as they may be advised.
Posted by dont trust no one at 11:09 AM, 25/1/2009
New agent will make WorkCover better for everyone
Release date: 19/01/2006
All South Australians will benefit from sweeping reform to injury and case management announced today by WorkCover.
WorkCover Chief Executive Officer Julia Davison said Employers Mutual had been appointed as WorkCover's sole claims agent following a rigorous and highly-competitive tender process for new agent contracts, effective 1 July 2006.
"Injured workers and employers will benefit from more claims managers delivering consistent service from an agent that has an outstanding track record and an excellent model for achieving improved recovery and return to work outcomes," Ms Davison said.
"Injury and case management is Employers Mutual's core business and it shows.
"They have a great track record in getting injured workers back to work safely and promptly, which is our priority.
"Contract terms include a cap on the number of more serious cases an individual case manager is allocated. That will mean a 25 per cent increase in dedicated case managers for injured workers."
In a clear win for the South Australian businesses that pay for the scheme, Employers Mutual expects to cut the claims liability by up to $100 million a year after only two years under the new contract.
Employers Mutual had also made a unique offer to allocate half of any of its profits from local operations to the benefit of SA employers.
"Throughout the tender process it had become increasingly obvious that Employers Mutual - new to the SA market - was the outstanding candidate", Ms Davison said.
"It provided the best, total value-for-money option available to us from a highly competitive marketplace.
"Appointing Employers Mutual as sole agent provides better overall value, including savings for WorkCover of almost $5 million a year in agent fees compared with the best multi-agent option that emerged during contract negotiations," Ms Davison said.
"EML has been the best performing agent in New South Wales by a significant margin. Their reputation is very strong among people from all sectors - including employers, unions, and scheme managers. Everyone we spoke to in checking their credentials was highly complimentary about their service delivery and operational standards," Ms Davison said.
"Employers Mutual has committed to targets that would achieve the necessary liability reduction to deliver a fully-funded scheme by 2012-13. They convinced us they have what it takes to create the turn-around in claims liability we expect.
"Employers Mutual is big enough to handle the work but small enough that the South Australian business will be very important to it," Ms Davison said.
"Their management has a significant personal and financial stake in our success in achieving our strategic targets, which are linked to performance rewards and penalties under the new contract."
Ms Davison said there were significant benefits in WorkCover adopting a sole provider arrangement.
"For example, the appointment of Minter Ellison as our sole legal adviser on a fixed-fee contract, is yielding savings totalling $30 million over five years and other benefits such as a 20 per cent reduction in the duration of legal disputes.
"There are also significant benefits from having a sole claims agent. Apart from the cost savings, having a single claims agent will streamline and simplify the scheme for everyone involved; improves administrative efficiency and provides clear accountability - all leading to improved service delivery," Ms Davison said.
Is that certain board members used (and continue to use) EML to forward it's own agendas, and to benefit them financially. Why else has Sandra De Poi been seen having expensive lunches with EML management? And why has her rehabilitation company made over $6 million in contracts since EML took over? Interesting too how Ms. De Poi is a large donator to the SA Labor party.
^
Yes, I've heard that too. I've also heard quite a few rehabilitation providers are are distressed with how they are being treated by EML.
Interesting though how publicly, and at various meetings WorkCover continues to put it's full support behind EML, dismissing concerns that under EML the return to work rate has not increased at all.
To the above, is it just EML or rehab companies continually being paid by workcover, even though they are non performing companies? The comingrecession will soon be used as an excuse for this appauling RTW rate I'm sure, but that doesn't justify the previous years when Oz's employment rate was high! This whole deal just sounds like a move by Rann to shift the focus to a Federal level so he can wash his hands of it, and claim it's out of his or Julia Davidson's hands! If this happens both should be sacked immediately by the governor, and all their privalages revoked, but that would be the right thing to do, so that won't happen!
They will have problems kicking off genuine injured workers and workers who have not been rehabilitated. Thus the reason for redemptions. Another problem workcover/government have is the high un-employment rate. Less people working means less income levy. All this at at time when levies are supposed to be decreased.
In regards to a comment above, yes non-performing companies rehab providers are being paid by workcover and will still be paid by workcover, because of their allegiances to a ceratin board member. Referrals are supposably based on EML's CAPO statistics - which EML claims is reliable, even though the CAPO statistics they use are outdated (generally more than a year old), and exclude rehab companies that have under 50 workcover cases. Thus EML can easily "get rid of" rehab companies that dont tow their line even though they have good return to work rates by not sending them any referrals.
The rehab companies that have done deals with EML (i.e Sandra De Poi) are more like the Job Network agencies that deal with Centrelink recepients - in that they pretty much do nothing, provide little to no rehabilitation and are there to work for Sandra (who is well known for being anti-worker and kicking injured workers off their entitlements through her company De Poi Consultancy Services) and EML management, including Sandra's good friend Ruth Mitchell.
You only have to look at WorkCover's 2007-2008 annual report to see there has been almost NO increase to the return to work rate, even though EML has been the sole claims agent for over 2 and a half years.
i worked for one of the rehabilitation providers up until last year, there was alot of intimidation and bullying from employers mutual aimed towards providers and workcover just sat back and allowed it to happen, employers mutual and minter ellison regular slagged off providers they didnt like also
The true test I hope is when capacity reviews are held for long time injured workers and the question is going to be asked "what vocational rehabilitation has been performed for new employment?"
Med panel Question" What rehab have you been given?"
To the above comment, do you honestly think they are going to ask that? Remember these guys are being put there to get you off workcover and onto the dole! They won't be intersted in whether or not you have been rehabilitated as this is just an obstacle to their agenda! Besides I don't like the word rehabilitation it implies that you've commited some form of crime, and have been sent to jail to be "Rehabilitated", funny thing is they know it doesn't work for criminals so why are they using it on those who's only crime was to go to work because they believed in doing the right thing. Wouldn't it have been easier to sit on the dole or claim illiteracy like so many others? This is how the government rewards people for being honest and wanting to contribute to the social structure. I'm now convinced that only the crooked get ahead in this country, particularly in this state, after so many years of working and hitting brick walls, while those who truely do rip of the system are treated like gold! Mike and his mates like to call themselves "The Honorable member for.." They do not even know the meaning of the word, and most would choke on it if made to spell it out! Australia was colonised by petty criminals and now the decendants of those "crime families" now run things like the Premiers office, Workcover , the courts and most other governmental departments. If you think true justice will prevail after 1/04/2009 or even March 2010 then your in for a big shock!
Some years ago I was charged with attempted murder and was placed on a good behaviour bond with a suspended sentence. I had to see a Parole officer as part the suspended sentence. That was fortnightly for 5 years. The parole officers job was not only to keep tabs on me but to also rehabilitate me so not only i would not re offend but to live in a normal society away from crime.
In 2004 I injured my lower back at work and was given a rehabilitation "consultant". She did absolutely nothing to help me whats so ever and in fact made my life hell. So please do not class these workcover consultants as rehabilitation providers because as a criminal in my early life my parole officer treated me with respect where a workcover provider treats you like a criminal.
I might be a bit naive but having been injured and now off WorkCover benefits through going back to work, I find it very hard to believe WorkCover will be kicking everybody off the system starting April 1st.
Just going on by my experience, injured workers are a product, just like any product which requires a business to profit. I understand the redemption policy and the reported number of claimants recently redeemed. So how many more are required to exit the system? How many injured workers need to be left on the system for providers to survive, EML, Lawyers and rehabilitation companies all need these "products".
Just think if there are a bare minimal left on benefits levies will certainly be down. Levies have been used to prop up WorkCover/Government investment portfolios. If workers do get kicked off Businesses will start to question why a levy is still being paid when injured workers are no longer a liability. Could it be that this investment portfolio might now be scrapped?
There must be a bigger picture somewhere?
^
To the above comment. Why do you think Employers Mutual Limited have implemented a "nominated provider" scheme? Also why do you think many rehabilitation providers are demanding meetings with WorkCover?
Sandra De Poi has designed it to herself, and a few other large rehabilitation providers have the monopoly over claims in South Australia, forcing other providers out of business.
You will find there is a certain group of claims that arent being touched so that Sandra and Co can milk them for all it's worth.
Is there anything in the pipeline for changes to the legislation before the new laws come into place?
Seems south australia will have the highest rate of poverty when injured workers get kicked off the sytem.
The great divide- EML, workcover employees, the board and their lawyers will be rolling in the cash, employers will be suffering as they will still be paying high levies. and injured workers- well they will be kicked off the system and will have to learn to beg to social security or go without..there will be plenty of non injured workers that wil be given jobs before them.
Posted by That Train is coming and its just around the bend at 10:06 PM, 3/2/2009
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: As members in this chamber will not require reminding, the legal case of Mr Tom Easling was characterised by some disturbing allegations centring on the conduct of the Special Investigations Unit of Families SA, specifically, its manager at the time, Mr Steve Edgington. Key allegations made during the trial were that investigating officers went trawling for evidence against Mr Easling, naming him as the target of the investigation to those they interviewed, failed to keep notes of off-the-record conversations and induced witnesses with cash and other material items to give unfavourable statements against Mr Easling.
Recently I was shocked to learn that the manager of this highly suspect SIU investigation has since been moved on to be appointed with the WorkCover Ombudsman's office, still very much in an investigatory role. My questions to the Attorney-General are:
1.Is it true that the former manager of the Special Investigations Unit of Families SA, Mr Steve Edgington, is currently in the employ of the WorkCover Ombudsman's office?
2.Is Mr Edgington's appointment to the WorkCover Ombudsman's office a promotion in status and income compared with his previous position with the SIU?
3.Has a Special Investigations Unit investigation been undertaken into the conduct of Mr Steve Edgington and his two fellow investigators in the wake of the not guilty verdict handed down in the Tom Easling case and the serious allegations of misconduct that were made during that trial?
4.What confidence can injured workers have that investigations into their respective complaints will be conducted fairly without risking the same system of persecution as used against, and experienced by, Mr Easling?
5.Is Mr Edgington currently the subject of any additional monitoring and/or supervision due to the allegations that have been made about his professional conduct?
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:33): I am not sure that the Attorney-General really is the responsible minister; it may well be my colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations. I am not sure who has responsibility for the WorkCover Ombudsman's office. It was certainly done as part of the WorkCover act. I will refer it to the relevant minister.
I will just say that all Public Service appointments are made subject to the Public Sector Management Act, and I think all members of parliament should be careful about mentioning public officers' names in parliament without necessarily any evidence supporting them. The Easling case has been raised, but what particular officers of the Public Service may or may not have had to do with it is something that I believe should be investigated by the appropriate authorities, not brought into the public arena for debate. I will refer those questions to the relevant minister and bring back a response.
Why is it when this man says he will "refer it to the relevant minister" or "ill have to check with the relevant people and get back to you", he NEVER gets back to us?
A prime example is the questions over Sandra De Poi's conflicts of interest with EML and her rehab company.
Over 6 months later and we STILL havent had any answers.
Posted by Pull the other one Paul at 9:00 AM, 5/2/2009
Mark faggotter was also an ex-cop. He was involved in many investigations and obviously employed to exploit the legal loops.
Rumour has it he has exited the building.
It is a concern that the bill is not much more prescriptive about what it seeks to accomplish when it gives the broader powers to police, so that those powers cannot be over-used and police resources wasted. I say this in the context of allegations made by many injured workers of abuses of power by WorkCover investigation and fraud officers and surveillance operators, many of whom are ex-police officers. The experience of Mr Tom Easling at the hands of the Special Investigations Unit of Families SA, which had also recruited ex-police as investigators, is another example of where it is suggested that well-trained and experienced former police officers have abused their powers of investigation. That these officers were not in the employ of SA Police at the time of the allegations should serve as little comfort to South Australians, given that they are still public servants bound by law, policy and procedure.
I cant see no reason why Tom Easling cannot put in a claim for stress under workcover as this was caused by his employment. No wouldnt that be a nice reacquaintment
Employers, WorkCover and Government to blame for unfunded liability.
I wonder when one looks at how many injured workers are on the system whether they would be there if their employers had not flouted the law and/or shown reckless disregard for health and safety requirements.
Seems many injured workers are now on the receiving end of their employers greed. Perhaps this government and WorkCover ought to take a good hard look at their practices and treat injured workers with more respect and target the greedy immigrant employers who care not about their workers.
Employers, WorkCover and Government to blame for unfunded liability.
I wonder when one looks at how many injured workers are on the system whether they would be there if their employers had not flouted the law and/or shown reckless disregard for health and safety requirements.
Seems many injured workers are now on the receiving end of their employers greed. Perhaps this government and WorkCover ought to take a good hard look at their practices and treat injured workers with more respect and target the greedy immigrant employers who care not about their workers.
WorkCover wasting money on Leisure suit harry adverts
I can not believe the absolute waste of money on some of the adverts WorkCover put on television.
What a load of crap about returning to work earlier- if they were serious they would rehabilitate injured workers more effectively.
Obviously there is more than Larry, Mo and Curly in control.
I have seen te add where the bricklayer is returned to work and all his workmates are wearing hard hats except him. Not a very good "Prime" example is it?
I watched the Today tonight show last night, it was about Easling case. They showed a couple of investigators who were alleged to be a tad corrupt. I wonder if its the same one who works for Workcover now???
Its not only the investigators that come into question.
I recently got a letter indicating one of WorkCovers lawyers deliberately withheld evidence during court proceedings.
Seems they have little integrity to do something like that.
Shame!! shame!! shame!!
Any ex-cops involved in deliberately withholding evidence
I wonder if any of workcover's ex-cops like Faggotter were involved in dleiberatley withholding evidence during proceedings.
It happened with Ian Basey in Rino Zollo's case.
Seems they would do anything to save face..
What goes around comes around as they say!!!!!
Injured workers should suffer. Most dont believe in fighting for their rights so why should anyone else. Look at the unions, they are useless and have sold out to labor. The only thing theyve done is a stupid survey. Over the next year injured workers will wish they stood up more, especially when the full force of Vaughan and De Poi's corruption hits them head on. Enjoy.
There are I think some of us out here who would rarther, for our own reasons just keep a low profile I send E/ Mails and get no replies phone calls are not returned and if they do its to throw the subject into a completely differant area.Paper work is kept filed for when it will be time to frount the judge, I have Dr reports requesting that some thing be done for me asap but are ignored,if it had said that my ailments were not as I claim you could bet dollars I would be hounded night and day off the system.Ive hung out discreetly at both Workcover and EML and just watched the passing parade the pose of these people is akin to the fascist of the early 1940 s and I would bet I could trace the ancestry just by reading there surnames. Vote independant at the next election I see this as the only hope.
It is easy to suggest that injured workers should suffer because they are not complaining but there are quite a few examples where workers do complain or put up a fight they are vilified against. At the end of the day workers need to protect their wages without being bullied by WorkCover. Having a new workcover ombudsman might be a channel for complaints but when an investigator is appointed to the ombudsman office who was found to be "unethical" in the Easling case makes you wonder if it is safe to complain.
I do not think the new workcover ombudsman should be downgraded so fast,
Do not forget the old saying. " it takes one to know one"
So even if he was a headhunte rin the easling case- he will know all the crooks in workcoevr and weed them out one by one- who knows maybe thats why a whole heap left the building when he got appointed.
Can anybody confirm whats going on with redemptions of late. I heard something from my lawyer that previuos redemptions paid may have some legal problems.
I thought these redemptions were to exit workers off the system so the unfunded liability would decrease, but if there is some lop hole than the actuaries would need to keep these files on the system which would mean higher liabilities!
WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION (CHANGES TO SCHEME REVIEW PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT BILL
The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:47): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986. Read a first time.
The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:48): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am moving this bill because one aspect of WorkCover that is debated a lot is that of redemption. I believe that it is paramount that we have a redeeming amendment for the legislation that was passed last year. I will keep my remarks as brief as possible, because I have already had great tolerance from my colleagues on a busy day. However, I do need to put the preliminary debate on the public record, and I will speak further as the debate continues.
I believe that the changes made in July 2008 to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act were mean-spirited, uncalled for and unnecessary. I am proud to move these amendments on behalf of Family First, hopefully with the support of colleagues in this chamber, as the amendments roll back the worst of those unnecessary changes which, frankly speaking, hurt families.
It is significant to note that none of the crossbench members supported the bill when it went through this parliament in July 2008. In other words, all the crossbench members opposed these draconian amendments to workers' and families' rights, and I think it is important that that is reinforced.
I regret that I was not in a privileged position to be here to be involved in that debate, because I was sworn in immediately after the debate and the legislation passed after the August parliamentary break last year. In my maiden speech, Mr President—and I am sure you will agree—I stated that the problems with WorkCover were never the legislation itself, but other areas: gross mismanagement of the WorkCover Corporation, a failure to focus on rehab and getting workers back into the workforce, failing to have proper case management, and failing to be prudent in the way that the whole corporation was managed from the minister through to the WorkCover Corporation almost in its entirety.
There was a massive ballooning out of debt over about a six year period, and then we saw workers, frankly, kicked in the guts in an effort to fix the problems with an unfunded liability. However, there was little or no focus on the corporation, the management structures, case management, and so on. My colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood outlined these management failings at length in his contribution opposing the bill.
WorkCover management, in my opinion, walked scot-free from that mismanagement. Few people on the board were changed. Ads were placed by the then chairman, Mr Bruce Carter, appealing to people to support the government's bill. I found it amazing, frankly, that Mr Carter would go to that extreme and then walk away afterwards, leaving a mess for families and injured workers, but he obviously chose to work closely with the government. I would have thought that a man with his capacity would go through the whole corporation with a fine-toothed comb rather than place an expensive ad that worked against employees.
The bottom line is that it was the workers who got whacked for WorkCover's mismanagement. A considerable proportion of savings estimated by the actuarial report was attributable to the medical panels, whilst comparatively little was attributable to the cuts to the workers' weekly payments at 13 and 26 weeks. It is interesting now that many of those workers are unfortunately starting to see reductions in their salaries if they have not been able to resume work. Family First is seeking to rectify other measures with this bill.
Clearly, the greatest inroads into the unfunded liability were going to be achieved by establishing the medical panels, so we will not be disturbing the medical panels. We acknowledge that there were some good things in the bill and that the medical panels make sense, so I do not seek to amend the section regarding medical panels. The feedback I have received from consultation has been all positive about the panels, with only some criticism from the legal profession about whether they will be deciding questions that are not purely medical. We will have to monitor the precedents developing out of the panels to see whether or not that is actually the case.
However, a comparatively small amount was going to be gained by the mean-spirited cutbacks to weekly payments, so in this amendment Family First is reinstating the original 100 per cent weekly payments and getting rid of the step-downs. Our amendments also strengthen the requirements in considering decisions about weekly payments upon rehabilitation and return to work, as the government is saying so much about it in its current television and radio advertisements. In fact, I received some material only this week when I received my bill from WorkCover with more propaganda purporting to support how well the government has done in the previous legislation, which I hope partly to overturn this year.
Likewise, no good case was made for the self-insurance industry to be cut out of redemptions, which they were using judiciously and tellingly on the question of the proper management of worker injury. They had no unfunded liability blow-out like that of the WorkCover Corporation. I find it fascinating that the self-insurance industry has been so prudent in its management, and I have to say that over a number of years I cannot recall hearing many complaints at all about workers compensation from self-insured workers, as against the massive amount with the WorkCover Corporation.
In a similar vein, the self-insurers were aggrieved, and I think rightly so, about the way the exit fee situation was handled by the government. I believe it is anti-competitive and frankly just a desperate final grab by the government from anyone who wants to leave WorkCover and move to self-insurance. I would love to see some more work done on how inequitable and unfair it is. It is just a straight-out grab for cash: 'If you want to leave the WorkCover monopoly and go to self-insurance we'll flog you so hard financially that we'll make it difficult for you to leave.'
We also propose in this bill that there be better consultation with relevant industry sectors if levies are to be increased. That is something that I believe Business SA ought to support. At present there are smoke and mirrors as to why levies are increased. If the government is increasing levies for purely financial reasons then it should say so. If, on the other hand, levies are increasing because of poor workplace safety practices in a given industry, like the taxi industry for instance, the corporation has to be open and transparent about these increases. If there has been a spike in claims history for a particular industry, that needs to be on the table and open for consultation with the industry.
As I wrap up my contribution, Mr President, I observe that you are in a different position from that of some of your colleagues, because unlike them you will not be in a position to vote on this bill. I know you will have considerable sympathy for the roll-back of the step-downs, and I know you have a lot of rapport with workers, but I respect your position. I will be looking to colleagues on both sides of the chamber as well as our cross bench colleagues for their support in assisting in the reinstating of workers' rights and, in particular, the main focus of this bill: the roll-back of the mean-spirited step-downs.
I want to flag to all colleagues, and particularly my cross bench colleagues, that I am open to amendments to this bill if they can be soundly argued as reinstating workers' rights without negatively affecting the unfunded liability. This bill is an opportunity for redemption, as I said at the start of my second reading contribution, not only for the major parties but also for this parliament, as a parliament for the people and not one that is dictated to by big business.
Whilst I have nothing but respect generally with what big business does, I believe that in this instance it had too big an ear with both the major parties, and I do not quite understand why it had such a big ear with both the major parties when this will not fix the problem for big business. In fact, I would suggest that the unfunded liability is still accelerating, even though this legislation has been in force. If I am wrong, I ask the minister to table as soon as possible what the unfunded liability is, but my advice is that it is still heading north at the moment, and that starts to say to me that there is a major problem with this legislation.
I also know for a fact—and I have had some documentation back on this—that redemptions have been accelerating like you would not believe, and for some injured workers it is unbelievable how quickly counter offers have occurred. Others are ostracised and they get nothing; they are blacklisted, but some at the moment are getting large amounts of money. I cannot remember in the 15 years that I have been in the parliament such an easy access to redemption, yet I understand that even with that they are still seeing an increase.
The core root of the problem is getting to the 1 per cent of the people who were rorters, which was available in the previous legislation; scrapping the board, because it failed; and starting again there, wiping it out and starting again. The bottom line is that the board failed, because in a six or seven year period it let an almost fully funded liability head into a $1 billion-plus liability, so just changing the deckchairs was not appropriate there.
Getting into the solo case manager, particularly having a look at how that case manager was appointed in the first place and all the other things that should be done with some attention to detail to look after the injured workers, get them back to work as soon as possible and be pro-active and preventive in the way they deal with workplace safety—they are the sorts of things that will make a real difference.
It may seem strange that I am moving these amendments, but I genuinely and sincerely have always been disappointed about what happened last year. I said in my maiden speech—and I put it on the record again—that, as an employer, I do not like the amount of money I am charged every month by way of an account from WorkCover. It has been going up, which I question. Having said that, I, like most employers in this state, hope and pray that your workers do not get injured, but you want them looked after if they are injured.
I refer to one classic example, as it can easily happen: the police officer going out to a domestic violence situation and being confronted with a knife coming at them—horrific circumstances, often trying to protect the wife and children. They receive lacerations and broken bones, and also some short-term mental injury. If that has happened in the past three to six-month period, and they have not been able to get back to work, their families are suffering with a loss of money and that is an outrage. The partners, spouses and children said, 'See you dad; see you mum; see you tonight', as we all hear. But they come back injured. It is not their fault and now the whole family is suffering, and this is a chance to turn this around.
The government may have hoped that it could do over the workers and that the electorate will have forgotten about it by March 2010 when the election comes around, but I do not believe the public, the core support base for the Labor Party, or the unions have forgotten about this, and I know they will not. The executive of the government, not the rank and file MPs, are to blame. I know that some of those MPs did not like this at all. They said, 'What are you doing here—this is not Labor Party stuff; we're about protecting workers' rights?' I am not condemning the rank and file Labor Party MPs—
The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:
The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Because they don't have a choice. They get chucked out of the party if they cross the floor. It is not them I am on about but the senior executive people in the Labor government who have done the most fundamental basic disservice to the people who have voted for them year in, year out, election in, election out, and stood by them through everything.
The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Name them.
The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: There are plenty of them—look at the polls. Name the executive? It is the cabinet of three that we all know about, and a few others who drive the cabinet of three. The bottom line is that this is an opportunity for members of parliament, who want to be re-elected in 2010, to support these amendments. It will get the Labor government back in or it will give us a new Liberal government if either of the major parties support the cross benches on this. It will either get them into government or make them lose government. A lot of stories will come out. Once all the accelerated redemption is finished and lawyers start to get into this, they will have a field day. There are a couple of clauses the powerbrokers forgot to get right. I will not disclose them right now but will keep it in confidence. Watch six or nine months before the election, when clever lawyers get into this—they will expose the government for unfairly attacking the workers' rights.
This bill reopens the WorkCover debate and provides an opportunity for the major parties to support it for the best interests of the workers of South Australia. In closing, I thank those who have consulted with me on this bill. There have been a lot, and in the short time I have been back in parliament I cannot believe how much representation we have had—positive and pro-active. It was not just that they acknowledged that some things should not happen with WorkCover, as they are responsible South Australians and some are industry sector representatives and have seen me a few times, but they are extremely disappointed and are saying to me—and I am sure to other MPs—'Please change these mistakes; this is not fair on far too many families'.
I also thank parliamentary counsel for the diligence and care taken with this important bill. I have further information for the benefit of the council but will put it on the record later, in the interests of allowing government business to proceed and members getting home at a reasonable time. I ask all members to look closely at these amendments and seek their support.
Workplace conditions 'like those in industrial revolution'
Article from: AAP
By Jeff Turnbull
February 19, 2009 05:58pm
WORKERS are being exposed to conditions that have not improved since the industrial revolution, a workplace chief said, after two men suffered horrific injuries while carrying out routine maintenance work on a press.
One man lost his hand while the other suffered a badly crushed hand.
The accident happened early this morninig as they carried out maintenance work on a press at a Tullamarine factory.
WorkSafe Victoria, which is investigating the accident, said the machine started up, trapping their hands, around 1.30am (AEDT).
The accidents came one day after an 18-year-old man died when he was caught up in a press at a cardboard factory in Thomastown.
There have been four workplace deaths in the state so far this year, including that of firefighter David Balfour when a tree fell on him near Marysville earlier this week.
WorkSafe Victoria executive director John Merritt said the accidents reinforced his concern that many employers and workers had much more to do to create safer workplaces.
"The reality is that in too many Victorian workplaces, workers are still exposed to the things that were killing and maiming people at the start of the industrial revolution," Mr Merritt said.
"Unguarded machines along with inadequate training, poor supervision and dangerous work practices lead to many amputations, crushings and other serious injuries and deaths each year."
He said the obligations on employers and workers under Victoria's health and safety laws are clear and waiting until someone was hurt before safety problems are fixed was not an option.
He said people were falling into unguarded machines - something that occurred in 1809 and is still happening in 2009.
"In some ways it is worse because today's machines are bigger, faster and stronger," Mr Merritt said.
A workplace safety conference will be held in Melbourne in March. It will show that one in three supervisors say their senior management are not serious about safety while nine per cent say their bosses are "in denial", Mr Merritt said.
WorkSafe Victoria said 22 people died in Victorian businesses last year while another 30,000 were injured.
In the above case, it seems like the employer tried to use the workcover act to sack an injured worker by using a breach of mutuality as he took a day off to go to a concert. If the worker was not injured, one wonders if the employer would have had the same capacity?
Hahahahaha so VERY true but crude. i hear on the grapevine de poi did a deal with one of the rehab companies that they provide return to work coordinator training to employers and that employers mutual will refer employers to that rehab company (applied innovative). this has angered workcover's registered training organisations. LOOKS LIKE SANDRA DE POI IS UPTO HER USUAL TRICKS!
The day labor get rid of corrupt types like depoi and vaughan is the day millions of pigs fly over adelade. I was on workcver last yearg and dealt with her friend ruth mitchel. The lot of them should be tossed out on there asses and depoi should b forced to pay back the millions she has takn from the scheme thro her corrupt rehab comgpany.
You are correct in how you described Ruth Mitchell. It is even recorded in hansard... So if you are reading this Ruth, dont just blame the injured workers for giving you crap but also the pollies who chose to name you in parliament.
I read your post before it was deleted and as much as I agree with you, maybe the swear words were the reason for it being deleted. I would say that was the only reason!
yes, i agree, seems like sandra de poi gets alot of "protection" in this state. no wonder she's miss moneybags and the rehab providers tremble in fear of her.
i read the post before it was deleted too. and it was 100% true of her, she is well known for her little escapades.
BREAKING STORY: WORKCOVER'S unfunded liabilities have passed the $1 billion mark for the first time.
Chief executive Julia Davison told a Parliamentary Committee this morning that massive falls in the investment market and interest rate reductions had boosted the scheme's liabilties over $1 billion.
Everyone should get on down to 100 weymouth street for the celebrations..
Billion dollars wow..
Now that is really an achievement.
What of all the injured workers - will they still get their redemptions while all of the board are likely celebrating their achievements with $100 bottles of moet?
Perhaps they will hand a few out at the prize night..
Posted by Unfunded liability at 12:26 PM, 23/2/2009
The South Australian Government says WorkCover's unfunded liability does not reflect on the organisation's injury claims performance.
The Industrial Relations Minister, Paul Caica, says the global financial crisis is to blame for the increase, because of a deterioration in WorkCover's investments.
"The unfunded liability is made up of two parts - the claims component and the investment component, that then gives the total unfunded liability," he said.
"I'm pleased to report that the early indicators are that the legislative change that was to bring down the claims component is tracking well."
"I'm pleased to report that the early indicators are that the legislative change that was to bring down the claims component is tracking well."
What a load of crap. How can it be tracking well when its due to start April 1st???? The only way it could be tracking well is the amount of redemptions and thats part of the old legislation!
WorkCover 's Bullcrap Excuses - when will they stop?
I know for a fact that it's NOT tracking well and even WorkCover's own statistics gathered through EML's dodgy CAPO model shows there's been little return to work. But then they dont really care about return to work anyway, just that a certain board member and her buddies milk the system as much as possible.
If I was an employer and WorkCover raised their premiums i'd turn to contract workers than give the greedy WorkCover bastards anymore money.
I wonder if private insurers and Comcare have an increased unfunded liability and is blaming the GFC also?
Posted by Caica union traitor at 4:34 PM, 23/2/2009
I can tell you from personal experience why Workcover is in such a sorry state. I injured myself nearly a year ago, I hav'nt worked since. And no I am not trying to milk the system, I WANT to go back to work. HowWorkcover or more accurately Employers Mutual have handled my case is unbelievable. I've been sent the wrong medical reports (someone else's not connected to me in any way). I've been told by EML that I DID'NT need a lawyer. (This is my first ever claim, I stupidly believed them). But what takes the cake is the fact that I asked for a specialist appointment when I first did the injury. I was told that it had'nt come to that yet and would need to have physiotherepy and hydrotherepy to try to remedy the injury first. Needless to say it did'nt work. When asked if I could NOW see a specialist I was told that the specialist I wanted to see was not one EML liked to use because he was too QUICK to operate. This after I had been having ineffective treatment for 8 months. I eventually was given permission to see the specialist of my choice and guess what, I needed surgery, which was carried out in January (9 months after the accident) I'll be off work for another 3 months at least, with a rehab time frame of another 9 months before I get the maximum use of my arm back. Because the injury was left for so long I developed Oasteoarthritis, so I'm only going to get about 80% of the use of my arm back. Although I was not allowed to see a specialist right away, they did insist that I be given a rehab consultant, an occupation therepist and...wait for it....I had to see a Occupation physician because my injury was taking too long to mend. If they had sent me to see the specialist I wanted to I would be well on the road to recovery and back at work by now. Workcover is a joke, the people employed by workcover and their agencies get better treatment than the injured workers. Oh and by the way, my injury was caused by the negligence of my employer, but I'm powerless to sue them because of the Workcover legislation.
Posted by: Disappointed of Adelaide 5:37pm today
Comment 36 of 36
Again we hear of Workcover's ongoing inability to control it's unfunded liabilities. Surely if Workcover reviewed it's internal operations and cut the many levels of ineffective case management by outsourced rehabilitation providers and made some attempt to case manage it's own incompetance things might turn around and maybe even start to save millions by cutting back the huge monies paid to independant consultants. To simply keep cutting the payments of injured workers,who in the majority have been injured quite accidentally whilst working hard for their employer, is simply not the answer and is morally wrong as none of these workers ever wanted to be put in this harrowing position of being pawns in Mike Rann's game of blame. Sorry Mike but maybe now the voters of SA will at the next election finally see what your government and Workcover have become..........financially inept excuses and only looking to blame those of us in the community who are unable to now protect ourselves simply by being injured at work! So "GOOD NEWS" Mike it's time to pull your head out of where ever it's been and start to see the carnage that your government has created whilst in control of the out of control WORKCOVER. On behalf of all of us innocent injured workers trapped in the farce called Workcover!
Posted by: Onbehalf of all injured Workers of Workcoverville 5:37pm today
Comment 35 of 36
I heard the Industial minister state "I'm pleased to report that the early indicators are that the legislative change that was to bring down the claims component is tracking well." How can this be when the major changes come in April 1st? Could it be tracking well because the high amount of redemptions being paid out which is part of the old legislation?
Posted by: John Richards of Norwood 4:59pm today
Comment 34 of 36
What a bunch! Has nobody got a clue about what an insurance liability really is? Think about it, it's money you MAY have to pay out in the future. This is not money you absolutely will pay out, it's not like an accounts payable invoice. As for people making statements about management capabilities, name me any company that has improved their investment performance in the past 6 months. This is not a case necesarily of bad management, simply market conditions. I suspect that it takes a lot longer than 6 months to turn around performance of a scheme like this when it involves multiple parties all having to agree on how to implement the new rules. So instead of listening to people who know very little about the reality of the situation, ask some people with in depth knowledge, and that won't be an opposition politician or the Advertiser. As an interested member of the public I imagine the average worker at WorkCover is doing their utmost to improve this situation.
Posted by: Canyerlendmeaquid of SA 4:24pm today
Comment 33 of 36
Another workcover bungle, Lets just keep hitting the employers. Wonder why contract empolyment is much more attractive to employers? Workcover rates are 3 times the cost of what private insurance used to be. And they still cant manage to get it right.
Posted by: Concerned of Adelaide 4:02pm today
Comment 32 of 36
Let's see: the global economic crisis caused the Crows to lose the final against Collingwood, then it caused the souffle at my Aunt's garden party to fall flat and now its causing the UNFUNDED Workcover Liability to burden generations of South Australians with a billion dollar debt baby! Oh that's OK 'cos the RUDD money is coming and no one will notice when the economic managers in State Labor get their hands on the school hall and pink batt dough and syphon it off to their pet projects. Afterall, no one's noticed the budget blowouts so far on Trams and Motorways and the Shared Services Project which was supposed to save money! Hah! Hah! Oops! Sorry for a moment, I thought it was funny but then I realised what a mess we're in! NO PLAN NO RANN in 2010
Posted by: Terry Pokorny of Adelaide 3:52pm today
Comment 31 of 36
Woops, looks like the cat is now out of the bag in that WorkCovers core business is in the investment market and not the welfare of workers and businesses!
Posted by: John Richards of Norwood 3:51pm today
Comment 30 of 36
I work in the recruitment industry and I can say 1st hand that a fair whack of claims are bogus and this is the biggest problem. There are far to many rights for the worker which leaves it WIDE OPEN to fake or stupid claims. You can't even ask the injured person to go to your doctor or get a second opinion for a substantial time frame and by then they have raked in money they don't deserve. If they repeatedly don't show to placements on restricted duties or to medical reviews they get a little letter that says you were a naughty boy/girl but they still get their money. Give some power back to investigate them and you will see the fake claims reduced therefore reducing the unfunded liabilities. The whole system is a farce.
Posted by: Skeptical of Adelaide 3:49pm today
Comment 29 of 36
Aaahh Work Cover. Ive been on it for 3 months now after having my foot crushed at work in October and not a single piece of information from them what so ever. I just found out my pay will drop 10% due to cost savings AND my employer has been paying my wages all this time. Gee,thanks workcover.....its not like I asked for my foot to be crushed. Talk about being punished twice!! The current system is an absolute disgrace.
Posted by: Peter P of Para Hills West 3:48pm today
Comment 28 of 36
Rann's sham Workcover legislation has failed miserably and the injured workers will suffer because of these draconian changes imposed on those easiest to hit. The unfunded liabilities will continue as Rann missed the opportunity to include in the legislation, the rights of workers to sue their negligent employers as is the case in other states where he modelled his new Workcover laws.
Posted by: Brenton S of Adelaide East 3:39pm today
Comment 27 of 36
this disgraceful situation has dramatically unfolded under the watch of media mike and his stooge K Foley.....cant blame the financial crisis on this one labour !!
Posted by: Craig of Hindmarsh 3:27pm today
Comment 26 of 36
Fantastic - Workcover has paid Employer Mutual to move to a performance bases system. I guess that translates roughly to Employers Mutual will pay injured workers less and will get paid more for doing it??
Posted by: Injured-workers-wife of SA 3:12pm today
Comment 25 of 36
I find it interesting that they suggest that the injured workers should be the ones that should be out of pocket for this screw up, when only last year as a small employer, I received a letter to say that I no longer need to pay any workcover levy for our casual employee. We used to pay around $500 a year. $500 a year from a lot of businesses that only have one casual employee would add up to quite a sum of money. What is this government thinking?
Posted by: Marcy of Adelaide 2:59pm today
Comment 24 of 36
Yeah blame the current investment enviroment and that should surely justify the workcover board behind closed doors.Perhaps they should try something different and try opening the doors and make the whole system transparent.You never see their jobs under threat,unlike the injured worker!!
Posted by: John of Cheltenham 2:57pm today
Comment 23 of 36
Rann robs Peter (emloyers), keeps Peter's money, squandors Peter's money and doesn't pay Paul (his due compensation). Rann fiddles while people's WorkCover payments are not duly paid, and people are not paid due compensation. Remember Mike, you originally got in on promises of equity & fairness to WorkCover, but you will also be REMEMBERED in the next election for your broken promises.
Posted by: Peter of Adelaide of 2:55pm today
Comment 22 of 36
Whos going to feed the machine,Well maybe they could have more bosses educated in safe work practices that could take the burden of work cover.If every boss and employe were taught the right way to do there job and people comming out to mesure all your work equipment and work benches to see if everything is correct it needs more careing involved, Money just does not buy everything also understanding and looking into why all the accidents are happing in the first place they could cut cost massivly.And each year they could have percentages of the drop in people getting injured at work.
Posted by: lizzg of city 2:54pm today
Comment 21 of 36
So much for the reforms. The only losers are the workers, the bosses and the taxpayers. Good effort Rann!
Posted by: Rob Smith of Adelaide 2:40pm today
Comment 20 of 36
Who will pay? I will pay - I am a very wealthy man with good SOH
Posted by: Waldo of Plympton Park 2:22pm today
Comment 19 of 36
Better yet, analyse every single claim and get clarification of injuries etc. That should save a few million, weeding out those rorting the system, but don't punish those genuinely in need.
Posted by: Tazo of Adelaide 2:22pm today
Comment 18 of 36
Nah, don't worry be out it. The people who will have to carry the can haven't even been born yet!
Posted by: ahembullshitahemcoughcough of Collinswood 2:13pm today
Comment 17 of 36
"behind closed doors". Why then does WorkCover constantly claim to be "open and transparent", and why has the WorkCover Board never been accountable for it's actions? More so why are Board members allowed to run rehabilitation companies that profit from WorkCover claims? These are questions the Rann goverment need to answer to the employers and workers of South Australia. I will be VERY surprised if this comment is published.
Posted by: Lucius of Adelaide 2:09pm today
Comment 16 of 36
Get rid of work-cover and sell it back to the Insurance Industry, if they will have it? Rann needs to be held accountable the same way as his mate Bannon was.
Posted by: Neil of 2:06pm today
Comment 15 of 36
What of the injured workers? Will they be looking at further reductions to pay for the boards poor management? It seems a simple concept to pay injured workers on a common lawbasis and charge a levy adjusted annually. Or would that be too open and accountable with no more opportunities for jobs for the Boys.
Posted by: Steve Christos of Adelaide 2:06pm today
Comment 14 of 36
It's convenient to now blame the financial crisis, but WorkCover's unfunded liability was always going to increase as it has almost since Day 1. Their continued cost-cutting approach has only served to prevent them from providing the service to the SA worker community they were chartered to deliver. I suppose now they'll further reduce costs within the organisation and attempt to reduce benefits again. By their logic, the scheme will only become self-funded if employees work for nothing and claimants are paid no benefits. This strategy obviously hasn't worked over the past 20 years. Time to admit failure and rethink!
Posted by: Ray Hogan of 2:02pm today
Comment 13 of 36
How much does Media Mike and his thieving cohorts plan to rip out of WorkCover recipient's entitlements this time around, to pay for their own ineptitude and incompetence?
Posted by: Jamie Bloomfield of Adelaide, South Australia 2:01pm today
Comment 12 of 36
How fortunate that the World Economic Crisis cam along so they would have someone/something to blame outside of the organisation. being able to allocate external blame is a critical skill for any government or quasi government agency. Well done Julia Davidson! I am sure there is a promotion and/or payrise in the pipeline!
Posted by: Atli Freiherr Von Bansch of Aldgate 1:58pm today
Comment 11 of 36
Workcover Corp have had the figure on their website for months. $984 million as at 30 June 08.
Posted by: Adam of Canberra 1:51pm today
Comment 10 of 36
No wonder, it is still the most generous scheme in Australia despite the minor amendments to the Act last year. It will continue to blow out until the benifits paid are brought into line with other states or a nation wide scheme is adopted.
Posted by: Blue of Melrose Park 1:37pm today
Comment 9 of 36
On behalf of injured workers of South Australia I stand as tall as I can and simply say "I told you this would happen, I told the WorkCover Corporation and they WOULD NOT LISTEN" my only hope is that injured workers are no longer blamed for the gross incompetancy of WorkCover Board the WorkCover CEO and the WorkCover Minister's. As angry as I am about all of this, this information is indeed a sad day for every South Australian. All of this could have been avoided had the people who work at the coalface were listened to, but what we had to say simply did not fit into the framework that the powerbrokers were telling themselves was right. The real victim in all of this has been the truth, it is past time that the Corporation started to tell the whole truth, not the spin and dribble they come out with. Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson Work Injured Resource Connection 8410 0121
Posted by: Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson of Adelaide 1:35pm today
Comment 8 of 36
Its interesting that they are now blaming the global finacial crisis for the escalating unfunded liability as this suggests the core business is investment and not Businesses and the injured workers (stakeholders). Does anybody remember last year when the reforms were pushed through because they stated injured workers were at fault. Maybe the reforms should have concentrated on they way they dealt with investments. Businesses have been paying a higher levy due to the fact workers were kept on the system longer because money which would have paid them out went to investments.
Posted by: John Richards of Norwood 1:28pm today
Comment 7 of 36
oh oh, I have an uncomfortable State Bank kind of feeling in my stomach.....
Posted by: A.Huxley of Brave New World 1:12pm today
Comment 6 of 36
This is a result of the global financial crisis only. The hardworking Rann State Labor Government are doing all they can and are clearly blameless in this instance.
Posted by: BJ of Adelaide 1:10pm today
Comment 5 of 36
Take a bow Rann & Foley great fiscal management guys!!! Foley you are not qualified to be treasurer in this crisis- call the election before you two bankrupt the state
Posted by: Rusty of 1:08pm today
Comment 4 of 36
Maybe this is why I'm 6 weeks post operative after an accident at work and i'm still waiting for essential equipment (including hygiene aids) to help me lead as normal a life as possible.
Posted by: Disappointed of Adelaide 1:03pm today
Comment 3 of 36
ONLY SURPISE IS THAT IT HASN'T REACHED $2BN. THIS GOVERNMENT IS ECONOMICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND SHOULD BE SACKED.
Posted by: Andrew of Unley 1:02pm today
Comment 2 of 36
wait for the spin from media mike....oops bad news...someone else
Posted by: Marilyn Shepherd of Adelaide 12:57pm today
Comment 1 of 36
The real problem here is the minority of injured workers who are ripping off this 'easy-to-rip-off' system. Those injured workers are probably the same ones sitting at home posting half of these comments when they have a 'permanent medical restriction' not to use a computer!
Posted by: Blake of Adelaide 3:39pm today
Comment 39 of 39
i work at employers mutual trust me we dont get ANY benefits! A lower then retail salary and bad conditions! Fantastic
Posted by: amy loo of adelaide 3:39pm today
Comment 38 of 39
Workcover was in trouble before the financial crisis. The main problem is that the return to work rates are terrible and getting worse. The longer someone stays injured the greater the chance that they will stay on income maintenance. More needs to be done by Workcover to lift their game in terms of medical and relating intervention turnarounds.
Posted by: Andrew of Adelaide 11:56am today
Comment 37 of 39
I agree with the comment about Employers Mutual. Worked for them for 3 months last year. Case managers have no say in what happens with cases they have to go to middle management with EVERYTHING. Theres also lists of injured workers that are "troublemakers" and you are told where to refer cases. Case managers have no power at all. They are nothing but stressed out underpaid admin officers.
Posted by The corrupt rumours r true at 5:51 PM, 24/2/2009
yeh, i agree. ive had case managers who apoligised to me constantly, telling me they dont have a say in wat goes on and they hav to run everything by their team leader. i dont think many of them work there anymore which isnt surprising consider the high turnover of case managers at eml, ive had at least 9 over the last 3 years
i dont blame the case managers, the organisaton is obviously just as corrupt as wkcover which again isnt surprising considering they got then tenda - all the strings are pulled by sandra and her pals
9 in the last 3 years that's easy going, try having 6 in the last 3months, or 3 in 3days! for a total of 10 in the last 3years. What the hell is happening over there?
And rehab, forget it! even if it was to happen where would you get a placement with the worsening economic crisis, injured workers have no chance now, I was told that my case had been mismanaged and now they are trying to get things in order, geez it's a bit late now isn't it!
Surely everyone involved with WorkCover can realise now the problem isnt just simply going to go away. The continual shuffling of the deck chairs will only make it more obvious workers here are not at fault and more to the fact the way the system is handled is to blame. The industrial ministers former and current, board members former and current, Workcover staff and of course case management have all a case to answer. To say the average injured workers can manipulate these highly educated and experienced "WorkCover staff" in creating such a mess is beyond me.
The practices and procedures relating to
provisional liability are, as yet, untested, and
a number of matters remain unclear. We
do not know, for instance, if a worker is
required to lodge a formal claim for
compensation pursuant to Section 52 of
the Act when making a claim for provisional
payments. It appears that WorkCover and
EML think not, but this is not a view that is
shared by all. Issues such as this will have
practical significance in certain cases. For
example, it is evident that the 7 day time
limit will rarely allow the compensating
authority sufficient time to secure
independent medical evidence, or conduct
a full factual investigation. Therefore,
unless the worker lodges a claim for
compensation pursuant to Section 52 in
addition to the claim for provisional
payments, there will be no real opportunity
to conduct a thorough investigation of a
questionable claim.
The new provisional liability regime has
the potential to impact adversely upon
employers in this state because of the
potential for abuse which comes with an
uncritical assessment of liability.
Thankyou Mr Vaughn. you have delivered to business again..hahaha. When did you say our levies will decrease?
UNIONS could enter any workplace in the state to examine health and safety issues if the State Government's second attempt to increase their powers succeeds.
Privacy concerns have also been raised because unions would have the right to demand any documents or computer records relating to the health or welfare of any employee.
Industry leaders say it is little more than an attempt to allow unions more access to worksites by "stealth".
A similar bid was rejected by Parliament in 2007 and the latest move is seen as "payback" to unions for their support during the last state and federal elections.
Business is predicting the proposed changes would add significantly to business costs at a time when small businesses are facing some of their "greatest cost pressures". SA and Tasmania are the only states which do not allow unions the right of entry for health and safety purposes.
A new Bill proposing the changes to health and safety laws has been quietly circulated by the Government since December with submissions closing next month.
Other key elements of the Bill are:
REDUCING the threshold for training of health and safety representatives to workplaces with 10 employees from the current 20.
INCREASING the authority of industrial magistrates to determine penalties of up to $300,000 for breaches of occupational health and safety laws. Under the union access section, unions, with a permit issued by the Industrial Registrar, will be able to enter all workplaces where the relevant union has a member or a person eligible to be a member.
They will not be allowed to stop work or require that a specific action be taken by an employer.
In a letter accompanying the proposed Bill, Industrial Relations Minister Paul Caica says there has been a national trend to allow employee representatives right of entry for OHS issues.
Motor Trade Association chief executive John Chapman said yesterday his body had "concerns", especially about the right of access.
"It is just giving unions the right to enter the workplace by stealth," he said. "It is not required because the Government's own safety body, SafeWork SA, already is in place.
"Yet they want to unleash unqualified people into the workplace to do goodness knows what."
Opposition youth spokesman Iain Evans said it was an attempt by unions to get into workplaces to recruit young workers.
He said the idea of making health and safety checks was just a smokescreen.
"There is only one reason for this duplication and that's to give the unions carte blanche entry to workplaces," he said.
Business SA chief executive Peter Vaughan said it "will result in more regulation which will increase the cost of doing business".
Master Builders Association chief executive Rob Stewart said the MBA was concerned that individuals, who were not members of a union, could have their personal details fall into the hands of a third party.
Mr Caica says in his letter that the Government had consulted with an advisory committee on a suitable model for right of entry.
THOMPSON v DUFFIN [2009] SASC 32 (20 February 2009)
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court: Permission to Appeal in Private)
[2009] SASC 32
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice Sulan and The Honourable Justice Kourakis)
20 February 2009
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Appeal - application for permission to appeal to Full Court - permission granted - appeal raised issues of law and mixed law and fact of sufficient importance to warrant grant of permission.
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) s 120(1)(a) and s 120(1)(c), referred to.
THOMPSON v DUFFIN
[2009] SASC 32
Full Court Gray, Sulan and Kourakis JJ
THE COURT
1. This is an application for permission to appeal from the decision of a Judge of this Court allowing an appeal from a Magistrate. The Court has considered the application in private.
2. Jeffrey Ian Thompson , the defendant, the appellant in the Court below and the applicant seeking permission to appeal was charged in the Adelaide Magistrates Court with 95 counts of dishonesty. Sixty-nine of those counts alleged breaches of section 120(1)(c) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA). The other 26 counts alleged breaches of section 120(1)(a) of the Act. Following a trial before a Magistrate the applicant was convicted of 16 counts of offending contrary to section 120(1)(a) of the Act. The other charges were dismissed.
3. On appeal the Judge of this Court allowed the appeal and set aside the whole of the Magistrate’s orders. This included the counts that had been dismissed by the Magistrate. The learned Judge then remitted the complaint for rehearing and determination before a Magistrate. The Judge awarded costs in a lump sum in favour of the present applicant. The proposed grounds for appeal challenge the decision of the Judge to set aside the whole of the Magistrate’s orders and to remit the whole of the complaint for rehearing. It is further complained that the Judge erred in rulings with respect to submissions made with respect to duplicity and latent ambiguity. The order for costs made by the Judge is also the subject of complaint.
4. The Court has had the opportunity to review the reasons of the Judge, the notice of appeal, the supplementary notice of appeal and the outlines of argument filed in support of the application for permission.
5. The Court is of the view that the application for permission to appeal should be granted. The appeal raises issues of law and mixed law and fact of sufficient importance to warrant a grant of permission. Accordingly, the Court grants permission to appeal as sought.
Posted by Duffin left the building too at 3:33 PM, 26/2/2009
Obviously this guy was a whistleblower and thats why they tried to get him. Will workcover look like idiots or what if he wins his appeal. Iread how they spent millions running him through the courts. How nice it must be for the Workcover board and employees to realise that all of the headhunting and bullying will come undone if he wins his appeal. Surely they must be losing sleep over this one.
Reading the judgement it seems he has some merit in his appeal- I wonder if it will make th advertiser again.
Congratulations should really go to Business SA if this new bill allowing Unions to over see OHS. It doesnt seem too soon that the WorkCover levy will be lowered, employers are now having to appoint rehabilitation officers and now the unions will have greater access to workplaces! Now thats what I call the price of having Peter vaughn on the WorkCover board!
New Democrats MP David Winderlich thinks whistleblowers in South Australia deserve more protection.
He is planning to put a bill to State Parliament.
Mr Winderlich says people should be able to go to the media if they have information of great public interest and be safe from prosecution.
He says he will build his legislative bid around the findings of a federal report.
"A common law parliamentary committee has put out a report saying there should be expanded protection for whistleblowers and one of the things that should be protected is where someone goes to the media to blow the whistle to prevent a serious health or safety risk," he said.
"Now that's something I'd like to see here in South Australia - we don't have anything like that."
Name and Shame the corrupt laywers and investigators
I would like to see some names of the lawyers and investigators from workcover that are corrupt and which bully injured workers.
Especially names of lawyers and investigators who deliberately withhold evidence during workcover prosecutions.
Posted by Coming soon to a big screen near u at 2:21 PM, 27/2/2009
WorkCover, EML & Sandra De Poi's lawyers are Minter Ellison. Go to their website and the SA section and you will see a list - with photos of the scumbags there.
After reading Hansard It must be a fact that anyone who is a workcover provider is corrupted. Ministers seemed to be allowed to use parliamentary priviledge to "question" such activities. These companies who are making profits from injured workers hopefully will suffer when the scheme goes belly up!
Posted by dancing with the devil at 10:53 AM, 28/2/2009
Injured workers choose disability pension over workcover?
AdelaideNow... - home
Disability dodgers slammed
Article from: Sunday Mail (SA)
LAUREN ZWAANS
March 01, 2009 12:30am
HUNDREDS of thousands of able-bodied Australians are dodging work by claiming the disability pension, says Business SA chief Peter Vaughan.
Mr Vaughan has called for an investigation into why about one in 16 Australians of working age are on a disability pension.
Centrelink figures reveal 728,643 are receiving welfare for being too handicapped to work, including 70,235 in South Australia.
"Do we seriously believe in this great country that we have three-quarters of a million disabled people of working age outside the workforce," Mr Vaughan said. "For some of them it's an easy way out; they have chosen not to be part of the workforce."
Ten years ago, the number of Australians registered for the pension was 577,682.
Mr Vaughan said he understood many people were genuinely disabled and deserving of the pension, but believed a huge number were not.
"My estimation is that it is still in the hundreds of thousands (of people who do not have genuine disabilities)," he said.
"We don't know what that percentage is, but that figure (of disability pensioners) alone is staggering, and it indicates there are people who get the disability pension who, in my view, are able to work but they're not prepared to go to the jobs."
Mr Vaughan said there had been a "massive shift" to the disability pension "because the requirement for meeting the criteria is a less rigorous test than it is to provide unemployment benefits through Centrelink".
He said that other Australian taxpayers were working to "fund" the disability pension.
Despite the tough economic conditions, there was still employment available for people prepared to move to where the jobs were, he said.
In an emailed statement, Federal Community Services Minister Jenny Macklin said people on disability pensions had to provide evidence of their impairment.
"The Disability Support Pension provides an important safety net to ensure access to adequate income for people with disability, who are unable to participate in the workforce for 15 or more hours a week," she said.
"People on the DSP have to provide medical evidence of their impairment and undergo an assessment of their work capacity."
Mr Vaughan's comments prompted a rebuke from SA Disability Minister Jennifer Rankine.
Ms Rankine said the Business SA chief executive needed to provide evidence to back his claims.
"I call on him to provide any evidence he has rather than cast unfair assertions on the thousands of people who receive these benefits," she said.
Her spokesman, Matt Clemow, labelled it "odd" that anyone would argue the Federal Government handed out too much money.
"I think we have a great, great need across the disability sector," he said.
"We get letters every week from people with clear need wanting to be on those Commonwealth payments.
Obviously Vaugnhn is making out he is he man for the job by making such allegations.
He will next be telling all his board membes that none of its injured workers are injured.
Obviously injured workers choose the disability pension over being on workcover. Further many injured workers have probably taken payouts of around one years salary to redeem their workers compensation claims and now rely on the pension to survive.
If WorkCover gave them proper redemptions instead of dribbling its money on administration and endles slitigation then injured workers would not be reliant on government handouts to survive after being injured at work.
This recent statement from Peter Vaughan just shows how biased he is towards people seeking “benefits” from their disability. He we have a person of this nature on a board of a scheme that is supposed to protect injured workers through workplace accidents. This is very shameful!
If Peter Vaughan and Sandra De Poi werent so CORRUPT in kicking injured workers off the system through petty redemptions and the future "independent" (yeah right) medical panel, and concentrated more on RETURNING INJURED WORKERS TO WORK, then perhaps so many injured workers who have recieved A LACK OF rehabilitation through CORRUPT providers such as De Poi, Applied Innovative and Beckmann wouldnt have to go on a Centrelink disability pension!
why anyone would take advice of a board member in an corporation that betrays workers and has a billion dollar unfunded liability is beyond me! You have WorkCover ripping off businesses through levies and lack of rehab to its injured workers and Business SA ripping off businesses through astronomically high fees and overpriced booklets and courses. Both have mouldy teeth Peter Vaughan at the helm!
Posted by Sandy de poi's persian rug at 10:16 AM, 1/3/2009
Peter Vaughan is the CEO of BusinessSA, which pays alot in advertising to AdelaideNow, so it doesnt surprise me he is protected. Interesting how comments that feature the names "peter vaughan" and "sandra de poi" never get published on that site.
Posted by sandra de poi's a slut at 6:51 AM, 3/3/2009
This mob have been making the hard decisions for us again now they are not only stealing our redemptions they are going to take the only thing left that enables us to function with any thing close to normal, read the article printed in The Independent Weekly page 4,27th Feb.The Drugs and Alcohol Services SA no doubt full of young get ahead at any cost to any one, is taking over the well respected Drugs and Dependence Unit.The D. A. S has taken a Drs right to treat chronic pain sufferers with drugs like morphine,oxycodone etc, People are gathering to fight this yet again hard decision by the Rann government find them they are calling them selves Dignity for Chronic Pain Sufferers, if you have pain that is comfortably oppressed by these three thousand year old natures cheap drugs. Beware they want to put chemicals expensive ones into us no doubt to feed the greed of the money worshiping reptiles.
Posted by Pain Victims Fighting Back at 9:52 AM, 3/3/2009
The clearly disturbed abusive individuals who seek to abusue others in the most vile and juvenile way, do their cause no good at all. Surely you can air your grievances without resorting to such childish nonsense.
Can you blame people with what Workcover have put so many people through??? And have those corrupt individuals faced any consequences??? No they are still there! Still ruining lives! No wonder some people are disturbed.
As everyone ought to know Bruce and his board channelled millions of dollars of redemption money into investment accounts in the hope of building some sort of nest egg. The plan faile ddismally and the unfunded liability blew out of control and the investments have lost value.
The problem is that nobody knows exactly how much has been lost and all the while injured workers were being kept on the system so that the money could be put in investment funds instead of offering them redemptions.
Now the corporation has no money to pay redemptions, the number of injured workers has sky rokcketed, bruce has jumped ship and the unfunded liability is out of control.
the question remains:
When will the board tell South Australian injured workers how much money it has lost and what the gap is between its investments and the unfunded liability?
Grievances without resorting to such childish nonsense.
I have to agree to a certain extent to the above comment about the "childish" comments placed on here. But as the smoke is starting to clear and the true reasons why current and future injured workers now face with draconian workcover laws all because of mismanagement (quoted in hansard) one would feel very angry entitlements (Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits because of rights, or by agreement through law) would diminish. Remembering a large percantage of injured workers are not educated enough to understand how to fight back and due to this the only way they think might make a difference is to actually tell the truth without fear of "upsetting ones feelings" for heavan forbid we wouldnt want that now would we!
What if I disagree with the decision to stop my payments?
If you disagree with the decision to stop your payments you may wish to make an application to continue your payments or you may lodge a Notice of dispute with the SA Workers Compensation Tribunal for a review of the decision. If the dispute involves a medical question, the Tribunal may refer the question to a medical panel for an opinion (see ‘What is a medical panel?’ in the shaded box below). You must lodge a Notice of dispute within one month of receiving the decision to stop your payments. More information about the dispute process can be found on the WorkCover website www.workcover.com.
Please note, even if you have lodged a Notice of dispute with the SA Workers Compensation Tribunal but a decision is yet to be made about your work capacity, your payments will stop with notice. However, you may apply to the WorkCover Ombudsman for a decision that your payments continue until the dispute is resolved. If, after consideration, the Tribunal decides that your payments are to continue, your payments will resume with arrears and interest.
What if its a vocational question? eg. no rehabilitation offered in the last 3 years.
Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:21): My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the government considering removing the provisional liability sections from the WorkCover legislation, and what discussions have taken place with business groups about their concerns with provisional liability?
The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development) (15:22): I thank the honourable member for his question. He, like everyone in this house, is aware that the government put in place some significant legislative change to WorkCover. We did that for a couple of reasons, not least of which—and I have had this discussion—is that, on anyone's fair assessment, the WorkCover system had failed the people that it was there to support, that is, the workers themselves.
It was never established as a return-to-work system and, to that extent, it let down the people that it was there to support most. So, we have put in place a legislative change that is focusing on transforming that system into a return-to-work system. The legislation has been altered and, at this moment, we are in the process of ensuring that we are able to implement that legislation. A very important part of that is to ensure that we talk to all the people that WorkCover refers to as stakeholders, not least of which is the business community, workers' support groups and, of course, our friends within the trade union movement, and that is what is being done. One of those areas, amongst others, that continues to be under discussion is the provisional liability matter.
Its interesting to note that Medical questions can be asked by the workers compensation tribunal only not by case managers. How time consuming is this going to be with so many "automatic appeals" after a determination then wait to see a medical panel and then wait for the results????
The Standards & Poor Agency told YOU SIR 12 months ago to tidy up WorkCover or risk the Triple A rating, instead you have made it worse that every. I have only read the warning as it was reported in an industry newsletter, YOU SIR would have recieved the full briefing and full Report. So don't dare try to tell the good people of South Australia that this has come about as a reult if the GFC, this has come about because of your poor performance, you had a great deal of money and have allowed Ministers to waste it on endless reports that told them what they wanted to hear, not what they needed to know. Mr Foley the only FOOL is you for believing that no one else gets to read industry reports that warn.
Posted by: Mr Foley YOU WERE TOLD of 4:46am today
Didnt I read Alan Clayton stated somewhere that the unfunded liability will only improve if his reforms were implemented in full? Firstly they made a couple of changes during the bill,eg: max levy being reduced etc. Now it seems there are more changes drip fed through some MPs. Seems like Alan Clayton cant be blamed for when the shit really hits the fan.
Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (14:40): My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the unfunded liability of WorkCover more than $1 billion and, if so, what is it? Also, what is the total liability of WorkCover?
The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development) (14:40): I believe it was in November last year that I reported to a committee inquiring into the Auditor-General's Report. The member sat on that committee and I think he asked a similar question at that stage. The audited figures at that stage showed that the unfunded liability was $986 million. I will correct that if it is wrong, but it was around that figure. I think I also mentioned at that stage that, given the economic climate with which South Australia has been confronted—the world economic crisis, and we are not immune to that, regrettably—you would not have to be Einstein (and I know I am not, and the member certainly is not) to know the consequences.
I do not have the figures, of course, because I will not announce those figures until I have properly audited figures. However, if you look at the scheme of things (and I have spoken with the member for Morphett on numerous occasions about this), no matter how conservatively or well the investment people at WorkCover might have done, they are not immune to the impact it would have had upon their equities portfolio. We also know that they have a significant amount of investment in cash as well, with interest rates dropping.
So, it would certainly be my expectation that the unfunded liability would be over $1 billion and, of course, that was reported to the Statutory Authorities Review Committee last week, I understand, by the chief executive officer.
With respect to the final component of the member's question, I cannot answer that because I do not have those figures, and I will not have those until the appropriate auditing of those figures has been undertaken.
Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (14:42): I have a supplementary question. Will the minister tell the house how much will accepting provisional liability for claims add to the total liabilities?
The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development) (14:42): The unfunded liability of the scheme is underpinned by two components. One, of course, is the investments component, and I have reported on that. The other is the claims liability component. Again, whilst very significant legislation was adopted by this parliament last year, we have an expectation that the component of the unfunded liability that relates to the claims management—again, it is early days—is at this stage tracking in the right direction, and that is without the full implementation of that legislative change, as the member for Morphett is aware.
Interesting times ahead, Adelaide is full of wacko's, we are everywhere and could be anywhere at any time. Not everyone complied with Howard's buy back scheme, and for years the WC board members have lined their pockets with dirty money, blaming workers for the debt. All that is about to change, it's time to send in the Cleaners!
The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (14:50): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Premier a question about Thoroughbred Racing SA.
Leave granted.
The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I refer to an article in last Saturday's Advertiser headed 'Kiwi chief new boss of TRSA' in which the Chairman of Thoroughbred Racing SA, Mr Philip Bentley, announced that Jim Watters from New Zealand had been appointed as the new Chief Executive Officer. I refer to another recent appointment to a board involving Mr Bentley, namely that of the new Deputy CEO of WorkCover, Mr Jeff Matthews, also of New Zealand. My questions are:
1.What was the selection criteria for the appointment of the new CEO?
2.Given the Premier's recent commitment to promoting the use of South Australian and Australian businesses in these tough economic times, how many applicants were considered for the position and how many of those were from Australia?
3.Does the Premier agree that there are no suitable applicants in Australia to take on executive positions on South Australian boards?
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:50): I will refer those questions to the Premier in another place and bring back a reply.
The facts are Workcover is an opressive system which makes gains out of the misfortune of injured workers.
They must toss and turn at night nowing that their money is coming out of screwing injured workers in an opressive manner.
BTW how wood they like being on workcover for 20-30 years and having to fight them every year to keep there wages?
About time workcover was shut down so injured workers could get on with there lives.
Me thinks the only way they would think you can not work is if you are an eye ball resting on a pillow and your blind, even then it could be used as a marble, so there goes another 10%
WorkCover lining their own pockets out of injured workers misfortunes
People who take advantage of Injured workers are ripping-off them and Employers. Injured workers genuinely need support and the current legislative changes are aimed at putting more money in the pockets of WorkCover employees, lawyers and ripping off injured workers. When is this State going to wake up and say no more to Rann and his Foley mates.
As for depending in Liberal to bail you out that is just wishful thinking- they are gutless and have taken no action to protect injured workers.
Its about time we had some new blood and clear the old wood out.
Posted by "itchy balls" from clapham at 11:06 AM, 8/3/2009
Business SA has a lot to answer for for having a member on the workcover board. Employers should be asking soon why the levy will not be reduced in any time soon and now why they have to have rehabilitation officers in their company. I am sure these are all extra costs to Employers who have been fooled by Peter Vaughan and what he has delivered.
The workcover Blog is for personal comments and is not a sham
THIS BLOG IS A SHAM
AND SECRETLY RUN BY WORKCOVER SYMPHASISERS. WATCH OUT THE BLOGMASTER IS COLLECTING YOUR IP'S AND HANDING THEM TO WORKCOVER.
Posted by Anonymous at 3:54 PM, 8/3/2009
Obviously this person has a grudge against the world.
The blogmaster does not give a stuff about collecting IP addresses for workcover and so what if they did. As if workcover would bully anyone for speaking out against them.
Posted by Workcover ruins peoples lives at 5:14 PM, 8/3/2009
I agree with the above comment. it wouldnt bother me if workcover found out my ip address anyway. What more harm can they do to me on top of what they already have attempted. Workcover does not rule my world and never will. They have tried and failed. For the person leaving crude comments, well thats fine but it does prove workcover has got to them.
I would'nt mined if Work Cover knew it was me eather at least then we would be comunicating I don't even know who my case manager is the last one moved on and phone calls are not returned but they did E/mail me about the situation. Let them vent it here they've most likely been deserted by any family or friends through the stigma that is Work Cover.
I too wouldnt mind workcover knowing I leave comments on this site. After all they probaly soon realise I have been speaking to the Independant MPs and if they want to pick a fight for me leaving messages on here they will again here about it in parliament and have it recorded in hansard for everyone to see.
A medical panel consists of between three and five medical practitioners (general practitioners or specialists) who are selected from a large pool of doctors considered the most appropriate to examine your case.
The panel delivers final and binding opinions on medical questions that are referred to them by Employers Mutual, the Workers Compensation Tribunal or a self-insured employer. They have up to
60 days (and in some cases longer) to form an opinion on the question.
Medical panels are managed by Medical Panels SA and are independent of WorkCover and the Workers
Compensation Tribunal. They will be introduced from 1 April 2009.
Injured workers have only themselves to blame. If they are that injured I am sure they will still continue receiving benefits. After all it would be a lot larger than being on a disability pension. Just to cap on the comment above, I wonder if its the same McKie who works for WorkCover?
The problem with injured workers is most of them become bludgers. They get so used to sitting around doing nothing, blaming back aches (like most people dont get them from time to time), depression, anxiety etc. and when you get used to it, it becomes your life. You an injured worker isnt a bludger when they return to work within 6 months and do everything they can to return to work, and in my time working in the system I have barely seen that.
yeah i have to agree, genuinely injured workers do anything they can to get back to work, they dont run to the doctor everytime they dont feel like going to work to get a medical certificate that certifies them unfit for work for a month. there are plenty of people out there with depression/anxiety and with back and other pains who are working and they work WITH their employer in order to get some pain management so they can continue to work. ive seen time and time again so many workers who claim work injuries when they are in fact personal injuries or personal mental health problems. i can see why so many employers get pissed off at the system, because up until now it has let people get away with rorting the system. as stated by case manager, genuinely injured workers usually get off the system within 6 months and are back at work successfully due to them cooperating with their employer and not running to their doctor getting fake medical certificates that allow them to bludger. im no supporter of WorkCover or the corruption inside WorkCover caused by Vaughan and De Poi etc, or rehab providers - alot of whom are milking the system for all it's worth, but alot of the injured workers on the system - who have been on the system for years have become bludgers who are treating it more like a pension and alot of doctors are supporting this by blindly writing out medical certificates providing no evidence to back up why these people can't get back to work. employers shouldn't have to pay for these bludgers.
If workcover was managed properly injured workers would get a redmption after two years and be allowed ot get on with their lives. The problem is workcover has tried to save a few dollars here and there on redemptions but in fact all that has done is project a massive unfunded liability.
Nobody at WorkCover complains as they all get paid and the more injured workers on the system the more work they have.
Was he posing for the new WorkCover media campaign?.
Harness-less' man falls to his death
Article from: AAP
March 10, 2009 03:34pm
ONE man fell to his death and another man was left hanging 20 metres above the ground after a platform suspended from a Sydney worksite collapsed.
The men were standing on the platform being lowered from the rear of the Maroubra Seals Club on Marine Parade, Maroubra at about 2pm (AEDT) today when one side gave way.
One man fell to the ground while the second man was left dangling from his safety harness.
When asked if the deceased man had also been harnessed, paramedic Chris Ennis said: "Not to my recollection, no."
A worker from a nearby building site, Gary Tregidga, was first on the scene.
He placed a ladder under the hanging worker, but said there was little that could be done for the other man.
"He had blood pouring out of his mouth, coming out from everywhere. He was gone," Mr Tregidga said at the scene.
A window was broken to allow the surviving worker to be pulled inside the club just before 3pm. He suffered only minor injuries.
The club declined to comment, but it is believed the men had been painting the building.
WorkCover has been notified and the area is now a crime scene as police investigate the incident.
"We will be sending an inspector and doing a full investigation, but at this point in time the police still have it as an emergency area so we're not allowed in," a WorkCover spokeswoman said.
The Maroubra incident follows the collapse of six levels of scaffolding in Melbourne in late February. There were no injuries.
A few days later, buckled scaffolding forced the closure of a road in Sydney's CBD for almost a week.
What a load of crap.
If workcover was managed properly injured workers would get a redmption after two years and be allowed ot get on with their lives. The problem is workcover has tried to save a few dollars here and there on redemptions but in fact all that has done is project a massive unfunded liability.
Nobody at WorkCover complains as they all get paid and the more injured workers on the system the more work they have.
Posted by Anonymous at 3:37 PM, 10/3/2009
WHY THE HELL IS SOMEONE ON WORKCOVER FOR 2 YEARS????
WHY HASNT THAT PERSON DONE A RESUME UP AND JOBSEEKED ON THEIR OWN???
WHY HAS SOMEONE JUST SAT ON WORKCOVER AND NOT PROACTIVELY TAKEN CHARGE OF THEIR LIVES???
Im dealing with a case at the moment where 1 of my employees applied for an in-house job (promotion), He didn't get it because there was another employee who was better skilled, and 2 months ago he put a workcover claim for depression because he didnt get the other job! He already had a job, its sitting there waiting for him, but because he didnt get the other one he claims its ruined his confidence and he feels betrayed by me! Now I have a position, a job that others are having to take on because this guy gets non-stop medical certificates saying hes unfit for work because hes depressed! This is the kind of shit us employers have to put up with! Not every worker is like this but you get fed up with a certain number of employers who see a chance to rort the system and they take it! SO DONT TELL ME ITS A LOAD OF CRAP!
Posted by frustrated employer at 3:52 PM, 10/3/2009
Some workers who have sustained a serious injury might not ba able to go back to work after two years. Would you employ anybody who needs surgery every year or so and who is on painkillers for the rest of the time?
Would you as an Employer put your hand up and say ok I am not going to get my moneys worth out of this injured worker but because I believe he should be working I am still going to employ him even though he might be off work more than on?
Would you employ an injured worker who could because of the injury cause other accidents?
Do you as an Employer have on your job applications if the applicant has ever been on workcover?
Do you know how hard it is to apply for office job with no training competing with younger applicants?
Please dont put all injured workers into one basket.
Prosecution - Guilty plea to two counts - Failure to maintain so far as was reasonably practicable safe systems of work - Failure to provide such information, instruction, training and supervision as was reasonably necessary - Failure to give notice of an immediately notifiable work related injury - Guard on panel saw not set correctly - Employee injured when finger of left hand came into contact with the blade of a panel saw - No prior convictions - Held: Convictions on both counts - Penalty s 19(1) (after 20% discount) $14,400 - Reg 6.6.2 (after 20% discount) $4,800 plus levy and costs - S 19(1) Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986, Reg 6.6.2 Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations 1995, s 10, 13 Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988.
Prosecution – Guilty plea to two counts – The defendant being an employer failed to ensure so far as was reasonably practicable that its employees whilst at work were safe from injury and risks to health – Failed to provide and maintain so far as was reasonably practicable a safe system of work – The defendant being an employer failed to ensure so far as was reasonably practicable that persons not being employees employed or engaged by it were safe from injury and risks to health – Failed to ensure that persons on site (not being employees employed or engaged by it) were safe from injury and risks to health due to an omission during the erection process – Defendant operates building and construction business – Defendant contracted to construct a workshop – During the process of construction a roof section of the steel structure collapsed and workers on site were injured – Failure to brace the roof section of the steel structure before the cranes holding the roof structure were released – No prior convictions – Offences under s 19(1) and s 22(2) of the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 – Held: Convictions recorded – Consideration of s 13 Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 – Fine of $20,000 (after discount of 20 per cent and applying s 13 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988) plus levy and costs – Ss 19(1) and 22(2) Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 and ss 13 and 18A Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988.
Prosecution – Guilty plea to one count – Failure to provide and maintain so far as was reasonably practicable a safe system of work – Failure to provide such information, instruction, training and supervision as was reasonably necessary – Asphalt manufacturing plant – Front-end loader being driven in the yard – Employee exposed to a risk of injury whilst at work and was injured when he was struck by the front-end loader – First offence under s 19(1) Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 – Held: Conviction recorded – Fine of $30,000 (25% reduction) plus levy and costs – S 19(1) Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986.
Prosecution - Guilty plea by first defendant to one count - Failure to provide a safe working environment and information, instruction, training and supervision - Leave to proceed ex parte against the second defendant pursuant to s 62BA Summary Procedure Act 1921 - The defendant neither appeared nor entered a guilty plea in writing - Alleged failure to take reasonable care to avoid adversely affecting the health or safety of other persons not being employees employed or engaged by the second defendant through an act or omission at work - Building operations being conducted at a shopping centre - Moving walk (travelator) undergoing inspection and testing - Person inspecting and testing the travelator removed a pallet from the travelator - The person testing the travelator operated the same intermittently whilst carrying out testing - A construction worker at the building site became trapped, entangled and subsequently crushed by the exposed components of the travelator - Another worker at the site was exposed to a risk of injury and risk to health namely entanglement and/or crushing - The first defendant charged with an offence under s 19(1) of the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 - The second defendant charged with two offences unders 22(2) of the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 - Compensation applied for - Held: - As regards the first defendant conviction and a fine imposed (after a discount of 15%) of $59,500 plus levy and costs - As regards the second defendant a conviction on both counts and a fine imposed of $120,000 plus levy and costs - Compensation awarded and apportioned - S 19(1), 22(2) Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986, S 62BA Summary Procedure Act 1921, S 53 Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988.
If you have the time, energy and skills to sit in front of a computer, research Workcover cases, and post your whines on this blog. Then you can easily get off your arse and get back to work! You obviously have admin skills, get to work you bludgers and quit mooching off employers!
Posted by Frustrated Employer at 5:32 PM, 10/3/2009
You cant get workers comp for depression if a worker didnt get a promotion.
30A—Psychiatric disabilities
A disability consisting of an illness or disorder of the mind is compensable if and only if—
(a) the employment was a substantial cause of the disability; and
(b) the disability did not arise wholly or predominantly from—
(i) reasonable action taken in a reasonable manner by the employer to transfer, demote, discipline, counsel, retrench or dismiss the worker; or
(ii)a decision of the employer, based on reasonable grounds, not to award or provide a promotion, transfer, or benefit in connection with the worker's employment; or
(iii)reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner by the employer in connection with the worker's employment; or
(iv) reasonable action taken in a reasonable manner under this Act affecting the worker.
Aww look all the workcover bludgers are upset. I would be too if my rorting was coming to an end. Good thing Peter and Sandra got their way, you bludgers who have been using the system as a pension will be eating cat food in no time! Where are your unions now? HAHA.
Mark McKie, if thats your real name. Rorters have nothing to fear as they should be fit enough to return to work and wouldnt eat cat food but have you ever thought about what happens if a "genuine" injured worker gets kicked off, What sort of work can they obtain to survive??????
How many WorkCover claimants does it take to change a lightbulb?
None, the employer has to do it because they are too busy getting unfit for work medical certificates from their doctor and living it up on the employer's dime.
It is about time someone started to speak out about these rorters. Case managers and rehabilitation consultants are just trying to do their job by helping workers get back their lives but instead are continually scrutinised.
IAN HENSCHKE, PRESENTER: SA Unions says South Australia has some of the nation's weakest penalties for employers who put the lives of their workers at risk. Tonight, we report on a mother who lost her son in a workplace accident and the battle to get the compensation the court awarded.
LEAH MACLENNAN, REPORTER: It's the phone call every parent dreads: that a child has died. And for Rose Marie Munzberg, that call came in the middle of what should've been the overseas trip of a lifetime.
ROSE-MARIE MUNZBERG, MOTHER: I got the news over there to say that Stuart had been killed and it was just something that you could not comprehend. We were staying in a little village, north of England, and I took off in the dark and wandered round. Ended up sitting in a church trying to work out why.
LEAH MACLENNAN: Less than two weeks before Christmas in 2005, Mrs Munzberg's 34 year old son Stuart Munzberg was working as a carpenter at a shopping centre in Pasadena. During a test of travelators at the work site, he fell, became entangled in the mechanism and was killed.
ROSE-MARIE MUNZBERG: It's had a tremendous reaction to all of us. I mean, everybody’s grieving in different ways. But I find it very, very hard. I still expect him to walk through that door and tell me about the day's events, you know, from work and that.
LEAH MACLENNAN: SafeWork SA took two companies to court over the death: Cox Constructions, the company that employed Stuart Munzberg and SSL Lifts, which was contracted by Cox to install the travelator. Cox Constructions attended court, and pleaded guilty to failing to provide a safe working environment, while SSL Lifts did not attend court or enter a plea.
SSL Lifts was found guilty of failing to take reasonable care to avoid adversely affecting the health or safety of a person through an act or omission at work. The company was fined $120,000 and was ordered to pay $10,000 compensation to the family. Cox Constructions was fined almost $60,000 and was also ordered to pay $10,000 to the Munzberg family.
ROSE-MARIE MUNZBERG: Very pleased that they've been found guilty. But, I think as far as the fines go, it is just an absolute pittance. You know, I feel, you know, that my son's life was worth zilch.
LEAH MACLENNAN: What makes things worse for Mrs Munzberg is that the court’s ordered the compensation to be paid in December, but she says she’s yet to receive a cent.
ROSE-MARIE MUNZBERG: Nothing has come forward and plus, I mean, the fact that the pittance that is offered is split between the two companies. You know, I mean the companies got fined separately, but the compensation is being split between them. But no, we haven't received anything.
LEAH MACLENNAN: According to court, Cox Constructions paid the fine and compensation on 18 February. The court expects compensation will be passed on to the Munzbergs in the next week. In the case of SSL Lifts, not a cent of the money has been paid.
Stateline attempted to contact SSL Lifts, but was told the company is no longer operating, and that the company's managing director, known in Australia as Jack Chung, has moved back to China, putting him out of the court's reach.
LEAH MACLENNAN: After her son's death, Rose Marie Munzberg met Andrea Madeley. She too had lost a son in an industrial accident five years ago, and has since started up the group VOID, or Voice of Industrial Death, to support families who have lost relatives in workplace deaths and to lobby for legislative change. Mrs Madeley believes it's essential to have laws that can target individuals rather than companies.
ANDREA MADELEY, VOID: I'd like to see director accountability at the top level, at any level. That's absolutely vital in my opinion. I don't believe it's fair or just that somebody can cause the death of another human being through negligence. And just simply walk away, hop on a plane and go to another country to avoid having to answer to those charges.
LEAH MACLENNAN: SafeWork SA's executive director Michelle Patterson says since Stuart Munzberg's death, laws have been altered to triple penalties for occupational health and safety offences. She says it’s also been made easier to pursue individual directors.
MICHELE PATTERSON, SAFEWORK SA: They have also introduced a particular reckless endangerment offence which attracts higher penalties again. And in addition to that, the Act has been clarified in relation to the responsibility of directors of companies, so that again it's more workable to be able to pursue individual directors when a corporation has offended.
LEAH MACLENNAN: But for Rose Marie Munzberg, it's too late for her or her son.
ROSE-MARIE MUNZBERG: We've been given a life sentence. I mean, our lives are have all changed dramatically, and, you know, we'll never get back to the way things were. And hopefully that a lot of families in the future don't have to go through the shocking things that we've been through.
IAN HENSCHKE: Leah MacLennan reporting with assistance from Paul Klaric.
What ashame Business Sa's Peter Vaughan wasnt inteviewed for the above story? He probaly would have blamed everybody else other than the Employer anyway!
SA Unions HAHAHAHA. How credible are they? NOT! The head of SA Unions was on the WorkCover board and is a close personal friend of Sandra De Poi. The ONLY reason she resigned was because she knew her position at the unions would be a laughing stock with the new legislation. Wake up ALL the unions have sold out! They couldnt give a shit what happens to injured workers and do these pathetic one off attacks and interest stories to keep you bludgers on side.
If as suggested above you are the same person that happens to be an employee of Workcover, may I suggest that you get on with doing your job of ensuring that injured workers are properly rehabilitated and placements for them to return to the workforce are available. Seems to me that you are the one who is bludging and rorting the system by playing on the internet when you should be working! Think about that one stupid!
No doubt Mark was a school yard Bully and has now found this blog to vent his spleen he would be proud to know he is now a Cyba Bully, well done Mark you,ve found your station in life.
Are you a Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant who wants to make a real Difference?
Then we have the job for you!!
Position Focus
· To successfully facilitate a return to pre-injury employment for injured workers.
· To successfully place clients in sustainable alternative employment when appropriate.
· To effectively achieve required outcomes and meet billing targets.
Skills & Competencies
· Ability to organise self and to effectively prioritise work
· Mediation, conflict resolution, and negotiation skills
· High level of interpersonal skills and ability to relate to clients from a variety of economic and cultural backgrounds
· A proactive approach to all aspects of work and effective problem solving
· Ability to achieve high quality customer outcomes
· Ability to be an effective team player and to help others when necessary
· Ability to work unsupervised and to take responsibility
· Ability to deliver reports within required time frames
· Ability to achieve targets
· Competent computer skills
Qualifications/Experience
Applicants must have a degree or graduate diploma in human resource management, nursing, social work, disability studies, rehabilitation counselling, or psychology, as prescribed for accreditation by WorkcoverSA.
If you have ever thought about working as a Rehabilitation Consultant and want to make a career change full training and support will be provided. Flexible working hours are offered and excellent remuneration.
All candidates will be required to provide a police clearance upon request.
Applications close, Friday, 20th March, 2009.
Marie Searle
General Manager
De Poi Consulting Pty Ltd
Suite D, 83 Fullarton Road
Kent Town SA 5067
E: msearle@depoiconsult.com
T: 08 8364 5990
http://www.seek.com.au/users/apply/index.ascx?Sequence=79&PageNumber=1&JobID=15084864
A REAL DIFFERENCE TO WHAT, SANDRA DE POI'S BANK BALANCE?????
Injured workers are bludgers, Workcover is a shrine of Honesty?
Though I am posting this as Anonymous, it won't be too difficult for Workcover to figure out who I am considering I'll also say I was one of the people who had their file stolen last year because of lack of security protocols by CRS.
Try this on for size you morons, I was injured at work in 1991 by a company that now no longer exists. At the time I was advised by Workcover that my claim had not been accepted regardless of the tests performed by a specialist and a medical examination which backed up my claim, hence I was left with no income support or medical treatment for the injury. Unable to perform my duties I was then sacked by the employer(not a Sec 58b) and spent the next 15months unemployed during one of Australia's worst recessions. Being a work related injury excluded me from unemployment benefits until I was again fit to work, months went by without any income whatsoever and I was forced to take the matter up with my local MP (Rod Sawford), surprisingly a week later I received a cheque for 4 weeks pay,( covering the time elapsed from the injury date till I was unlawfully sacked!) Then recently (2009) I had an IME one of many for my current permanent injury,( because previous ones obviously hadn't returned the results they wanted to hear, not that this one is likely too either!) And there it was on my case file in front of the doctor, the 1991 injury listed as accepted! For 18 years this has been kept secret from me, but no longer, the truth is now out! I have been advised to seek out a laywer, and I will be seeking the compensation I was denied back then and loss of income and pain and suffering for the period of both the injury and of unlawful unemployment with compound interest calculated for the last 18 years, Looks like EML made the wrong choice sending me one too many times for an IME ! What a cockup on their behalf, now I know the truth about that incident 18years ago!
Like someone once said if it's a lie, the truth will come out eventually! and it now has!
Think that Workcover is the workers friend or are all Holy? This case which I swear is true paints one of deceitfulness and incompetence. Someone now somehow MUST be made accountable for this treachery, I am going to tear into this like a pitbull and not let go, so I hope Workcover is reading, get ya useless lawyers ready guys, cause this will cost you big time one way or the other.
You watch Minter Ellison rip you and your lawyer to shreds. You watch them ensure your life is even made more hell. You watch them cost you a fortune in fighting for them.
They will make you pay until your last breath.
Workcover do not back down. They do not and will never accept defeat.
Your cause is a lost cause. Just accept it and move on with your life.
They are protected by the Labor party. They are a protected species.
If they are protected by the Labor Party then how is it that, Rod Sawford an ex Labor minister, was able to get me some monies from them for the injury, which was sighted by his administration and regarded as valid, so they would then have to fight the Federal Labor Party in the courts also.
But Like I said one way or the other, 18years of deceit adds up to one very disturbed and angry individual! Particularly when that individual is facing more of the same because of the lack of active rehabilitation. How can one get on with ones life?
I would fight for what is yours. Who is to say Labor will win the next election anyway. And if they did they would be sharing government with a heap of independants. Dont back down. This isnt the end of scrutinising of WorkCover in a long shot. In fact the SAJC scandal might just help the cause!
There are still plenty of barristers willing to take on WorkCover.
WorkCover do not win every fight and funnily enough the tribunal sides with injured workers when they have been dealt a hard blow by WorkCover not playing in a fair manner and within the spirit of the act.
The lawyers who turned up to the WorkCover rally and supported injured workers obviously have their mind sin the right places. Pity there was only a handful of them..
Posted by Fair go for injured workers at 3:28 PM, 12/3/2009
I would be surprised if Minter Ellison are involved in any civil action in relation to WorkCover. I believe their contract stipulates workers compensation issues. Johnston Winter Slattery or Gun and Davey would probaly be used.
SOUTH Australia and NSW are suffering from the country's highest jobless rates, while nationally unemployment has soared to 5.2 per cent.
Australian Bureau of Statistics employment data shows South Australia's unemployment rate rose from 5.6 to 5.8 per cent in February.
This is well above the national jobless rate, which has soared to 5.2 per cent - exceeding economists' expectations.
In New South Wales, the jobless rate rose from 5.5 to 5.8 per cent.
Victoria is not far behind at 5.6 per cent.
However all other states recorded jobless rates below the national average.
Nationally, 47,100 people lost their jobs in February.
What the pollies say
State Employment Minister Michael O’Brien said the state's participation rate remained healthy.
“Participation in the labour force is recognised as a sign of confidence in the state’s labour market, so it’s encouraging, in these difficult economic times, that South Australians are still showing that confidence,” he said.
“However we can naturally expect that our jobs figures will not be immune from the effects of the global financial crisis and the forward indicators are showing us that the outlook for the state’s labour market is expected to continue easing.”
State Opposition employment spokesman David Pisoni said the figures showed more than 47,800 South Australians were unemployed "with the state on the brink of the worst job figures under Premier Rann in seven years'.
Mr Pisoni said 1600 full-time jobs were lost in South Australia last month.
“South Australia’s jobless numbers are the worst since October 2002, just months after Premier Rann took office,” he said.
“Premier Rann cannot blame the global economic meltdown on the job losses.
“Seven years of boom economic times have been wasted with the Rann Government having no strategy to secure the jobs of South Australians.”
Come on April 1 and watch the figures jump even higher Good one Rann and Co, how will you hide those figures from the public?
The following quoted text is copied from above;
"The problem with injured workers is most of them become bludgers. They get so used to sitting around doing nothing, blaming back aches (like most people dont get them from time to time), depression, anxiety etc. and when you get used to it, it becomes your life. You an injured worker isnt a bludger when they return to work within 6 months and do everything they can to return to work, and in my time working in the system I have barely seen that.
Posted by Case Manager at 6:57 AM, 10/3/2009"
How very interesting, tell us Case Manager exactly how long have you been working in the system, more than a week, perhaps two? What did you do before this, sit on the Ab-Study smoking dope with your uni mates all night? Ever had an injury more that was more than a paper cut? Besides all that, you are NOT a case manager, the final part of your statement shows that no employer in their right mind would employ you to manage anything! Your grasp of the English language is extremely poor and it shows in the construction of your statement like this "You an injured worker isnt a bludger when they return to work" very very poor english! If by some strange twist of fate you are in fact a case manager, then this shows exactly why injured workers haven't been rehabilitated and returned to work! So I guess the worker isn't to blame but rather the stoned hill-billy Case Managers like yourself !
Posted by Employer jacked off with EML's poor excuses! at 1:07 AM, 13/3/2009
yep, i reckon a case manager did write that comment. have you ever done a 107 and retrieved your file? they are pretty well full of mistakes and bad english. i am a truck driver and can do better.
In Australia, feral animals typically have few natural predators or fatal diseases and some have high reproductive rates. As a result, their populations have not naturally diminished and they can multiply rapidly if conditions are favourable.
The only reason fraudster workers who fake injuries such as the ones who post on this blog are upset, is because Employers Mutual dont sit back and believe their bullshit excuses and fake medical certificates from piss poor of an excuse doctors. Employers Mutual has the full support of WorkCover and Business SA who represent employers. Fraudster workers have NO-ONE, even the unions have sold you out!
Timothy Ruttiger v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company
Tim Ruttiger sustained a documented and reported on-the-job injury while carrying a heavy load of material. He went to the hospital for treatment that same day, and there were witness statements taken. There was no legitimate question what happened, when it happened, and how. Nevertheless, Texas Mutual denied his claim, and asserted that no injury had occurred. They even made up a story about Tim getting hurt playing softball to justify their denial. Unfortunately, they never spoke to Tim or his co-workers before they denied his claim. Tim needed surgery for the hernia he suffered, but Texas Mutual delayed payment for months, until they finally conceded that Tim had suffered an injury at work. A Galveston state court jury found Texas Mutual to have acted in bad faith, and awarded almost $400,000 in damages.
EML are doing a great job huh? That's why in 2 years they have blown the unfunded liability out another $400 million almost doubling the cost to the public and employers that it was in 2006.
Unfunded Liability
1987-2006 = $600million
2006 -2008 (EML) $1,000 million,
Yep that's real good work!
Mate your a bloody Idiot!
How about putting your real full name to your comments, so that any genuinely injured worker can take you to court on defamation charges. Also so Workcover can fine you $10,000 for breaking the law concerning the abuse of injured workers.
I wonder why WorkCover still have on their website that Thompson was convicted. As a corporation they obviously have no shame.
I heard in Thompson's matter their main witness committed perjury, their WorkCover investigator Ian Basey instructed the contracted investigator Mark Delaney not to provide evidence to WorkCover. Therefore the prosecution did not even have all of the evidence before them when making decisions to prosecute.
They spent around $70,000 on a dud doctor to write a report when he had never even seen Thompson.
They flew another quacko doctor out from the United Kingdom to give evidence for the day and he had never seen Thompson either.
Mark Faggotter the WorkCover investigator also withheld evidence throughout the trial. Labelled as an Ex-Cop one wonders where he learnt some of his dirty tricks and why he was no longer on the job.
Their solicitor Kerry Colmer who was employed by Johnson Winter and Slattery also admitted to deliberately withholding evidence trhoughout the trial.
Now put all that together with all of the media hype that Thompson raised in the first place with his MP and its obvious WorkCover went all out with all of their dirty tricks to do him over.
Its obvious they prosecuted him in bad faith and also stopping his income maintenance unlawfully was also in bad faith.
It will be interesting to see the judgment in his appeal to the Full Court.
Obviously coments about Thomson are in bad faith knowing that he was inosent, likely to win his apeal and that the investigaters, soliciters and employes hid the evidence from him to bring about an unfair trial.
Just goes to show what lengths they will go to in order to bully people and keep everything sweet in the mediar.
I love it how the bludgers on here blame EVERYONE but themselves for the unfunded liability.
The fact is there is a culture of RORTING among WorkCover receipients, and these bludgers are costing employers - people who have worked DAMN HARD to start and maintain a business - a fortune.
You disgusting, repulsive people who sponge off others should get off your lazy arses and get back to work and quit using minor problems as and excuse not to work! There are people out there born with disabilities and missing limbs who are working, SO CAN YOU! Quit using excuses you bludgers!
Posted by Thom Brown, hardworking employer at 1:24 PM, 15/3/2009
Sleep in WorkCover bludgers. EML has staff meetings on Monday mornings.
Wake up WorkCover Bludgers
I love it how the bludgers on here blame EVERYONE but themselves for the unfunded liability.
Well I wonder who wants injured workers to stay on the system so they can keep their jobs?
Injured workers would rather be paid out and off the system than being stuck on weekly income maintenance which for many supporting parents is often less than unemployment benefits.
The fact is there is a culture of RORTING among WorkCover receipients, and these bludgers are costing employers - people who have worked DAMN HARD to start and maintain a business - a fortune.
Rorting by injured workers?
Did you come down in the last shower?
When was the last time an injured worker got paid a Christmas bonus. You muts have rocks in your head to suggest anyone would want to be stuck on WorkCover.
Most injured workers have worked damn hard for their employers only to be dropped once they are injured.
If their employers put more effort in and were more safety conscious and not so profit driven maybe they would not be injured in the first place.
You disgusting, repulsive people who sponge off others should get off your lazy arses and get back to work and quit using minor problems as and excuse not to work.
Hmmm sponge?
lazy arses?
get back to work?
Hmm ...wonder if you ever done a productivity report on an injured worker?
THey spend more of their time answering to the whims of EML, WorkCover and the endless litigation just to keep their income coming in and waiting in doctors roooms for hours and hours on end, travelling for hours on end to appointments, visitng rehab constulants, waiting for rehab consultants, visiting unemployment centres to find jobs for less capable people. Hmmm must be one hell of a task for an injured worker to meet all of those demands especially being on WorkCover on heavy medication and also suffering an injury.
There are people out there born with disabilities and missing limbs who are working, SO CAN YOU! Quit using excuses you bludgers!
Obviously you are hoping to get recruited as a claims manager with an attitude like yours.
Tough luck Thom Brown. You know little about the system.
WorkCover and EML depend on bludgers to keep their jobs. No bludgers on WorkCover means no work and then no jobs. Thing is you need to be injured to be on WorkCover so in reality there are no real bludgers- just people stuck on the system that can not get off because WorkCover are too tight arse to give redemptions.
Posted by injured and narced at 10:44 PM, 15/3/2009
Gotta love the excuses. 'IM ALLOWED TO BE A BLUDGER BECAUSE IT KEEPS EML AND WORKCOVER EMPLOYED".
Get a life you feral. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE why someone has to sit on WorkCover and get a "benefit" for over 6 months. I see time and time again people with back aches and depression and anxiety sit on WorkCover for years as an excuse NOT TO WORK.
You people are absolutely pathetic. You will use any excuse in the book NOT TO WORK.
I have been looking at this site for some time as my husband had a work accident two years ago. Unfortuantly he lost his index finger using an upright grinder. He went to work about 3 months. One of our "greek" neighbours is on workcover would you believe with a similar injury to my husbands but on the other hand. He worked at coca cola. His injury was about 5 years ago and he is still not gone back to work. I feel he has used his accident as an early retirement (55 years old) and I can tell you he is enjoying every bit. I just cant work out what his problem is other than the easy way out. As I have said i have been keeping an eye out on this site and now there are some employers speaking out has made me write about our experience.
Kay
AUSTRALIA Post executives are enjoying lucrative cash bonuses while their injured workers unfairly get compensation claims rejected, a union says.
The Communications Electrical and Plumbing Union (CEPU) believes lucrative bonuses at Australia Post have led to a culture in which managers deny injured workers their entitlements.
"There are literally hundreds of people that are caught up in this,'' CEPU NSW secretary Jim Metcher said in Canberra.
"It needs to stop now.''
Mr Metcher, who is meeting with federal Communications Minister Stephen Conroy today, said Australia Post pressured doctors into writing medical reports dismissive of injury claims.
"That ... results in workers actually being sacked for no reason other than injuring themselves in the workplace,'' he said.
The Government needed to crack down on companies rewarding executives who slash injury management costs, he said.
"Rewards and pay bonuses for executives who rort workers of their entitlements and personal safety is simply not on.''
Long-serving Australia Post employee Gail Seaton said she was diagnosed with a painful repetitive strain injury - epicondylitis - by her GP, but a company-appointed specialist subsequently denied the condition was still active.
She said Australia Post used the specialist's evidence to deny her compensation claim and then forced her out of her job because she could not perform her duties.
As a result, she was forced to use all her sick and long service leave entitlements.
"It has caused me and my family a lot of hardship, a lot of stress, and it has been very sad,'' Ms Seaton said.
"I wish Australia Post would reconsider and send me back to work, take me back to work, because I want to go back to work.''
SA unions would are looking for injured workers who are prepared to speak publicly about the manner in the way the system has badly treated them. If there are injured workers that would like to discuss with SA Unions the problems that they have/are experiancing with Workcover - EML then please email or contact SA Unions on saunions@saunions.org.au or 82792222 and speak to Janet Giles
The other day i was out for a walk when this hotted up late model VZ commodore flew past me. What pissed me off about this young driver with his baseball cap on backwards like all the young stupid drivers that think they look so cool this way, but in reality look like cloned complete dickheads, was his number plate, COMPO1. This is the kind of crap that gives genuinely injured workers a bad rap. It doesn't take much to workout who paid for the car and this smartass was flaunting it for the whole world to see! Clearly this is a case of a sham, I could imagine any genuinely injured worker being so stupid. The pitiful sec43s have to cover your injury for a lifetime, but not this wanker, He would be the kind that would go back to his workplace to show his workmates his new car, then brag how it didn't cost him a cent, this kind of behaviour makes me wanna puke!
Posted by Sick & tired of being blamed at 2:34 AM, 17/3/2009
A GARIBALDI food poisoning epidemic survivor facing an anxious wait for a life-saving transplant still has not been compensated, a court has heard.
Fourteen years after she and 22 other children were left with permanent health problems from eating contaminated metwurst, Kelly Owen is yet to receive any compensation because of a dispute with a major insurer over the payout amount.
Another child, four-year old Nikki Robinson, died after contracting haemourylitic syndrome from the e-coli contaminated smallgoods.
Ms Owen, now 21, underwent a kidney transplant in recent months but her lawyer John Doherty today told the District Court the outcome was poor and her health was in "dire straits".
"Kelly Owen has recently had a kidney transplant donated by her father - that has failed and she is in an altogether bad way," Mr Doherty said.
"I am nervous that I have a client who could die and we have proceedings that were issued in 1997 or 1998."
Ms Owen's case and a number of others are set to go to trial over a dispute between the plaintiffs and Garibaldi's insurer, QBE Insurance, over how much compensation should be paid.
Mr Doherty said there was a possibility Ms Owen's liver could also fail, leaving her in need to a double transplant for survival.
Another of Mr Doherty's clients, Scott Granton, was also experiencing ongoing serious health problems, the court heard.
The court has previously heard a number of Garibaldi survivors will need organ transplants as they grow older, including teenager Nick De Pasquale.
The cases were set down for a further directions hearing in July, before a 10-day trial listed for October.
The former owners of Garibaldi, Luciano and Philip Marchi, were fined $10,000 each in the Supreme Court in 1997 and the company went into liquidation.
The pair was charged with manslaughter but former Director of Public Prosecutions Paul Rofe QC elected to drop the criminal charges.
Comments cannot be published for legal reasons
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two things strike me with this story, one being how the company was only fined $10,000 after causing death and lifelong problems for many others. #2 The Advertisers line of comments cannot be published for legal reasons, If there are legal reasons for not publishing comments then what is this story doing in the press in the first place? The story after all is nothing more than the comments of The Advertiser itself! So Often I see this when there is a story that they know will likely implicate injustice and corruption of officials, should the public be allowed a say in the matter. It's Just another of Rann's schemes to protect the guilty and punish the innocent!
130week reviews are now in full swing and even if you haven't returned to work as laid out in the pamphlets outcome senarios sent to you earlier this year. But have at some stage done any work whatsoever even if it was only for one hour since your injury, we will be stopping your payments after 4 weeks not 13 as written in the information booklet and also on the Workcover website! We consider this to be a viable "Return to Work" Why?
Because we are arseholes who hate all injured workers and believe they deserve nothing, and so are executing these changes under "our own" interpretation rather than the legislation! Because we hold all the cards and there is nothing you bludgers can do about it!
3 Cheers for Rann, Depoi and the fat, ugly women's feminist movement with a chip on their shoulder!
Posted by Male hating Lesbian EML Team Leader! at 9:57 PM, 18/5/2009
What is new?
Bruce Carter made claim that WorkCover was working within the spirit of the Act some time ago.
No mention about stopping injured workers income maintenance unlawfully and otherwise than in accordance with the act.
Nothing about the conflict of interest in WorkCover in deep pocketing injured workers while their pay is stopped and running up their legal bills for years while they are not getting paid.
Nothing about the dispute system which lets down injured workers time and time again.
And what of the employers being prosecuted?
Well workcover do not want to bite the hand that feeds them.
And who prosecutes Workcover when they fail to disclose documents under 107B?
And who prosecutes Workcover investigators for making false and misleading statements to medicos ?
And who prosecutes Workcover when their employees commit offences of Public office?
Why nobody thats who -
Perhaps its time we had an ICAC, perhaps then we would have some inroads into the corruption within government ranks instead of worrying about a few lads out riding their bikes on weekends.
Big Kev's fix o'meter on Adelaide now (http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/feature/splash/1,,5013098,00.html#vote-now-form), Last night has a comments section, all the comments that got posted were about the failure to cover injured workers and taking away their rights, nothing to do with the topics of the actuall page, now I see the comments link and comments posted have been pulled, state censorship in action, bad feedback gets pulled.
it's enough to make a fly sick.. the new aristocracy.. i just want my life back, not a legal shit fight.. pay this one, pay that one.. legislation ignored.. sickening & un-Australian !
