Description
A forum for interaction about Workcover South Australia and the experiences of Injured Workers.
My Links
»
»
»
»
»
|
WIRC March Newsletter
Untitled Comment
As is my practice, I have sent the printed newsletter out yesterday, hence the date at the bottom of this newsletter is yesterday's date.
I will however today print the media release plus an article from Phil M article and the articles from Hansard mail that out.
Good morning,
I am sorry that I have not written to each of you in such a long while, for those who don’t know I have spent the last few weeks being quite ill, and now I am making slow but steady progress back to health.
My doctors are allowing me to return to the office a few hours each day, so I am hoping that you will understand if I am not able to return calls as I would normally do.
They continue to stress to me not to allow myself to become overly tired.
So I am following their direction, as the negative side is if I don’t I may well end up back in hospital.
Over the last few weeks I have discovered again just how vulnerable a person can be when all is not right within their world. I have though been very fortunate with the amount of care and support I have received.
The only reminder I have for you at this stage is for International Day of Mourning which is coming up on the 27th April starting at 12.30pm.
This year we will be planting 15 memorial trees, 13 for the workplace fatals, 1 for suicides due to workplace or WorkCover stress and 1 tree for those who have lost their lives due to workplace illness or disease.
I will send out the full details later in April.
For now again, I thank you for your tolerance and understanding.
Rosemary
29th March ‘07
"War" has been declared!
It is my belief that yesterday Minister Wright did little more than declare war in regard to the injured workers of South Australia.
He and he alone has been the Minister for WorkCover since 2002.
He and he alone has called for review after review.
He and he alone has allowed the current WorkCover Board to stay locked away behind closed doors, so we the people of South Australia could not have any knowledge of what was going on.
This Minister has allowed the WorkCover Board to gift away the Employee Advocate Unit to SA Union.
This Minister has allowed the RISE Unit to be gifted away to the Rehab providers.
And now this Minister wants to cut away more of the lifeline back to normal life that every employer pays for and every injured worker has right to under the Act.
Minister Wright should do the "RIGHT" thing and admit that he has allowed the WorkCover Corporation to decay under his leadership.
If he is looking for a place to point the finger of blame, then he need only go to the nearest mirror and point it at himself.
Then we move to Treasurer Foley, who has had a represntative atttend the WorkCover Board meetings, so he has know all along just what a mess WorkCover is in.
And still they support the people who sit on the WorkCover Board.
Whilst those who provided services to the WorkCover system sit on the WorkCover Board, it is interesting to note that there is not 1 injured worker on the WorkCover Board to represent the injured workers of South Australia.
I have been asked many times over the last 12 months how close is WorkCover to collapse, my answer has always been the same.
It is very close.
Now that Minister Wright has declared war, my guess is the time frame for the collpase is almost at an end.
For those of you who are injured workers and Members of a union, don't expect that your union will speak out.
Janet Giles will not allow any disention whilst she sits on the WorkCover Board and while SA Union get a free gift of funds to run the Mickey Mouse Advocate Unit.
The best thing each of you can do is write weekly to your member of Parliament, demand support from your local member for all the current injured workers, and for all future injured workers.
Write to premier Rann and demand a full and open public investigation into the mis-management of WorkCover from the Minister down to the current CEO.
Invite them to your home, so as they can see what your life is like as an injured worker.
Remember one very important thing. Minister Wright is no more than a highly paid PUBLIC SERVANT.
You are his boss, not the other way around.
Rosemary
Article from Phil M
Here is an excellent example of how WorkCover use their spin doctors to manipulate the figures in order to confuse the argument and cover up their inept management of the scheme.
This statement is taken off of the latest press release announcing the third review into WorkCover under the current Board and Management, and I quote;
In 2005-06, there were 22,930 claims incurred by workers employed by registered employers and 14,064 claims by workers employed by self-insurers (37,465 in total).
§ 79 per cent of WorkCover claimants do not have any lost time from work (less than two weeks)
§ 49 per cent of WorkCover claimants return to work within 1 month
§ 71 per cent of WorkCover claimants return to work within 3 months
§ Out of every 100 injured workers, 82 leave the Scheme within 12 months.
According to the WorkCover spin doctors, 79 percent of WorkCover Claims (29600) don’t actually go onto income Maintenance thus never experience the malaise that is WorkCover leaving 7900 actually going onto income maintenance after suffering a workplace injury.
The next line however suggests that 49 percent return to work within 1 Month. So is that 49 percent of 37465 (18357) that are on compo for up to one month? That can’t be right if only 7900 go past 2 weeks. So it must be 49 percent of the 7900 which would suggest just 3800 are still on WorkCover after 1 month? That is an actual return to work rate of 90 percent in just 1 month!
Then what does the 71 percent of claimants return to work within 3 months represent? 71 percent of all WorkCover claims are on compo for up to 3 months? A considered guess would suggest that 71 percent of the 3800 are back at work within 3 months. That would leave 1100 on WorkCover after 3 months. A return to work rate of 97 percent in less than 3 Months.
Now the last line, even a considered guess would struggle to figure out what spin is being applied here. However, if we look to the annual reports of times past, we would realise that less than .75 percent of people are severely injured at work and remain on benefits after 12 months. If we extrapolate that from our starting point we would have about 280 on benefits after 12 months. Now if we run the 82 percent over the 1100, we would have 225 still on benefits after 1 year: Close enough! That represents a return to Work rate of 99 Percent in 12 Months.
Now if the Act is to going to be changed to deny injured workers benefits after 24 months, who are they out to get?
Putting this into perspective. If the 29600 that don’t actually go onto income maintenance spend ONE HOUR more in the hospital queue, it is equivalent to 16 workers remaining on income maintenance for an entire year.
Michael Wright, Stop with the spin and listen to the facts! It is not the Act that needs to be changed, it is the Actions of WorkCover.
Phil Moir
Hansard
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION SCHEME\TOC\2\SOUTH AUSTRALIAN WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION SCHEME
29 March 2007
The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT (Minister for Industrial Relations): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.
Leave granted.
The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: The South Australian Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme was established under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986. The scheme commenced in September 1987 with the establishment of the WorkCover Corporation, which administers the scheme. The objectives of the scheme remain unaltered: to fairly balance the need to ensure that injured workers have the necessary financial, medical and other support to assist their recovery and safe return to work, with the requirement that the cost of the scheme to employers be reasonable and affordable.
The scheme provides injured South Australian workers with greater entitlements than other schemes. Since its inception 20 years ago, the scheme has been modified from time to time. However, the fundamental structure of the scheme and how it delivers its twin objectives in South Australia's changing social and economic environment has not been reassessed. Over a number of years, on important indicators, including return to work rates for injured workers, the level of employer levies and actuarial forecasts, the scheme has been under performing.
Significant changes to the management of the scheme commissioned and/or supported by the government, including the appointment of a new WorkCover board, have assisted in identifying the true financial position and performance of the scheme. The board has taken significant steps to improve the management of the scheme, including:
×refocussing the organisation on the primary objective of achieving a timely and sustainable return to work;
×an urgent focus on the management and resolution of long‑term claims; and
×strengthening the management of claims by focusing on the delivery of outcomes.
This approach has seen the appointment of a proven claims agent, Employer's Mutual, as the sole claims agent for the scheme. The appointment of a principal legal adviser in Minter Ellison is also part of the board's approach to improve management of the scheme.
#23 The actuarial evaluation of WorkCover's return to work performance to 30 June 2006 indicated a future liability of $694 million. The evaluation provided to the board indicated that, without rapid and significant improvement in return to work rates, the scheme could expect the funding position to worsen by up to $300 million in the next one to two years. Based on industry‑collected statistics for 2005‑06, the return to work rate in South Australia, at 78 per cent, was the lowest of the Australian jurisdictions and compares with the national average of 87 per cent.
The board has reviewed other rehabilitation and compensation schemes in Australia and New Zealand to gauge where the South Australian legislation may be out of alignment, particularly where there is evidence of better return to work performance. In response, the WorkCover board has developed proposals for legislative change to enable the scheme to improve the return to work rate in South Australia, to restructure the levy rates to reduce cross‑subsidisation of higher risk industry by lower risk industry, to minimise legal costs through disputation and to reduce disputes over opinions of medical experts. The proposals have been predicated on the view that substantial increases in the return to work rate can be achieved by the effective combination of:
×strong claims management, including rehabilitation services and employment placement, and
×properly timed and targeted financial disincentives for injured workers who have capacity to return to work.
The proposed changes also deal with other matters which, in the board's view, deter a return to work, for example dispute procedures and in particular disputes over medical issues. The board has proposed a number of significant changes:
×reducing initial weekly income maintenance payments to injured workers—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Visitors in the gallery are advised that no taking of photographs is permitted. Minister for Industrial Relations.
The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: —and further reducing those payments after 13 weeks to 75 per cent of the worker's average weekly payments;
×changing the two‑year work capacity review to limit income maintenance to an eligible injured worker to a maximum of 75 per cent of the worker's average weekly earnings wage and to cease income maintenance to workers who have not returned to work to their assessed capacity;
×capping entitlements to medical expenses to 12 months after cessation of income maintenance;
×increasing the maximum payment to injured workers for non‑economic loss from $219 425 to $363 660;
×removing arbitration and appeals to the full bench of the Workers Compensation Tribunal as part of an expedited dispute resolution procedure and allowing appeals to the Supreme Court on matters of law only and by leave of the court;
×appointing independent medical panels in lieu of the tribunal to make final and binding determinations about disputes over medical questions, including the nature of the injury, the capacity for work, assessment of suitable employment, assessment of the degree of permanent impairment and loss;
×limiting solicitors' capacity to charge injured workers and making solicitors personally liable for costs incurred as a result of fault or failure by the solicitor;
×ceasing income maintenance until disputes are resolved with arrears and interest paid to the worker where the dispute is resolved in favour of the worker;
×decreasing the period of notice required to an injured worker over the cessation of income maintenance in the first year of the claim period;
×increasing the period of notice required—
Members interjecting:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the minister.
The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT:—to an injured worker over the cessation of income maintenance in the second and subsequent years of the claim period;
×raising the 7.5 per cent cap to 15 per cent to limit the cross‑subsidisation of higher risk industries by lower risk industries;
#24×increasing the minimum levy from $50 to $200 and removing the requirement on employers to register and pay the levy where annual employee remuneration is less than $10 000;
×requiring the levy to be paid in advance, not in arrears; and
×strengthening controls over participation as a self‑insurer where businesses have restructured corporate arrangements or otherwise downsized.
The board has also identified a number of other aspects of the legislation that it considers would benefit from some adjustment. The government recognises that substantial changes to the scheme are required to ensure the sustainability of the scheme and its capacity to meet one of its principal objectives: to assist injured workers to return to work.
The ongoing sustainability of the scheme is dependent on an urgent reduction of the unfunded liability. The government also recognises that the continued economic competitiveness of the state requires changes to the scheme to reduce cost to employers through a reduction in levy rates. The changes proposed by the WorkCover Board are far reaching and, if adopted, will have a major impact on the social and economic fabric of South Australia. Any changes to the scheme should therefore be determined having regard to the following objectives:
1. Injured workers should receive fair and equitable financial and other support that should be delivered efficiently and equitably and enable the earliest possible return to work.
2. The average employer levy rate should be reduced and contained within the range of 2.25 per cent to 2.75 per cent by 1 July 2009.
3. The scheme should be fully funded as soon as practicable having regard to the above objectives.
The WorkCover Board proposals fundamentally alter the relationship between the two objectives of the scheme, namely, the support of injured workers and the cost of the scheme to employers. The proposals also significantly impact on the obligation of employers, including self‑insured employers. The WorkCover Board's proposals also affect the role and involvement of other contributors to the operation of the scheme, in particular, the medical and legal professions.
The government has formed a preliminary view about a number of the proposals for change. In particular, the establishment of medical panels and streamlining the dispute resolution process appear to have merit and, subject to further deliberation, the government is inclined to favour this approach. Proposals that involve a significant reduction in entitlements to injured workers, including exclusion from the scheme altogether and proposals which increase levy rates for some industry groups by up to 100 per cent, necessarily require careful consideration and extensive consultation with interested parties. This will require consideration of available empirical data, including an assessment of return to work rates that any proposed changes could reasonably deliver, an actuarial evaluation of the proposals, and consideration of any modifications or alternatives to the proposed changes.
The government, with the support of the Chairman of the WorkCover Board, Mr Bruce Carter, intends to commission appropriately qualified and independent experts to review and report on the proposals of the WorkCover Board, to consult with employee and employer organisations and to make recommendations to the government about the adoption of the proposals and any modifications or alternatives to those proposals. The independent experts will also be required to examine the effectiveness of incentives for employers to reduce the incidence of injuries, illness and claims, and achieve the effective rehabilitation and return to work of injured and ill workers.
The independent experts will be authorised to commission relevant actuarial evaluations and any necessary social or economic impact assessments required to properly inform its deliberations and those of the government.
#25The review may invite written submissions from the public and other interested parties at its discretion. The review will be directed towards achieving the three objectives referred to above relating to fairness and equity and early return to work for injured workers, funding and reducing levy rates.
The independent experts selected by the government and agreed by the Chairman of the WorkCover Board to undertake the inquiry are Mr Alan Clayton and Mr John Walsh. Mr Clayton is a highly credentialled, independent research consultant working in accident compensation and injury prevention, who was appointed in November last year to review the Tasmanian workers compensation scheme. Mr Walsh, who is a partner at Price Waterhouse Coopers, New South Wales, will assist Mr Clayton. Mr Walsh is the statutory actuary to the New South Wales Workers Compensation Authority, and also advises private sector insurers and the New South Wales Motor Accident Authority and was named Australia's actuary of the year in 2001. The review by the independent experts, including the consultation phase, is expected to be completed by 30 November 2007. The government anticipates a legislative timetable commencing in early 2008, with legislation to be operational by 1 July 2008.
Members interjecting:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
WRIGHT, Hon. M.J., NO CONFIDENCE , NO CONFIDENCE MOTION
29 March 2007
The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Leader of the Opposition): I move:
That this house has no confidence in the Minister for Industrial Relations for his incompetent oversight of WorkCover, and calls on him to resign.
In moving the motion, there are one billion reasons to sack Michael Wright, and the one billion reasons are the unfunded liability in WorkCover. It is his unfunded WorkCover; he has delivered it. He has had five years. This is all Michael Wright; it is all him. WorkCover and WorkCover's unfunded liability are ultimately his baby. He has delivered an unfunded liability from $67 million in 2002 to $1 billion in the next two years. We know that because the board and the government today released a report announcing their review. From the report—which the government has had now for five months, the report given to the government in November—we now know that:
The scheme could expect further deterioration of its funding position by up to $300 million in the next one or two years. Such an increase would push WorkCover's unfunded liability above the $1 billion mark.
#26So Michael Wright is the $1 billion man for this government. After five years, this is his legacy. Do not forget, this is Michael Wright's WorkCover by his design. It is his CEO, his board chair, his claim agents, his lawyers and his unfunded liability, and therefore it should be his sacking. There is no doubt about that. It is an outrage that South Australia has an unfunded liability approaching $1 billion. It is an outrage that South Australia has the worst unfunded liability in Australia and it is an outrage that we have the worst scheme and the highest levy rates. Even your own CEO is saying that, after five years under your ministership and leadership (or lack of leadership), what we have delivered for South Australia is the worst WorkCover scheme in Australia. That is what your CEO is saying on the front page of The Advertiser. That is your legacy—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the leader that remarks must be addressed to the chair and the minister must be referred to by his title all the time.
The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Thank you, Madam Chair. It is the minister's legacy to South Australia, and that is why minister Wright should create history and be the first male Rann minister to be sacked. It would bring some gender balance to ministerial sackings. Why did the government announce a review today? There are two reasons for the government's announcing the review today. First, a new unfunded liability figure is due out this afternoon. We have just had a six page, 15‑minute ministerial statement by the minister, who did not have the guts to say, `And guess what, the unfunded liability is going to get worse'. Do members know why he did not have the guts to say that? Because he is going to get his chairman to sneak out at 4 or 5 o'clock this afternoon to announce a worse figure. If he is announcing the review, why can the minister not tell the parliament what the new figure is? Why is it that he comes in here with a six page, 15‑minute ministerial statement and does not have the courtesy to tell us that the unfunded liability has increased?
We will get that information this afternoon when the media has all gone. That is the how the minister operates in relation to this particular issue. The second point is that the government has announced it today with a time frame to push all the bad news for workers and the union movement past the federal election campaign. It was only this week that all Labor members were in the house wearing their orange badges all about WorkChoices and crying crocodile tears about WorkChoices. It is even using taxpayers' funds through the Industrial Relations Commission to conduct a report prior to the federal election. Then, the very next day, the government says that it will announce a review so that it can cut the guts out of workers' benefits and it will announce that after the federal election. That is what this is about.
This minister has had this report since November, that is, for four or five months. They could have made any announcement they wished but, no, the minister has said, `We will have a review and we'll announce the changes well past the federal election.' Let us just go through the announcement. The minister says that it is coinciding with 20 years of the operation. That is rubbish. It is coinciding with another bad unfunded liability announcement this afternoon and a federal election in five or six months. Then the minister's press release talks about three key issues with WorkCover. It talks about the fact that injured workers should receive fair financial and other support. It talks about the average employer levy rate being between 2.2 and 2.5 per cent, and states that the scheme should be fully funded.
#27 Why is that important now? Why haven't those three points been important to the minister over the last five years? Why is it we have delayed any action to do with those points until now? The only reason the minister is acting now is that he knows that he has a crisis on his hands, because he is going to go down in history as the minister who delivered to South Australia an unfunded liability of $1 billion in relation to the WorkCover scheme.
The press release says that the government is committed to maintaining the best and fairest workers compensation scheme. Minister, even your own CEO says that you do not have the best, you are not maintaining the best and, in fact, your CEO says that you have delivered the worst WorkCover scheme in Australia. Then the minister makes this fantastic observation of the WorkCover scheme—five years and he finally gets to this observation:
What is obvious to everyone is that sustainability of the scheme is dependent on an urgent reduction of the unfunded liability.
He is a genius! For five years—over a hundred questions and over 50 media releases—we have asked the minister about the unfunded liability and there has been absolutely no action. Minister Wright was sacked from his transport portfolio, sacked from his gambling portfolio, sacked from the water portfolio, and it is my view that he should be sacked from the WorkCover portfolio. He is the one who has had control of this portfolio now for five years. He got rid of the CEO and left the organisation without a CEO for nearly a year. He hand‑picked the current board members, he selected the chief executive, he put in his own case managers, he put in his owner lawyers, and what he has delivered is an unfunded liability of $1 billion.
I say to the minister that if it is obvious now that sustainability of the scheme is dependent on the reduction of the unfunded liability, why wasn't it obvious to you when the unfunded liability went from $67 million to $100 million to $200 million to $300 million, right up to $694 million? Why did it not become obvious to you when it went up on each and every occasion? Why is it only now that you are deciding to act after five years? There are people sitting on the back bench who have been sacked out of the ministry for far less offence than you have done to this state and to the WorkCover scheme.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the Leader of the Opposition not to address the minister directly.
The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The current situation is this: the unfunded liability was about $67 million when the former government left office; then in June 2002, $192 million; June 2003, $590 million—no action then by the minister; June 2005, $647 million—no action then by the minister; and then in June 2006, $694 million in June 2006 and no action then by the minister. We all remember, of course, the $694 million figure snuck out on the Friday night of an AFL grand final, just like they are doing again with the unfunded liability announcement this afternoon.
South Australia has the highest WorkCover levy rate in Australia, at 3 per cent. Queensland pays 1.2 per cent, Victoria pays 1.62 per cent and New South Wales pays only 2.17 per cent. As the minister would know, in terms of the funding ratio, South Australia is the worst. Our funding ratio on the scheme is 65 per cent, New South Wales is 90 per cent, Western Australia is 125 per cent and Victoria is 119 per cent. So, clearly, the minister is aware that the scheme in South Australia is the worst in Australia and he has done nothing about it for nearly five years.
The trouble with the minister is that he has been trying to walk both sides of the street. As a former minister for transport, he should know that is dangerous. He has been running around to all his union mates, the donors to the Labor Party, saying, `Don't worry, we won't change the scheme, we won't cut the benefits.' We remember those famous radio interviews with Nick Thredgold, President of SA Unions, when asked on the radio whether they had obtained a commitment out of the government that there will be no cut to benefits.
#28We have sent for the notes and quotes but they have not come up yet.The President of SA Unions said:
We've got the commitment from the appropriate Minister and that's Michael Wright—yes!
He continued:
My understanding is that we have verbal commitments from the Minister that employee entitlements will not be cut. . . Michael Wright is a man of his word [and] we are confident that the commitment we've been given will hold up.
It is pretty obvious that Michael Wright's commitment to the union movement has absolutely been cut adrift by the Treasurer through that famous speech in December just before Christmas when the Treasurer let the cat out of the bag to undermine the minister publicly about changes to workers' entitlements. At the same time, the minister was talking to industry groups. What was he telling industry groups at the same time as he was talking to the union movement? The Motor Trade Association let that cat out of the bag in its latest magazine when its president said:
The Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Michael Wright MP, subsequently met with us and provided a strong reassurance that changes to WorkCover were on the way and that the MTA would be consulted on these changes.
He tells his union mates, `Don't worry. There will be absolutely no change' and he tells the industry groups that there will be change. He has tried to work both sides of the street.
The opposition has been raising this issue since June 2002. We remember the $600 000 extra cost to WorkCover because of the first review that the minister did on coming to government. The minister said he did not like reviews. He got the WorkCover Board to have a review. They spent over $600 000 on the review back in 2002. As I said, since 2002, we have asked nearly 100 questions on WorkCover, and we have not received answers, but we have certainly asked questions in order to bring this to the attention of the minister.
So, the minister has had fair warning in our view—100 questions, five years of probing, by the opposition. The minister should have been aware of what was happening. The only constant in this whole exercise is the minister. We have the same essential legislation; there has been no major rewrite of the act under this government. We have the same minister. We have a different CEO, a different board, different claim agents and different lawyers, all delivered by the minister, and what has he delivered? An unfunded liability of $1 billion.
If it was so urgent for the government, why is it delaying it until after the federal election? Why did it not make a decision in the past four months to bring in the changes it wants? We have the highest levy rates in Australia. The CEO maintains that it is the worst scheme in Australia. My view, and that of the opposition, is that the Premier has sacked him from the transport, gambling and water portfolios. He should sack him as the minister for WorkCover.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
The Hon. M.D. RANN The Hon. M.D. RANN (Premier): There is a certain repetitive feel about this.
Members interjecting:
The Hon. M.D. RANN: Are you going to listen? Are you going to pay me the same courtesy I paid you of sitting here in silence listening to what sounded like an overwrought performance by someone who spewed forth figures? We know that there are only two figures on his mind today—and I will talk about that in a minute. On the last day of every session, we know that oppositions do this. What happened on the last day of last year when they ran out of questions, when they were being written off as hopeless? They moved a no‑confidence motion. Of course, we see the usual reporting of it. Rather than writing it off as a dismal week for the opposition, they record a no‑confidence motion that was somehow predictably defeated on party lines.
The fact is that this is politics as usual: being defeated on party lines, as it was the last time. But there was a real no‑confidence motion today, and it was not defeated on party lines, and it was not dealt with in a partisan manner; it was a no‑confidence motion by the people of this state—the independent umpire—as recorded in The Australian Newspoll.
#29Let's just talk about that because we know what this is all about; it is about an attempted diversion.
Members interjecting:
Ms CHAPMAN: I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CHAPMAN: Standing Order 98 prohibits debate. Clearly the Premier has not even got on to answering the question on this debate, which is about a $1 billion WorkCover debt and the minister's future.
The Hon. M.D. RANN: Well, if that's what it's all about, I have to say—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Premier! There is no point of order; however, I ask the Premier to proceed to the topic.
The Hon. M.D. RANN: Absolutely. I am going straight on to WorkCover because it was wonderful to see the Deputy Leader of the Opposition finally stand up to support her leader, but what she says in here is not what she says outside. The figures in his mind are 61-39 and, despite debates and controversies over the proposed weir and despite the controversy over Victoria Park, we have seen a massive no-confidence motion in the opposition, the Liberals in this state. The polling has shown that they are about as popular as European carp. But there was worse—and that is what it is really all about. The worst figure was that before—
Members interjecting:
Ms CHAPMAN: I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CHAPMAN: Clearly, the Premier is not complying with Standing Orders. He has entered into a debate which has nothing to do with the motion of no-confidence in minister Wright.
Members interjecting:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It would be easy for me to tell whether the Premier was addressing the topic if I could hear him. As I was unable to hear him, I will simply ask the Premier to address the topic. The Premier.
The Hon. M.D. RANN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course it was far worse on the preferred premier index—64 to 14! I am told that they are the worst figures in Australian political history since Newspoll began.
Ms CHAPMAN: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you cannot hear the Premier, neither can we. I have raised two points of order and you have claimed that you cannot hear what the Premier is saying. I ask you to rule on the motion and at least be consistent with the motion as to the relevance of the way in which the debate is being conducted. If you cannot hear it then neither can we, but I ask you to bring the house to order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bragg, the topic of the motion is a no-confidence motion. Although there is noise on my right, it is about one-third of the level of the noise on my left. So, if the member for Bragg would like to raise a point of order which I may be able to uphold, perhaps she could ask her colleagues to allow the debate to be heard in silence. The Premier.
The Hon. M.D. RANN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to be fair and reasonable about this because that is the way I am. I had nearly 8½ years in opposition—one of the longest serving opposition leaders in world history. I remember the bad days. I remember a bad day when I was rung up at 6.15 in the morning and told that I was 15 per cent behind in the Newspoll—not 50 per cent like today, but 15 per cent behind. I know the sort of things that staff would say. They would say, `You're going to have a terrible day if you ask questions in question time. Every answer to an opposition question, every answer to a Dorothy Dixer will be about the poll results today. So you've got two options: you've got an option of moving a no-confidence motion or leaving town on a plane'—and the Leader of the Opposition is doing both today.
#30 Members interjecting:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting:
The Hon. M.D. RANN: If you don't stay here to vote on your own—
Members interjecting:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The chair will be resumed when the house has demonstrated an ability to listen in silence.
The Hon. M.D. RANN: If the Leader of the Opposition does not stay here and vote on a no‑confidence motion that he has moved, he is not fair dinkum about it.
Ms Chapman interjecting:
The Hon. M.D. RANN: It is all very well for the deputy leader to reply. She did not even know that the no‑confidence motion was happening today. She had to be told by the government, I am reliably informed.
Let us go back to the substantive issue. Today, coinciding with 20 years of operation, an independent review will be held into the WorkCover scheme. The fundamental structure of the scheme, administered by WorkCover, has not been reassessed since its inception by successive governments, despite South Australia's changing social and economic environment, i.e., that now our economy is much stronger with us in office. The independent review will consider proposals by the WorkCover board—
Mrs REDMOND: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer to standing order No. 128: tedious repetition of matter already presented.
Members interjecting:
Mrs REDMOND: He is reading verbatim what was already presented—
Members interjecting:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs REDMOND: The Premier is reading verbatim what was already presented by the minister in his long address to this house at the opening of today's session.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The Hon. M.D. RANN: There is the rub. When I am dealing with their poll results, they say, `Talk about WorkCover.' When I talk about WorkCover, someone who is not a supporter of the leader says, `Go back to poll results.' They cannot have it both ways. Let us deal with the substance, if there is any. The independent review will consider proposals by the WorkCover board together with alternatives to reform the scheme to make it fully funded, fair to workers and affordable to business. I believe that it can be both. I believe that it can be fair to workers—as fair as it can be, and should be—but also, of course, affordable to business. Any changes to the scheme will be directed towards three objectives: injured workers should receive fair financial and other support, which should be delivered efficiently, to enable the earliest possible return to work; the average employer levy rate should be reduced from 3 per cent and contained within the range of 2.25 per cent to 2.75 per cent by 1 July 2009; and the scheme should be fully funded by the earliest possible date.
We believe it is possible to achieve these objectives. I want to repeat today that this government is committed to maintaining the best and fairest workers compensation scheme in the nation. We strongly support the actions of the industrial relations minister in announcing this top level review today, along with the Treasurer and the Chairman of the WorkCover board, Bruce Carter, in whom I have great confidence (in fact, I will be travelling with him over the next few days to Chile, which he is visiting in his role in terms of the negotiations for the massive expansion of Roxby Downs). Certainly, the government has been heartened and encouraged by the excellent work of Mr Carter and the WorkCover board in managing the scheme. It was due to their efforts that many changes already have been introduced—and let me just talk about that.
The board has taken significant steps to improve the management of the scheme, including refocusing the organisation on the primary objective of achieving a timely and sustainable return to work, an urgent focus on the management and resolution of long‑term claims and strengthening the management of claims by focusing on the delivery of outcomes. Under this minister, what have we seen? The approach has seen the appointment of a proven claims agent, Employer's Mutual, as the sole claims agent for the scheme. The appointment of a principal legal adviser in Minter Ellison is also part of the board's approach to improve management of the scheme. I am now going to give members a hint about where I stand on some of these issues, if they want to hear them.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr PISONI: Madam, I rise on a point of order. I refer to standing order No. 141.
Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Unley has a point of order?
Mr PISONI: I refer to standing order No. 141. There is quarrelling in this chamber because the Premier will not—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There are to be no speeches.
Mr PISONI: The Premier will not—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Unley will resume his seat. There is no debate with a point of order. There is no point of order.
#31 The Hon. M.D. RANN: I have absolute confidence in my minister but members opposite do not have confidence in the Leader of the Opposition, and members have only to hear what they say to journalists on an almost daily basis. The government has formed a preliminary view about a number of proposals for change, in particular, the establishment of medical panels and streamlining the dispute resolution process appear to have merit, and I tend to favour this approach. I went to the Parliamentary Library to look at what is perhaps regarded as the King James Bible on this issue, the seminal work—certainly not the Gideon Bible but the King James Bible—and not High Court judgments, not judgments by the Workers' Compensation Tribunal but Limbs, Lungs and Lives: Occupational Health and Safety Reform.
I commend this to members because, very importantly, in 1984 it made a recommendation that I am pleased was taken up with some enthusiasm by business and unions alike. The recommendation is that:
. . . comprehensive, no‑fault workers compensation should be introduced and the right to common law damages removed. Workers compensation should be administered by a statutory authority governed by a tripartite board. This authority should be responsible for all aspects of workers compensation, from the setting and collection of premiums right through to the payment of rehabilitation. . .
and there are many pages on this. But we remember what it was like. It used to be a lottery, a lottery that benefited lawyers and doctors, and only about a third of the money actually went to helping the victims. I want to praise this minister and the fact that his father played the seminal role in getting this scheme up and going following the Byrne report—the Byrne report that was rejected by the Tonkin government, and therein lies the difference. It is a scheme that is generous to workers and affordable by business, and it needs a once in a generation review to make sure that it keeps going that way rather than return to common law, rather than return to the lottery that our workers had to face in the past.
Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop): What an interesting turn of events, that the Premier could not even defend his incompetent minister. Nobody in the real world expects fantastic financial competence from Labor, but the real world does not expect total incompetence, the sort of incompetence we have now seen in South Australia for five long years from this minister. Total incompetence. This minister has been asked for 4½ to five years about what is going on behind the doors down at WorkCover, and this minister has blamed everyone else, has denied, has lived in denial, notwithstanding that he has been told on a regular basis through questions, through press releases and through the opposition trying to get to the heart of what is going on down at Workcover; notwithstanding all that probing and prompting, this minister has denied, denied, denied.
And what do we have today? The bubble has burst, and we have a minister whose incompetence has come to the surface. I noted that his very own Premier did not say, `I have confidence in my minister, the minister responsible for WorkCover.' He just said, `I have confidence in my minister' and looked down along the front bench.
The Hon. M.D. RANN: On a point of order—
Members interjecting:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
The Hon. M.D. RANN: On a point of order, members of parliament—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, resume your seat.
The Hon. M.D. RANN: —have a duty to tell the truth.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Premier, do you have a point of order?
The Hon. M.D. RANN: Yes, madam.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you like to raise it?
The Hon. M.D. RANN: My point of order is that it is in the standing orders of this parliament that members do not mislead the house or tell untruths. That happened.
#32 Members interjecting:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No point of order.
Members interjecting:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The house will settle. The member for MacKillop.
Mr WILLIAMS: I invite the Premier and his rabble to consult the Hansard later today, and they will see that I was, in fact, not misleading the house. The shame of what has happened, not just today but over the past five years because of the total incompetence of this minister, is that South Australia cannot afford what is befalling it through WorkCover. We have had the minister and we have had the Treasurer stand in this place saying, `This is not a debt; this is just something on paper'. Well, they have changed their tune today. They fessed up that WorkCover is a mess; it is a bleeding mess. It is the bloody mess of this minister. If this minister was honourable we would not be having this debate. He would have tendered his resignation and walked; he would have been gone. And he would not have embarrassed his Premier, who had to stand up here and talk about all sorts of things but the subject. I invite every member of the government to consult the Hansard, read carefully the words of your Premier, and see how many times he defended his minister, how many times he stood by the actions that his minister has taken over last five years, how many times he justified the actions of this incompetent minister—
Members interjecting:
Mr WILLIAMS: He didn't do it once.
Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:
Mr WILLIAMS: I invite you to do it, member for West Torrens, because you sit there day after day defending the incompetence of your minister, and you are just as culpable as he is. The ministers on the front bench all know that this report was handed down in November last year. The minister told the house on 5 December last year that he was consulting with the board, when he already had the report. For almost five months he has had it, and he has been consulting, and, as our leader said, comes in here, the last day of the sitting, sneaks in, and drops out this bombshell for the injured workers in South Australia. And then we will have Bruce Carter come out later in the afternoon and give the real bad news, that after five years of incompetence it is still going up, it is still getting worse. That is what is going on.
The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What is your answer?
Mr WILLIAMS: What is our answer? I will tell the Attorney-General what our answer is, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will tell him what happened. The history of WorkCover, as the Premier said, goes back a long time. Whilst I am mentioning that, the Premier noted when he was reading directly from the minister's ministerial statement that there have not been any significant changes since the mid‑1980s when the scheme was first set up, and suggested that the world has moved on, and then he went back and quoted from a document even before then. Great defence. It really marries in with the ministerial statement and the point you were trying to make.
But let me say what the situation has been with WorkCover. In the mid‑1990s, when the Liberal government was still grappling with the mess of the State Bank—the Premier had a fair bit to do with that too—we made some changes to WorkCover, because WorkCover was part of the mess that we inherited in 1993. As of 1994‑95 the unfunded liability was $276 million. At the change of government early in 2002 it was down to about $67 million.
Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:
Mr WILLIAMS: In that time, member for West Torrens, we achieved a 20 per cent fall in the injury rate in workplaces in South Australia, whilst, over a five‑year period, we also had a growth in the work force of 10 per cent. So, that is what our solution is, Attorney-General: manage the scheme properly, manage it how it was designed, and make it work. When the Liberal Party was in government it worked.
#33 From 1994‑95 to 2001‑02 the unfunded liability came down. Injured workers enjoyed the same benefits that they have enjoyed continuously right up until this minister who, through his incompetence, will be forced to strip benefits from injured workers and gut WorkCover. That is what is happening. That is what we have been warning you against, minister, for four and a half years.
The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:
Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, we are worried about the workers, because I can tell the minister that I represent plenty of workers; I represent just as many workers as the minister does, and just because the minister sits in a Labor government, just because he is in the Labor Party, he thinks that gives him some God‑given right to think that only he is concerned about working men and women in South Australia. I can tell you, minister, I would not have sat there around the cabinet table doing what you have done, allowing an incompetent fool like that to wreck the benefits that every working man and woman in South Australia expects. I would not have sat there as you have, so I do not know how you can open your mouth in this place on this issue. You have sat there and seen it all happen, so I really think you should be quiet, because I understand that your background is fairly close to injured workers; I understand—
The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:
Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, and you should be thoroughly damned ashamed of yourself.
An honourable member interjecting:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind you that you may not address members directly across the chamber.
Mr WILLIAMS: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The interjections have been provoking me somewhat. The minister came out with a press release today, and a statement has been made to the house. The Premier has read verbatim from the statement. They would have the house believe that all of a sudden they realise we need a review. This government—this minister—has done nothing but review WorkCover for five years now. Indeed, I have here a report from Alan Clayton, dated June 2005. Mr Clayton has already done one review: a review of the framework for rehabilitation in the South Australian WorkCover scheme. We have had the standing review; we have had never‑ending reviews. As the leader said, hundreds of thousands of dollars has been spent on reviews.
The minister knows what the problem is. He is the problem. We do not need another expensive review. Everybody in South Australia knows what the problem is. All we need to do to solve the problem is for the minister to stand up from that seat, walk around there, and take a seat up the back, because that is where he should be. If the Premier could find somebody considerably more competent on the back bench—and I am sure he could—most of the problem—certainly if they took some advice from us—would disappear.
The other thing that will concern working men and women in South Australia is: what can they believe from this minister? Nick Thredgold, President of SA Unions, on 30 January said on Adelaide radio that this minister is a man of his word and he has reassured the union movement there will be no cuts to benefits. That is not the way I read your statement to the house a few minutes ago, minister. I think there are going to be substantial cuts to benefits. I think that the noises that I have been hearing over the past few months in the industrial relations network that I associate with have been right. They have been telling me that you and the board have been discussing the Victorian system, and you have been modelling South Australian numbers into the clauses in the Victorian act and seeing how it will come out. I have seen, from the report of your board, that that is exactly what they have been doing. So the working men and women of South Australia can expect to have a WorkCover scheme after the next federal election—so they have got six months reprieve from you— not unlike the one that the working people in Victoria have, and the benefits are substantially lower than those they enjoyed when we were in government and actually brought your previous unfunded liability under control.
#34 The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What's the policy? What are you going to do?
Mr WILLIAMS: I have just explained that to you. I am going to argue that this minister should walk, that is what I am going to do. If this minister had any honour—and he can save some honour—he would walk now, because this is one `Wright' that the working men and women of South Australia do not want.
The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Minister for Transport): The case for the opposition would be more credible had their reinterpretation of history not occurred, and I will refer to very recent history and some more distant. In terms of the recent history, what we heard today was that apparently—
Ms Chapman: We are $1 billion in debt.
The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, we know you saw some lovely numbers today, but that was not the one you liked, Vickie. That wasn't the number you liked today, Vickie, was it?
Ms Chapman: No. Our children will have to pay for it, that's why I'm in on it.
The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, I think you loved those numbers you saw today, the numbers that are behind this debate. The numbers reported in The Australian are behind today's debate. The reason that this has no credibility is that in recent history we have heard how the opposition has been probing the government on this in what amounted (by their own confession) to two questions a month over the past five years, and more recently yesterday. You would think that, if you were credible and finishing this sitting session with a no confidence motion, it would have been as a result of a crescendo of a lead‑up of questions. What happened yesterday? We had one supplementary question. It was supplementary to the question of the member for Mitchell from the Leader of the Opposition that he thought of at about question No. 9 and it was only tangentially related.
Apparently what did not warrant a question yesterday is now a matter of no confidence today. You have to wonder what happened between yesterday and today? What is it that would want to get them away from other issues on to WorkCover? What is it? I do not know. There must be something but, sufficient to say, if this is opposition tactics, it is right up there with the charge of the Light Brigade for strategy. The tactical brilliance of asking no questions and then attempting to get people and the media to believe that they are actually passionately pursuing a no confidence motion in the minister is simply a nonsense.
I turn to some old history. Simply outrageous fabrications have been made. The first one is that the opposition cares for injured workers. Of course, it was the Liberal Party that steadfastly refused to introduce a scheme that had as its aspiration getting injured workers back to work and giving them compensation, instead of lawyers and doctors. Despite the Byrne report, it was they who supported the old scheme, which was massively more expensive for employers and which resulted in a bonanza for lawyers at the District Court steps settling nine out of 10 cases and trialling one, and just rolling off with the dough. That is what it was all about in the old days. That is what they supported and wanted to keep.
Then there is this further fabrication that they protected workers' rights while they were in government. Yes, they did. Do you know why? Because the enormous list of gouges that they brought up to take rights away from workers were refused in the Legislative Council, because, apart from other things, of the resistance by the Labor Party. The member for MacKillop would have you believe that these were the champions of the workers: they were not. They were the people who tried to gouge the rights out of workers and were prevented from doing it in the Legislative Council.
One other piece of history that they conveniently forget when it comes to the viability of this scheme is that, when they were in government, one of the other things that they promised to do and did not do was they promised not to sell ETSA—and they did privatise ETSA.
Mr Williams: That is a great defence, Michael.
The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, you have to hear this because this is how dishonest you people are with workers' rights. This is how dishonestly you have treated workers compensation over the years. You have treated it as mere political football, with no regard for the viability of the scheme.
#35What happened was, after you privatised ETSA—and The Advertiser will remember because their electricity bill went up by 25 or 35 per cent—industry had huge increases in the price of electricity; an average increase, by their report, of 35 per cent, by our report 45 per cent—industry bleeding because of their actions.
So, what did they do? Against advice they compensated business by lowering the WorkCover levies in an unsustainable way, against advice. That is what they did. That was their history as a government, gouging workers' rights, if the Legislative Council allowed them, and then lowering the levy in an unsustainable way because they had made such an utter mess of the privatisation of electricity. Now they want to talk about incompetence. These are people that have opposed a decent scheme since it was first thought of and they have opposed it every step of the way. It has only been that august body, the Legislative Council—well, occasionally august—that stopped them in their period of government from gouging rights for workers.
The issue of unfunded liabilities has been around for a very long time, and it has been up and down over the course of the scheme. It is despite—
Members interjecting:
The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No; they say they nearly got it to zero. They lowered the levy in an unsustainable way, against advice. That is a matter of public record. Gave out presents to their friends. They have opposed the scheme every step of the way, attempted to gouge our workers' rights and now—
An honourable member interjecting:
The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No; you did not get away with it. Your attempts failed in the Legislative Council, back when we had a good Legislative Council, as opposed to the current mob. What we are talking about is an unfunded liability based on actuarial projections—projections into the future. Whenever you change a simple assumption, that number changes, and it has gone up and down through its history. The proper way to deal with that is not to gouge workers' rights, the proper way is to look at which of those assumptions are causing an unfunded liability; in this case, the issue of getting injured workers back to work. That was the aspiration of the whole scheme in the first place. So, there is absolutely every reason why you would review the scheme, that aspect of it, if that aspect was proving difficult, because it is good for the scheme and it is good for the workers. It is good for injured workers to get back to work.
That was the logic that underpinned the scheme from the start, it is the logic that continues to underpin it, it is the logic that this minister has applied to the scheme every day he has run it, and he has got a good bloodline for it. If he was a racehorse you would buy him, wouldn't you? The truth is that the issue about injured workers getting back to work under the scheme is one that: (a) how you could so dishonestly blame a minister for that, but (b) something that has been addressed by two the major changes made under the term of this minister, and that is the single claims manager and the single law firm.
Members interjecting:
The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What you do not do is run around like headless chooks in a panic. What you do do is look at how you change those underlying assumptions that affect the liability, and in this case, as I say, the return to work of injured workers because it is good for injured workers and good for the scheme. That is what we are doing. Make no mistake, what you are seeing today has got absolutely nothing to do with the WorkCover scheme, it has got nothing to do with a lack of confidence in this minister, it has got to do with the fact that another absolutely dismal session for an opposition is about to end and ending with the worst poll in political history, down 4 per cent on their election result. They are the numbers occupying those people today, they are the numbers that they are agitated about, but they are not all agitated, some of them are very happy indeed about them. To paraphrase Paul Keating, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition thinks these are a very nice set of numbers.
Mr HAMILTON-SMITH Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite): I always love to follow the Minister for Transport because there is often little to say after he has spoken. I would say that $1 billion of the taxpayers' money is a most important matter. Others have said that from small things big things grow. How small or how big is this $1 billion, and is more to follow? The remarks we have heard from the government today sound frighteningly reminiscent of the arguments they put forward in the early 1990s in defence of the State Bank when the Premier was captain of the HMAS State Bank, along with chief engineer Bannon, when Kevin Foley was a cabin boy running about asking what jobs needed to be done, and when other members opposite formed part of the intellectual property that delivered $11.6 billion of debt and a $300 million current account deficit. Here we are today dealing with another $1 billion problem, and it is growing. Here we have the same arguments being put forward.
The Minister for Transport had nothing to say apart from his usual attempts to sledge members on this side of the house. He spent little time defending the $1 billion unfunded liability. Interestingly, neither did the Premier; he did not spend much of his time addressing the issue of the $1 billion unfunded deficit. Instead, both of them wanted to talk about general issues to do with WorkCover—general visions on the way forward, general rhetoric on what could be. They did not really address the issue of the $1 billion debt which, in effect, is what it is. Why is that so? Why has the Premier's and the Minister for Transport's defence of the minister responsible for WorkCover been guarded—and it has been guarded, because they know this situation could get an awful lot worse, and they know it is heading in that direction. As the leader pointed out, they have not had the courage to bring that information into the house today; instead, it will be announced in the twilight of this week's sitting when the media have already filed their stories.
On reading the act, I see that division 1 part 4 states that the corporation is subject to the general control and direction of the minister. Little has been said about ministerial responsibility. The matter of the Westminster system and what is an honourable thing for ministers to do has been raised. I note that the Premier, in his opening co |
Posted by Reader at 10:20 PM, 31/3/2007 |
Link |
|
The odds against
It seems clear from the no confidence vote that many labor members either do not understand the problems with Workcover or do not take the time to make themselves aware of the problems..
Perhaps injured workers can take the time to send copies of their complaints to these ministers to make them aware of the problems or perhaps telephone their offices and let them know the real situation..
Its only a suggestion and I know that the real problem is more likely to be that those who voted against the no confidence motion are all too devoted to Mike Rann to stand up for themselves and we do not need to be reminded they are too arrogant to realise that their responibility lies not in increasing the unfunded liability of Workcover but reducing the liability while maintaining some fairness for injured workers.
One easy way it can be done is to give injured workers back their lives and redeem them..
Why does South Australia want to lead the way in keeping injured workers on its Workcover system instead of compensating them and letting them get on with their lives..If the board are too jealous and are too worrried about paying people out replace them with a more financially responsible board.
Its also clear that Rann and Bruce are buddies and as the comment suggests they are headed overseas together as quoted from hansard..
the Hon. M.D. Rann.
We believe it is possible to achieve these objectives. I want to repeat today that this government is committed to maintaining the best and fairest workers compensation scheme in the nation. We strongly support the actions of the industrial relations minister in announcing this top level review today, along with the Treasurer and the Chairman of the WorkCover board, Bruce Carter, in whom I have great confidence (in fact, I will be travelling with him over the next few days to Chile, which he is visiting in his role in terms of the negotiations for the massive expansion of Roxby Downs). Certainly, the government has been heartened and encouraged by the excellent work of Mr Carter and the WorkCover board in managing the scheme. It was due to their efforts that many changes already have been introduced—and let me just talk about that.
Its is clearly obvious that there is plenty of cosy little jobs for the boys if you are one of the club. |
Posted by Anonymous at 9:01 AM, 1/4/2007 |
Link |
|
Whats a malingerer
The term "malingering" can cause you a great deal of problems if it appears in your medical records. If a judge believes that you are a malingerer, he will likely disregard much of your testimony and he will have an unfavorable attitude about you and your case. Malingering suggests lying and judges rarely award benefits to claimants who appear to be dishonest.
Physicians regularly employ a variety of tests to help identify a malingerer. Although these tests are not always accurate and can be rebutted, you are much better off doing everything in your power to avoid the malingering label in the first place.
Tests that physicians, psychologists and psychiatrists use to spot malingering usually fall into one or more of the following four categories:
* Effort tests - are your scores too low based on what prior tests have shown to be your capability?
* Pain scales - are you identifying pain in parts of your body inconsistent with diagnostic or clinical evidence?
* Symptom Endorsement - are you identifying too many symptoms, or symptoms inconsistent with your diagnosis?
* Waddell's signs - physical actions that should not cause pain but elicit complaints. A classic Waddell test is the "distracted leg raise" where a patient has no complaints of knee pain when seated, but painful on straight leg raise.
As you might imagine, your physician will not necessarily tell you that you are being tested for malingering. Obviously, you should be completely honest and forthright with your physician - you want to create a physician-client relationship based on trust, not on trickery.
If you get the sense that your doctor has a bad attitude about you or is suggesting that you are being less than honest when you are telling the truth, report this situation to your lawyer at once.
|
Posted by Alan S at 11:41 PM, 28/5/2007 |
Link |
|
June Newsletter
Good morning,
It is long past time I sat down for a few minutes to write to each of you. Again thank you to every one who has continued to send cards and well wishes for my personal health. Each card, e-mail and note has helped me to heal. Each of my specialists has now given me a clean bill of health, which is a huge relief. Though I still get tired towards the end of each week, and I am working within the guidelines of the specialist – the hardest part for me is following the instructions to get more sleep, but I am doing my best.
Over the past few weeks there have been several attempts made to “upset” me, to the point where I have decided to do something I seriously did not think I would ever do.
However for my own “sanity” I am considering asking a solicitor to write a “cease and desist” letter. This is not a decision I have come to lightly, nor is it a decision that sits well within me. I do know that there is likely to be some fallout over this decision, however given the state of my health since November last year, I simply can not allow this situation to go on.
The insinuation of me being employed by WorkCover or paid by WorkCover continues to grow. So to the people who believe that, please do me a huge favor, please advise the Australian Tax Office that I am not being truthful to them. I am sure that the ATO would very much like to know exactly how much money I am “secretly” earning…..come to think of it, I would like to know how much I am “secretly” earning.
I have also been asked why I have “allowed” my photo to be placed on the WorkCover website. I am not sure if many people have even seen the Injured Workers Stakeholder Group, but it can be found at http://www.workcover.com/Home/Bettertogether/Stakeholdergroups/Injuredworker.aspx
The reason my photo is there is because I am a member of this Stakeholder Group.
South Australia is still the only WorkCover system to have such a Group.
What that means is that each of you has a voice that is heard within the WorkCover system.
I have also been asked why I actually have meetings with senior managers of both WorkCover Corporation and EML, my answer is simple, I have spent a great deal of time building working relationships within the WorkCover system for the benefit of injured workers. In fact I have been having meetings and working with WorkCover Corporation since Lou Owens was the CEO.
I think that best way to demonstrate the worth of this method of work, is that the majority of injured workers I work with simply have no reason to get involved with the legalistic process and visit Riverside.
I have been criticized for not being all things to everyone, as yet [sadly] it is still not possible for me to be in several places at once, I can not be in meetings getting the best possible outcomes for injured workers and at the same time demanding attention to the plight of WorkCover by every segment of the media.
I realize that I have in the minds of some people not been vocal enough, and there has been criticism of how non-public I have been over the time. However I have been working very hard with a great number of people, whilst always putting the best interest of each of you first.
Now on to the “most important and far reaching Review into WorkCover in the last 20 years” [according to Minister Wright]. Personally I believe that there is little to alter within the legislation, what is required is for those who administer the legislation is to get their understanding correct.
They need to remember that the legislation is in place for the protection and well being of injured workers.
I will be submitting a response to the Review, and I do urge as many of you as possible to also submit a response.
There is a pressing need to remove sec 35 .6a, the inclusion of “fetal loss” as the result of a workplace injury, also the removal of all red tape in a death benefit claim. We also need the end age of workers to be removed, at present a worker is covered fully up to the age of 65, after that it is only 6 months of income plus medical. With the Federal Government wanting people to work past 65, and with people being fit enough to continue to work past 65, it is time that the legislation protected these people.
This Review is nothing short of a way to keep the mess of WorkCover out of the media until past the next Federal election and past the 2008 State Budget.
While I have professional respect for the people who are charged with putting the Review together, and writing the final report, I hold no faith what so ever in Minister Wright or the current WorkCover Board or the current CEO.
I have said publicly, if there are to be cuts to the WorkCover system, then it is those 11 people who need to go. Pay them what ever “redemption” they are legally entitled to, and then escort them from the system.
That would be a lot cheaper to do that than to continue with this Review which is nothing more than a political stunt to buy time and space for Minister Wright.
I have also been accused of being “quiet” over the last few weeks, clocking up “no air time”, in other words I have not been on radio. Actually that is not correct at all, I have been on air quite a lot.
I announced on 5AA that WIRC is in the process of putting a phone in together to gather information, questions and comments in regard to the WorkCover Review. This information would then be submitted to the Review [minus any names or method of identification] Panel. It would also be used to put together a panel of experts for a Forum later this year.
Putting the panel together is going to be difficult, because it will need to involve people who do not work on a daily basis within the WorkCover system, but who work with the people who have been affected by the WorkCover system, and who will be involved a lot more should the proposed changes to the legislation go forward. I am aiming to get representatives from Relationships Australia, ITSA [Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia] also some one to speak about the high risk of WorkCover system related suicides.
I am also hopeful of getting a past legal advisor to WorkCover Corporation to give his views on the Review.
A date and venue also need to be found and paid for. I will keep you informed of all of this as it unfolds.
So please don’t ever think that because I am not standing on top of the SANTOS building screaming, that I am not doing something for the benefit of you, or for the benefit of those who are not as yet injured. Some times the best way forward to work quietly and diligently and then stand on top of the SANTOS building screaming. [Actually I have been on top of the SANTOS building, it is a fantastic view from up there]
Firstly though, back to the phone in.
I am seeking a venue to hold it. I have approached several places, but because the phone in needs to be held over a weekend, it is proving to be difficult.
However I am now seeking also a handful of people who are willing to attend the phone in to take calls.
I have done this type of phone in before; they are not easy to do in that the people who will call are going to be angry and frightened. But if you feel that you can give up 4 hours please let me know.
I am very hopeful that I will be able to announce the phone in date and number by the end of next week; I am being helped to find a location by Sue Twelthtree from the 100 Hours Project.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
I continue to build the bridge between injured workers and “the system”
This last week I was fortunate enough to attend “Courage Under Fire” injury management conference as the guest of Self Insured South Australia [SISA]. The day was very long and very informative. I also spoke with many of the other attendees, some of them I already knew from working with them over a good number of years, and some of them I had never met before. However the conversation around WIRC was all positive, one gentleman was more than generous in his praise for my “courage” to attend what was essentially an employer focused day. As I pointed out to him, without employees, there are no employers.
Suffice to say I did enjoy myself, I did not agree with all the points and views put forward, however I was not there for myself, I was there to represent each one of you. In doing that I was able to put forward to those I spoke with a point of view that would not normally be heard.
My hope is that when SISA hold their next conference, I am again invited to attend.
I believe that the information from each of the speakers will be available on the SISA website in about 2 weeks. http://www.sisa.net.au/index.cfm
Thank you to those who attended the Memorial Tree Planting on International Day of Mourning. We now have 120 trees and ground covers in the Memorial Forest.
I still feel the hardest part is the release of the balloons during the minutes silence.
Again this year there was lots of good humor through the tree planting, and lots of silent tears as the balloons slipped out of our hands towards the heavens.
From checking with my international contacts, we still the only Memorial Forest in the world. I know it is not something to aspire to, but we are world leaders in that we have given a place to our families to go and to grieve.
So to those who braved the cold and the rain as well as the bull ants, on behalf of the families who lost a loved one last year, I thank you for your presence and you support.
Now for the best news I think I have ever delivered.
Many of you will remember Mary Lou when she worked with me during the time WIRC had office space in Trades Hall. You will also remember that Mary Lou became very ill just 2 years ago. Most of us who stayed in contact with Mary Lou were not expecting her to ever return to Adelaide to live again.
It is my happy task to tell you that not only is Mary Lou home, but she is indeed quite well. And on top of that she is looking forward to coming back to work with me again when WIRC gains office space once more.
I guess that is it for now, as soon as I know more in regard to the phone in, I will let you know. The only other item is that I will be going to Melbourne again most likely in July to continue to build the interstate connections.
I also hope to get to Sydney and Gosford before the end of the year.
The down side is due to ill health I missed a conference in Brisbane this year, still as the saying goes, there is always next year, and lots of other conferences to attend.
Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson
Founder
Work Injured Resource Connection
National Director - Workers Compensation Unit
Trans-Help Foundation
7th June ‘07
PS
As is my practice, I have mailed this newsletter out before I have e-mailed it. I know that there are some people who seriously believe that I should drop the people without e-mail address’s but that is a practice I simply will not consider or adopt.
Injured workers are not problem people, they are people with a problem! |
Posted by R.M.F. at 9:58 AM, 12/6/2007 |
Link |
|
Question time
I have read the latest WIRC newlsetter.
I can not believe that after saying nothing for so long, especially at a time when the voice of injured workers needed to be heard, Rosemary sent out an insipid effort in self indulgence and made no mention of the real challenges.
Whoever suggests she is working for WorkCover is a fool. She is worth so much more to them in her current role of Sympathetic Stooge.
WIRC has become a joke.
|
Posted by Reader at 3:58 PM, 13/6/2007 |
Link |
|
Stooge
I happen to know that RMF is NOT the founder of WIRC despite her suggestion that she is!
I also know that RMF is NOT the caring soul she pretends to be!
Just pray she doesn't have another garage sale! |
Posted by Julie at 8:41 PM, 14/6/2007 |
Link |
|
Stick with me and she'll be sweet
Great call RMF. Now we know
Quote form the WIRC neswletter the meaning is clear, suck up to the system and you will be looked after.
"I think that best way to demonstrate the worth of this method of work, is that the majority of injured workers I work with simply have no reason to get involved with the legalistic process and visit Riverside..." (in other words: "Stick with me and she'll be sweet!")
For those who wish to put their names down as an interested party for inclusion into a group defending the rights of injured workers and their families. Please register your interest at victimsofworkcover@gmail.com
Your privacy is guaranteed. |
Posted by RMF suporter at 10:48 AM, 16/6/2007 |
Link |
|
WIRC is a RORT
RMF is not the sole founder of WIRC!! Some know better than the spiel being spun to vulnerable people.
Funding HAS come from workcover, but she and hubby hides that from members, same as her workcover provider number!
Injured Workers have paid dearly at the hands of RMF and her stooges.
Please do not question her activities or find your claim hitting the ground faster than you can blink.
Who pays for her interstate trips? IF she does then she must have a substancial income.
"However for my own “sanity” I am considering asking a solicitor to write a “cease and desist” letter." I say bring it on RMF - this is just another of your bluffs to avoid critism and any investigation into the associations finances.
OCBA have already fined WIRC for incorrect practices.
So let the truth be told, own up RMF!
|
Posted by WIRC whistleblower at 7:05 AM, 18/6/2007 |
Link |
|
problem
| Injured workers are not problem people, they are people with a problem. Their problem is that they have been betrayed by someone they trusted! |
Posted by Injured Worker at 5:12 PM, 20/11/2007 |
Link |
|
Why post her dribble
| why even have her I am so good articles on the site? |
Posted by WIRC whistleblower at 2:28 AM, 21/11/2007 |
Link |
|
WorkCover Fraud
I urge any injured worker to be extremely cautious when dealing with those purporting to represent injured Workers. (and yes that does including me)
Unfortunately there are some snakes in the cages who will take advantage of your terrible position, bleed you for whatever they can and then betray you to WorkCover or your case managers in their attempt to be accepted by the corporation.
NEVER EVER hand them any money. Never ever tell them anything you don't want WorkCover or your case manager to know.
Trust Noone!
|
Posted by PhilM at 10:57 AM, 20/12/2007 |
Link |
|
|
Useful Links
SA Unions worker survey
Have your say
WCT Recent Decisions
Workcover Forum
workcover victims
Media Mikes Privatisation agreement
Federal Return to work Monitor report
Austlii Legislation and Case law
Claim Assist
Investigation Standards
State Ombudsman. Last resort but unlikely to assist
Courts Home Page
Liberal Party Media Page
WCT and other Forms
Workcover gone bad
alternative workcover forum
adelaide talkback-workcover
Voice of industrial death
|
