New Legislation- More disadvantaged Workers-More blowout??
Please post here any messages that relate to the current legislative changes to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. It seems that the comments of some on this blog are under scrutiny by our Parliamentary members in South Australia.
Whilst it is the intention of this site to give everyone a right to speak out freely against the current Workcover system we must ensure that the comments are not critical of an otherwise oppressive and abusive system that works to the government's advantage and to the serious detriment of injured workers who because of their workplace injuries are an oppressed minority group.
Labor’s latest attempt to fix WorkCover’s billion dollar liability has floundered at the first hurdle of internal discontent.
The widely expected changes to WorkCover’s levies, entitlements and administration failed to pass through Labor’s caucus this morning, prompting an emergency meeting tomorrow morning.
“Labor is in internal turmoil over the recommendations of the latest report into this ongoing mess,” Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said.
“Just before 2pm today we were told that Economic and Finance committee meetings scheduled for tomorrow had been cancelled to make way for the emergency Labor caucus.
“They are ripping themselves apart.
“Five years of board sackings, senior management clean-outs and case management overhauls have done nothing but make WorkCover worse. Now it’s another bun fight.
“Labor made a big promise a year ago to cut levies, look after workers and get rid of unfunded liabilities,” Mr Hamilton-Smith said.
“Minister Michael Wright is at the end of the rope. If this latest plan doesn’t work, then he must accept responsibility and go.”
In March last year, Mr Wright promised changes to the scheme will be directed towards three objectives including fair financial and other support for workers, reduction of the employer levy rate from 3 per cent and the scheme should be fully funded.
Mr Hamilton-Smith said a recent focus on the single issues of cuts to entitlements or levy rates was not sufficient to deal with WorkCover’s problems.
“In the last five years there have been problems with methods of case management, delivery of legal services to WorkCover, efficiency within the organisation itself, inadequate work capacity reviews and inadequate funding of investigations,” he said.
“WorkCover’s own recovery has become a big challenge.”
Posted by Media Release- Martin Hamilton Smith at 3:30 PM, 3/3/2008
History haunts Rann
Labor’s ham-fisted attempt to fix WorkCover has embarrassed its Premier.
On the same day he told his MPs workers entitlements needed to be cut, it was revealed in parliament he had railed against less onerous cuts in 1995.
Caucus briefing notes, leaked to Opposition MPs, show Mr Rann wants injured workers to take a 20 per cent pay cut after 13 weeks on WorkCover.
Yet in 1995 he said a proposed 15 per cent cut after 26 weeks would; “condemn people who want to work and their families to a lifetime of poverty and dependence”.
In media releases at the time, Mr Rann described the measure as “draconian” which would exact a “human toll”.
The then Labor Opposition described the 1995 changes as being “hard to imagine how anyone could draft a more vicious and uncaring piece of legislation than this. Effectively every clause is unacceptable”.
State Liberal Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith described the Government as being in total chaos.
“First they were going to introduce changes on Tuesday, but Caucus was split,” Mr Hamilton-Smith said.
“Then it became Wednesday and its maybe Thursday,” he said.
“Labor MPs are openly whingeing in the corridors about the way their Leader has rammed the changes through.
“It’s taken them a year to organise the review and they are still arguing about its findings.
“In six years they have turned what the Clayton Report describes as a healthy and financially stable scheme into a financial disaster.
“It is hurting workers, it is hurting business and it is shattering our State’s reputation.
“Mike Rann and Michael Wright should never be forgotten.”
Posted by Media release- Martin Hamilton Smith at 3:32 PM, 3/3/2008
State Liberal Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith has thrown down the gauntlet to the Rann Government over its proposed changes to WorkCover.
In a speech to parliament today Mr Hamilton-Smith said he would engage in the widest possible consultation to make sure any changes made are the right ones and are made for the right reasons.
“Our objectives are threefold,” he told parliament.
“The changes must result in reduced levies on business, a fully funded scheme and fair entitlements and rehabilitation for workers.
“We know that Labor has failed in its six year management of the scheme.
“It is an outrage that the first move they have made is to cut payments to injured workers.
“That is a step you can only take if you have exhausted every other avenue to make the scheme efficient, financially viable and effective in returning workers to a place of employment.
“The Clayton report confirms that the scheme worked well under the Liberal Government.
“Changes made so far under Labor have seen the scheme slip into deep financial trouble.
“We need to ask ourselves; were those changes the wrong changes?
“There is a lot of work to be done before we start abandoning the reason this scheme exists – that workers be given security and every chance to return to work as soon as they can.
“We face this challenge in 2008 for one simple reason; the Rann Government’s mismanagement.
“The Premier can add this episode to his political scrapbook, alongside the State Bank.”
Posted by Media release- Martin Hamilton Smit at 3:33 PM, 3/3/2008
The Liberal Opposition are currently considering all the recommendations of the Clayton-Walsh report which have been adopted unqualified by the Rann Labor Government through the introduction of WorkCover legislationlast week.
The Opposition has a number of concerns with this legislation and will be discussing WorkCover issues with key stakeholders, the community and businesses over the next couple of week. The Labor Party have scheduled the legislation for debate in Parliament early in April.
The Liberal Opposition welcomes any feedback and comments you may have and we will consider all submissions made over the next few weeks.
This state government has take the worse measurements ever in a knee jerk reaction into severely amending the current legislation. What this has caused is Injured workers have now nothing to fear in submitting on how their claims have been mis-managed in order to protect themselves as they have been victimised. These submissions can now be made to the unions and the state Liberal and Labor members, To Anonymous from the comment "there are two sides to every story", most workers do understand you are working under instructions from mis-management, and as there there are a small majority of workers taking advantage of the system, I believe there are also the same percantage case managers and rehabilitation consultants that are non holistic in their approach.
So Mr Rann has alleged to mis-lead parliament by stating something that was not in the proposed Bill. Seems like the WorkCover disease has got to him too. All the workers wanted was the system to be fair. How could it when the state Premier cant play by the rules.
I am totally incapacitated and would be left on the system. I dont want to be stuck on here until retirement age. How will this fix the liability? It may push a few current incapacitated workers off initially but unfortunately they soon will be replaced with the new mining boom high risk occupations. I really can not see this working.
Has anybody actually worked out how much this transition will all the amendments is going to cost? Socially it will effect current workers, but what about the 5000 fully incapacitated who would have to front up before the "Medical Examiners". No doubt these would have to be determined straight away, a good portoin of these claimants have yet to finalise section 43. Then there is the review of new decisions, new case manuals and retraining of managers and rehabilitation and the like.
Woops, looks like a case manager went against protocol and used bullying tactics in writing. It may start a chain of letters to be submitted with similar tactics. I know I have several case notes of other injured workers being wrongly sent to me. Might be time to hand them over.
My bet it is one of the usual suspects who are so arrogant knowing that Denial and the CRU team won't question such conduct, even if the written evidence is there.
Welcome to Adelaide EML, see you at the Border!!!!
I work for one of the small rehabilitation providers that is being rail-roaded by WorkCover and it's Claims Agent, Employers Mutual limited who are constantly sending injured workers to larger rehabilitation companies who DO NOT have good return to work rates and whose owners are WorkCover board members. The provider I work for has great return to work rates and is low costing, yet we are constantly discriminated against because we are a small provider and because we refuse to follow Employers Mutual Limited's dictatorship, which DOES NOT get injured workers back to work - it infact impedes on the process with it's neglectful Case Manager's who DO NOT do their jobs, and in fact have a mentality of blaming the worker. Only changing the practcies of the Claims Agent and getting rid of the conflicts of interests of certain WorkCover board members will lead to more successful return to work outcomes and heal South Australia's ailing compensation scheme.
Posted by: Michael of Norwood 9:25am February 29, 2008
Cutting workers entitlements is not going to solve the problem. The problem is with EML and the case managers who do not do their work and do not punish the BLUDGERS who are on the system. If the case managers actually got off their arse and did their job then maybe the system would be better!
Posted by: cj of 11:26am February 28, 2008
The suggestion that the solution to WorkCover's problems are to reduce benefits to workers is absurd. The issues are clearly management issues. Outsourcing has been clearly a failure and a contributor to the blow-out. Rehabilitation is a joke. Structures to ensure market share of the big Rehabilitation Companies seem to be in place. Conflicts of interest of Board members, and a huge and growing bureaucracy, all contribute to the blow out. The solution? Of course! Cut benefits and leave the problems in place. Before outsourcing, what percentage of annual costs were "management"? What is this cost after outsourcing? Does the Advertiser actually know what "unfunded liability" actually means? It is a mythical figure based on the assumption that WorkCover gets no more income ever from NOW. The reality is that WorkCover gets more than it spends on an annual basis. The Reality is that WorkCover has over a $billion in real hard reserves in cash and investments. "Unfunded liability" is a actuarial guess based on unrealistic assumptions. The simple solution if people are nervous about it, is for WorkCover to insure against the liability ever being activated. Insurance companies insure against unforeseen disaster exceeding their reserves all the time, which is why we end up paying for damage by Cyclone Katrina.
Posted by Atli Karl Freiherr Von Bansch at 8:56 PM, 5/3/2008
Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (14:54): Is the minister completely happy with EML as the claims manager for WorkCover and, if not, what action does he intend to take to improve claims management performance?
The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT (Lee—Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Finance, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (14:54): EML is the new claims agent. They were chosen by the WorkCover Board. I think I have said to the house previously that the management of claims is better than what it once used to be but it is still not perfect. I am sure that the board is monitoring and working very closely with EML to ensure that claims management is always on the improve. We can do better and we shall do better. That is what claims management is all about. But what we can be confident about is twofold: one is that the change in the regulations that were brought about enabled a contract to be struck where there are better incentives in place and penalties, and the other thing we can be confident of is that EML is doing better than the previous claims agents.
$1m fight to cut WorkCover
Article from: The Advertiser
NICK HENDERSON, STATE POLITICAL REPORTER
March 06, 2008 12:53am
BUSINESS SA is launching a $1 million campaign demanding urgent reform of the WorkCover scheme, pitting the powerful group in a battle against the state's unions.
Declaring the system had "reached breaking point", Business SA president and Harris Scarfe chief executive officer Robert Atkins yesterday warned, "each day's delay is costing South Australian businesses and the community".
In a move aimed at heading off pressure within Government ranks to alter the Bill, Business SA today launches a print, radio and television advertising campaign strongly backing the proposed WorkCover amendments, which will result in cuts to workers' benefits.
But unions are firing back with radio advertisements attacking Premier Mike Rann, stating that ". . . big business has got to you so you're selling out the little guy by cutting WorkCover entitlements".
Unions also are vowing to target individual employers with poor workplace safety records in their own advertising blitz.
They want the Government to scrap plans to reduce injured workers' weekly payments as part of its moves to slash WorkCover's unfunded liabilities of more than $840 million.
Government sources said yesterday they knew business had "a huge war chest" to campaign for the changes, which The Advertiser has learned will total $1 million.
Mr Atkins said businesses were no longer able to afford paying the highest levies in the country. "South Australia has the worst performing and most expensive workers' compensation scheme in Australia," he said.
"The system has reached breaking point and must be changed now. The proposed changes will mean SA will have a workers' compensation scheme that provides fair support for injured workers, is delivered efficiently and enables the earliest possible return to work.
"SA businesses now pay an average annual levy of 3 per cent of their payroll compared to other states, which have levies below 2 per cent."
Under the proposed changes, the levy could be reduced to as low as 2 per cent. Mr Atkins said the changes must be supported in parliament and delays to introducing changes would severely damage the community. "What we need now is for the changes to be implemented without delay and that means getting the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council to pass them as a matter of urgency," he said.
Government sources said Premier Mike Rann would take a tough stance on WorkCover, winning him points with the business community despite alienating the unions.
Mr Rann is gambling that unions ultimately will support him at the 2010 state election, ahead of the Liberals.
Tough stance on WorkCover also paints Mr Rann as a strong leader, in the wake of the Government's failed bid to build a grandstand at Victoria Park and backflips on education levies last year.
SA Unions secretary Janet Giles yesterday vowed to counter Business SA's campaign by threatening to target individual employers.
"I would hope the public would be suspicious of business campaigning on this issue because they are the problem," she said.
"We find employers' behaviour to be one of the major reasons why people don't go back to work. In many cases it is the employers that won't take people back to work. If they want to open this can of worms then we have a lot of stories about bad employer behaviour that we can use."
Ms Giles said the business community's campaign demonstrated the Government had "lost touch".
Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright yesterday said the Government was delivering workers "the fairest conditions to injured workers" but would continue discussions with the unions.
Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said Business SA's campaign would not pressure the Liberals to support the Government's Bill.
He said by consulting, the Liberals were "doing what the government had failed to do" and therefore would "rule nothing in" and "nothing out".
Carter and Atkins are probably best mates!!!!!!!!!!!
HARRIS SCARFE: Management Buyout Given The Green Light
------------------------------------------------------
Harris Scarfe Holdings Limited (the Company) announced that successful negotiations with landlords and suppliers and an agreement with the South Australian government on a supportive tax relief package have secured the future of the Company.
The Company's Receivers and Managers, Messrs Bruce Carter and John Spark of corporate recovery and turnaround specialists, Ferrier Hodgson confirmed Tuesday that a management buy-out plan for Harris Scarfe announced earlier this month had been concluded, with ownership of the retailer changing from Tuesday.
After more than six months of negotiations, this is a very
pleasing outcome for the staff, customers and suppliers of
Harris Scarfe," Mr Carter said.
"The deal secures the future of an Australian retail icon;
maintains the jobs of 1700 retail sector employees, and ensures that Harris Scarfe can continue as the preferred department store of so many loyal shoppers."
"We appreciate the commitment given by the South Australian Government as well as the company's landlords and suppliers - all of whom have recognized the future opportunities the new strong Harris Scarfe will bring."
The new owners of Harris Scarfe are its CEO Mr Robert Atkins, fellow Harris Scarfe executive Mr David Clark and a syndicate of private investors, none of whom have previously had a financial interest in Harris Scarfe.
Mr Atkins, a former senior executive with Coles Myer and Coca Cola Amatil with more than 12 years retail experience - took the helm of Harris Scarfe in July. Mr Clark has been with Harris Scarfe since 1995 when it acquired Tasmania's Fitzgerald Group - a company he joined in 1980.
"This is a great result for Harris Scarfe and we thank all of
those involved in supporting the deal for their foresight," Mr
Atkins said. "For the new Harris Scarfe it will be very much business as usual - but better."
"We are looking forward to an exciting future together with our staff, customers and suppliers. We will be building on the traditional strengths of Harris Scarfe in ways which
meet the needs of our customers while at the same time expanding our investment in selling quality brands for less."
Harris Scarfe customers can continue to use their lay-by, credit card and interest-free purchase facilities as normal. The New Harris Scarfe also will continue to honor discounts to shareholders in the old company until December 24, 2001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
Bruce Carter at Ferrier Hodgson on (08) 8235 7655 (Office) or 0418 823 687 (mobile)
Robert Atkins at Harris Scarfe on (08) 8203 4444 (office) or
0404 007 710 (mobile)
Hughes Public Relations - Tim Hughes on (08) 8373 5322 or
0417 788 891 (mobile)
<http://bankrupt.com/TCRAP_Public/011121.mbx>
Whats the connection with Bruce Carter and Robert Atkins?
Whats the connection with Bruce Carter and Robert Atkins?
Was Robert Atkins the CEO who was involved in buying Harris Scarfes after Bruce Carte's company Ferrier Hodgson was appointed Receiver and Manager of the financially troubled retailer?
Seems favours can be repaid in many ways..
I wonder if an ICAC would be able to find any improprieties in the $1 million donation to support Workcover's legislative changes.
Unions SA should advertise the fines Companies receive when there is a workplace accident and deaths and show how Businesses are getting away with murder. It will now bring in SafeWork SA and declare how many employers have been found guilty of the act.
Great move by Business SA, I think they have just done the employees a big favor.
Michael Wright seems to think "The letter" is an isolated case. If he had attended the WIRC forums which he was invited to he would have realised this is common practise. He used the word "IF" these bullying tactics are common and its a big "IF".
Has he been asleep at the wheel?
I remember quite clearly Rob Gerard ringing in 5AA saying he was in favor of the changes. A nice observation from a recent finding Cuadra v Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd [2008] SAWCT 8
Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (14:55): My question is to the Premier. What will the Premier do to ensure the WorkCover claims agent will desist from threatening to cut off workers' benefits if they mix with other injured workers? An injured worker recently received a letter from EML, which said:
Employers Mutual Ltd have received information that you are visiting other individuals that are on WorkCover, and liaising with them in relation to their situation.
We write to issue you a warning that this does not continue. If you proceed to continue to visit your fellow colleagues on workers compensation, we shall consider issuing you an applicable discontinuance letter. Under no circumstances should you be visiting other individuals that are on WorkCover.
Members interjecting:
The SPEAKER: Order!
The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT (Lee—Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Finance, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (14:56): I am aware of this issue and I have read the letter, and I say that the letter is totally inappropriate. I am advised that the letter contains no information about the conduct of the injured worker that constitutes a proper basis for the discontinuance of WorkCover benefits. I have spoken on two occasions this morning with the CEO of WorkCover, Ms Julia Davison. Ms Davison also takes this matter very seriously and has informed me that this is not conduct that is condoned by WorkCover.
I also understand this matter has been raised with the Chief Executive Officer of Employers Mutual. The matter is under investigation. I have called for a full report, in particular to determine whether this is a one-off incident and what action will be taken by the WorkCover Corporation regarding this issue. Once again I say that this letter is totally unacceptable and inappropriate.
I heard Michael Wright on the radio about this Letter and he said he spoke to Julie Davidson who will do a full report. I am wondering what Julie Davidson will tell him because if she tells him this only happened once she then has to explain some of the letters I have got.
IAN HENSCHKE: WorkCover's Paul Roberts says the court ruling will not be challenged, and it won't put WorkCover under financial pressure, as it has has more than $600 million available for payouts.
Transcript
Professional Athletes to claim Workcover
Broadcast: 01/08/2003
Just an observation, wouldnt the Unions be stronger if the state was Liberal run? I have a funny feeling the unions have their own agenda which does include protecting workers but they would be more pro-active with a non union government, not at least their membership would swell.
Well seems that EML would like to segregate injured workers from each other. I guess thats fair because they might find out that their claims are being mismanaged if they compare notes.
But for a long time its been the case that Injured workers are treated differently because they are injured...this is simply proof in the making..
Shame on WorkCover staff-this simply defines the attitude thay have to workers-they think they have the power to control every aspect of their lives. Even who they socialise.
IAN HENSCHKE: WorkCover's Paul Roberts says the court ruling will not be challenged, and it won't put WorkCover under financial pressure, as it has has more than $600 million available for payouts.
Why is it that injured worker's are not getting paid out?
Obviously the board considers this little nest egg is a good excuse to claim that if they made redemptions there would be a lump sum mentality.
Well some might think thats a better mentality than a government using the money to boost up its own investment portfolio.
WorkCover should not be in the main business of investment. If it concentrated on its core business-rehabilitating and managing injured workers claims it could do much better.
Can not say that there were only two people that submitted any comments.
Seems there is too many adverse comments against Workcover and the media is now trying to slow it down before it gets out of control.
I think it is too late, It is totally out of control. Too many workers with nothing to lose now so now they will complain thru radio, Advertiser etc. If they were too scared they were going to be vilified, you can throw that theory out of the window now.
Even today I received a rehab plan thats didnt even include my Doctors details. I think everyone has just chucked it in or too much pressure?
Appellant convicted of breaching s 19(1) of the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 – Whether employees were exposed to risk of injury from falling while working in an elevated bucket – Whether employees were exposed to risk of injury while working in proximity to a dislodged electrical service line – If employees were exposed to risk of injury whether there were other reasonable practical means of eliminating such risks – Appeal dismissed
Prosecution - Plea of not guilty - Whilst hot rollers were turning an employee attempted to feed paper into them - Access to rollers was through a safety gate - Employee’s hand was drawn into the rollers resulting in a severe crush and burn injury - Whether employer failed to adequately guard moving rollers of machine by failing to fit an interlocking device to the safety gate so as to prevent rollers moving whilst the gate was open - Whether risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable - Whether foreseeability extends to precise circumstances of employee’s actions at time of injury or applies to possibility employee may forget to, or decide not to, isolate the machine before passing through safety gate to perform work duties - Application for disqualification on grounds of apprehended bias - Whether an awareness of prior sentencing remarks of different magistrate for s 19 charge that were acknowledged to be irrelevant warrants disqualification - Application dismissed - Held - Defendant guilty of charge - S 19(1)
Prosecution - Guilty Plea - One charge - Failure to provide and maintain safe systems of work - Failure to maintain plant in safe condition - Injury occurred when employee caught finger in machine whilst attempting to dislodge a spring caught in the machine resulting in partial amputation of middle finger of left hand - No formal hazard assessment performed apart from standard operating procedures which were not placed near machine - Machine not adequately guarded - Contrition and remorse - Conviction recorded - Penalty after discount of $6,000 -Defendant in hands of administrator - Pursuant to S13(1) of the Sentencing Act ordered no penalty and no costs to be paid
Prosecution - Guilty pleas - Three charges - Failure to ensure safety of a worker - Failure to give notice of dangerous occurrence - Failure to provide and maintain safe plant - Inspections and risk assessments were not effectively performed - Company relied on experience of its operators - Two incidents involving same plant and different employees within five weeks - (i) Employee’s lower leg immersed in hot water tank when corroded and damaged mesh walkway gave way which was inadequately maintained - Leg trapped for a short period - Burn injury - (ii) Employee’s foot briefly immersed in same hot water tank when employee stepped backwards into uncovered manhole - Less serious burn injury - Immersion for brief period - Failure to notify Workplace Services of occurrence of second incident - Mitigatory circumstances - Convictions recorded on all counts - Penalties of $22,000, $5,000 and $1,500 respectively, all reduced by 25% on account of early plea and contrition plus costs - Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1996 s 19(1)
Prosecution - Guilty plea - Employee engaged to perform building work - Engaged in placing flooring above mezzanine floor and near to ceiling space which flooring was to serve as a platform for contractors accessing, maintaining and repairing air conditioning plant - Relevant height from ground floor to where employee was working was a distance of some 7.2 metres - Floorboards unsecured - Employee had one hand on a smaller floorboard whilst the other hand held onto a C-channel - Employee shifted balance and the smaller board slipped off its edge and employee overbalanced and fell through the floor space down to the ground level below - Failure to provide and maintain so far as was reasonably practicable safe systems of work - Failure to provide a safe working environment in that the employee was required to work in a place from which he could fall without fall protection - Early guilty plea and cooperation by the defendant - Expressions of regret and contrition for the incident - Acknowledgement that the risk was that of serious injury - Held: Discount of 20% to be applied - Conviction and fine of $36,000 plus levy and costs - S 19(1)
Prosecution - Guilty plea - Two counts - Two employees - One employee standing in a trench shovelling sand - Other employee operating skid-steer loader alongside trench dropping sand into trench - Walls of trench collapsed - Employee in trench became trapped - Skid-steer loader slid sideways into the trench - Employee in trench sustained serious multiple injuries - Failure to supervise - Failure to undertake any shoring system as regards the trench - Failure to adequately train and instruct - Early plea of guilty - Held: 20% discount - Early plea - First offence - Risk in relation to one employee was that of potentially fatal injuries - In relation to the other employee there was a risk of serious injury - Penalty: Convictions on both counts and fine of $44000 plus levy and costs - S 19(1)
Prosecution - Guilty Plea - One count - Employer engaged in rail track maintenance - Employee engaged as maintenance supervisor - Whilst travelling in road vehicle converted to rail use suffered substantial injuries to his leg when vehicle derailed and subsequently died in hospital - Failure to eliminate loading hazards and to implement a system for uneven or excessive loading - Failure to ensure safety of worker - Failure to implement system to adequately monitor whereabouts and well-being of worker in an isolated area - Contrition, early plea, prompt implementation of appropriate maintenance and loading procedures and of isolated worker procedures - Conviction recorded - Penalty of $48,000 after discount - S 19(1)
Sentence - Guilty plea - Failure to ensure so far as reasonably practicable that employee was, whilst at work, safe from injury and risks to health - Failure to provide a safe system of work and plant in a safe condition - Failure to ensure use of interlocked foot pedals by each operator of metal bending machine - Employee suffered crush injury to ends of both thumbs - Held - Conviction and fine of $7,200 - S 19(1)
Are you still reading Mr Atkins? These are businesses you represent.
Sentences - Guilty Pleas - failure by both IQES and Fosters to ensure so far as reasonably practicable that a first year apprentice employee was safe from injury and risks to health - IQES failed to develop and implement a safe system of working from a personnel box on an elevated service bridge - IQES failed to provide adequate information instruction training and supervision - Fosters failed to develop and implement an adequate system for ensuring that plant provided to contractors was to be used by suitably qualified and trained personnel - Employee was first lifted in box to about four metres and then driven by forklift towards service bridge - Box should have been accurately positioned while empty and only entered for vertical lifting - Box loaned by Fosters for work on its plant without any checking for safe system of work - Fosters provided appropriate SWP to its direct employees but not to contractors - Inexperienced IQES driver mistook accelerator on IQES forklift for stop pedal and drove box under bridge causing employee to be crushed - severe abdominal injuries resulted - Held - Convictions recorded against each defendant - IQES fined $42,500 - Fosters fined $32,000 -
Prosecution - Plea of guilty - Two incidents - Separate complaint and summons - Failure to ensure safety of employee - First incident: Impeller fan of machine had guard missing from portal - Ring and middle fingers caught by rotating impeller fan - Second incident: Employee attempting to manually recover a stirring arm of a degasser machine from molten aluminium following hydraulic failure - Right index finger became trapped and was crushed between tine of forklift and frame of plant when hydraulics reactivated - Held: Subsequent offences - In both cases convictions recorded - Fines imposed discounted by 20% - In each case fine of $52,000 plus levies and costs - S 19(1)
Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (14:06): My question is to the Premier.
Members interjecting:
The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Why under the Premier's leadership did the government fail to take action to fix WorkCover in 2005, 2006 and 2007? On 29 March 2007, during a no-confidence motion moved in parliament against the Minister for Industrial Relations, the house heard that the Premier had been advised by Alan Clayton in June 2005 that there were financial problems with WorkCover.
In November 2005, the report of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee (chaired by the Hon. Bob Sneath) warned of the financial problems in WorkCover. In November 2006, the government received the WorkCover Board's report and recommendations for reform and, in 2007, the Liberal opposition again warned the government of the crisis. Why was nothing done?
The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT (Lee—Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Finance, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (14:07): Plenty has been done, and I have previously talked about what has been done. This government made sure that a new board was put in place. That new board put in place a new CEO, a new management. I have also talked about new regulations which, of course, has provided the opportunity for a contract—
Members interjecting:
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition was given a pretty fair go during his rather lengthy explanation. I now ask members on my left to show the same courtesy to the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Minister for Industrial Relations.
The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: Thank you, sir. As a result of the new regulations, we have seen a new contract put in place. As an example of the change that has occurred, we also see a new single legal services—Minter Ellison—in charge of legal matters. So, a lot has been done. The leader also referred to recommendations previously made by the WorkCover Board. We had a good look at those, but we have called for some independent research and, as a result of that, we now have a package which goes beyond what was put forward by WorkCover. It has measures that are both legislative and non-legislative. Of course, what we would urge the opposition to do is support the legislation before the parliament.
9—Amendment of section 30—Compensability of disabilities
As a consequence of this amendment, a worker's employment will include attendance at a place for the purposes of a rehabilitation and return to work plan.
I have been on a RRTW plan for 3 years without having a job placement because I am incapacitated and doing a course as part of my rehab. The way this reads, I would have to be in a workplace, so where would retraining come into it?
For example, my pre-injury remuneration was $1400.00, (teachers, nurses, engineers etc.....)
If a job was nominated for me that pays only $800.00, (meter reader, admin job, car park attendant etc....) how would this be classified as suitable?
This new legislation is a joke, all this is going to do is have the minor injuries ride out the 2 and a half years. A nice long service leave for many and they can give so much crap to WrkCover because they are off the system. Shifting chairs on the titanic my friends.
I also have been shafted, I was told I didnt require retraining as I would always have a top up, I also know of injured workers receive redemptions but my lawyer advised me not to. So I miss out on my entitlements both ways. I now have a very different opinion on our society for the sake of some very bad management decisions. I hope there is some way fairness prevails.
It is unfortunate that most members of the Government only read the briefings or hear Michael Wrights plea for support to slash the rights of workers.
Just eight pages into the Clayton Walsh report, Alan Clayton gives a very clear insight to what went wrong with the WorkCover scheme and in doing so provides some idea as to the solution.
Clayton says;
The WorkCover scheme was reasonably stable during the late-1990s, with the availability of redemptions, and their strategic implementation, successfully extinguishing significant amounts of tail liability. At the same time reported claim numbers continued to reduce, especially after the increase of employer liability for short term income maintenance.
During the same period claim payments were very well controlled, reducing in real terms throughout the five year period. The average levy rate stayed at 2.86 percent of wages during this period, allowing a gradual erosion of the deficit such that the Scheme achieved a high-point funding ratio of 97 percent as at 30 June 2000, representing a deficit of $22 million.
So if all was going so well in the 90’s what changed? In the early years of the new millennium, WorkCover executives and the newly appointed WorkCover Board theorised that they could save some money by ignoring the intent of the Legislation and begin offering substantially lower redemptions to permanently injured Workers on benefits. Michael Wright the new Minister for WorkCover accepted their theory and a Ministerial Instruction was issued to that effect.
The value of redemptions fell 65 percent in real terms between 2000 and 2006. WorkCover began to save money and lots of it. In 2000 WorkCover had just $50 Million in cash and investments and by 2007, WorkCover had $1.4 Billion in cash and investments. Unfortunately for South Australia, the outstanding claims liability increased at an even greater rate. In 2000 WorkCover had an outstanding claims liability of $277 Million and by 2007 the outstanding claims liability had increased to $2.3 Billion. The compounding impact on a liability this size is $100 Million annually before a single claim is added to the list and wipes out half of Michael Wright’s ambitious projected savings found in slashing workers entitlements.
It is evident that Michael Wrights early Ministerial decision that the strategic implementation of Redemptions become an offer of a token redemption followed by attempts to bully injured workers into acceptance has failed. Annually some 180 permanently incapacitated Workers have rejected these token redemption offers in turn creating the multi Billion Dollar tail liability we are now confronted with.
As the number of Workers trapped on benefits increased it created jobs for some 300 administrative and case management staff and increased the annual operational cost of running WorkCover by in excess 200 percent. WorkCover employed spin doctors to suggest that the increasing number of permanently injured Workers trapped on benefits were somehow malingerers and used the skew in numbers to suggest a declining return to work rate was responsible for the mess their errant corporate policy had created. The truth is there has been NO change in Annual Return to Work rates, just an increasing number of permanently disabled workers trapped on benefits creating the anomalous skew in the figures.
The solution to the WorkCover problem can be found at pages 8 and 9 of Mr Clayton’s report and through compliance with the existing Legislation, not in slashing the rights of Injured Workers.
I am an injured worker and I saw on Television last night that there was a forum held for injured workers. I also understand from what I have been told by another injured worker that it was arranged by a lady called Rosie.
Can anyone please advise why injured workers are not told about these forums? I see there was post here on the site about it but many people do not check this site for upcoming events.
To run a forum where injured workers are given an opportunity to speak out and yet for some reason only a handful of injured workers are told about it seems to me to be lack organisation, structure and planning.
This is why the current workcover system is failing.
Unless injured workers and other stakeholders unite and are given a proper opportunity to speak out the problems with continue. Surely there must be some employers who care about their injured workers.
My recommendations.
Either tell Rosie to organise the show properly and advertise so all injured workers are aware of the event or give the responsibility to someone else who will do things properly.
Can someone please ask me why is it going to take 6 years to rein in the unfunded liability when a major percentage of maintanance claims will be kicked off the system.
By RENATO CASTELLO
The architect of reforms that would cut benefits to South Australia's injured workers has fronted his critics, saying his recommendations are not a case of "slash and burn".
Lawyer Alan Clayton faced a 100-strong crowd of injured workers and their relatives yesterday and said he stood by his report that would cut entitlements in a bid to rein in WorkCover's unfunded liabilities, believed to be now topping $1 billion.
But the crowd agreed to hold a rally at Parliament House on April 1 to coincide with the expected debate of the proposed reforms to the WorkCover legislation.
And Opposition industrial relations spokesman Duncan McFetridge promised those gathered at Enfield Community Centre he would be urging his colleagues not to cut workers' entitlements.
Mr Clayton, who along with financial expert John Walsh reviewed Australia's worst performing compensation scheme, insisted that after the changes, SA would continue to have one of the fairest systems in Australia.
He said SA would be one of three states that would continue to pay workers 80 per cent of their wages after 13 weeks, down from 100 per cent at present.
He said payments to workers per-manently injured or ill would be a maximum $400,000, the "highest in the country" under the changes.
"This is not a slash and burn" he said, adding the scheme would be the first to have a charter of workers' rights.
"It will be only the second juris-diction to have the costs of specialist counselling services to the family members of a deceased worker.
"I think we have met the standard of maintaining South Australia as having, overall, the fairer set of workers' compensation benefits. I am here to defend my report, I am not here to defend the Bill... I'm happy to stand behind the report." The Rann Government's Work-Cover Bill is expected to contain many of the recommendations of the Clayton/Walsh review, including terminating all payments for workers after 130 weeks and during a disputed claim, and reducing business levies.
The Government predicts the reforms will eliminate WorkCover's debt within at least six years.
Treasurer Kevin Foley and Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright were invited to the forum but did not attend.
Dr McFetridge said he would present a submission on the WorkCover Bill to the Liberal joint party meeting on March 25, where he would be urging colleagues not to cut entitlements.
SA Unions will intensify its public campaign against the reforms this week, with volunteers to hand out leaflets at Tea Tree Plaza Interchange, Noarlunga and Adelaide railway stations urging people to sign an online petition to "save WorkCover".
Mr Clayton would not comment on the union's campaign.
"It will be only the second juris-diction to have the costs of specialist counselling services to the family members of a deceased worker.
You would have thought this would have been in place before his recommendations. Just shows how low WorkCover have been. Has Mr Clayton seen all the cases at riverside where families have to prove they are families or the death was caused by a workplace accident. I think there has been a comment on here about how many families of deceased workers WorkCover have treated badly. Very shameful.
So what happens to the case managers and rehabilitation consultants now. Do they join the rest of us at centrelink? I would laugh if I get my rehab working at centrelink.
There are currently 3000 workers beyond 36 months on benefits.
To throw them off as WorkCover propose, each Worker must attend a medical panel convened of medico’s of somewhat questionable ethic hand picked by WorkCover.
Each Panel should realistically take at least half a day so lets get ambitious and say they can punch through 4 a day, 20 a week, or 960 per year. And that assumes the medico's work full time on it.
The first few claimants thrown off will be courted by lawyers wanting to take it to the highest court and challenge the legality of the legislation and the merit of the decision. That will bog them up for another year or so.
And don't forget Alan Clayton's warning to WorkCover that the Victorian Courts ruled that if they have NOT prepared the worker for employment at the assessed capacity, they will NOT legally be able to throw them off. Given the lack of re-training and genuine rehabilitation offered by the kids managing the files, they will be up against it there as well.
It will take 4 years to get through the current 36 mths+ group and then there is the 1000 or so that will join the list over that period.
The first worker forced back to work that suffers an injury or flare up the old injury because they shouldn't have been there will then sue WorkCover and the Medical Panel for negligence. The dubious Medical Panel will also need to have a very close look at their Professional Indemnity Insurance if they want to go against the recommendation of their peers and push an injured Worker back to work.
The reality is however they will get through 2 reviews a day and may throw 1 off benefits. They will work at most 2 days a week so that is 2 a week or 100 a year which is 100 less than join the 36mth+ group. The Case clerks will stop managing the files earmarked for Panel review thus no rehab thus no right to terminate benefits. At that rate, the liability will peak at around $17 Billion before Bruce is forced to admit that he really has no idea how to actually run a business as opposed to closing the doors and garage sale the assets!
So good old WorkCover. In pursuing what can only be described as a fantasy, they have simply dug themselves and South Australia into yet another ever growing hole.
With Peter Vaughan’s Business SA wholeheartedly supporting the proposal to double the Statutory Cap on Levies to 15 percent, Small Business will be left paying off the debts created by the corporate incompetence of the WorkCover Board because big business will of course join the ranks of the self insured!
I can clearly recall that WorkCover commenced a campaign where they were trying to get workers back to work sooner.
Seems all this money was just a waste and the new Clayton's legislation is an easier way forward. Let the injured workers rot on the system for two years and then throw them off.
The current system would work well if it was actually managed properly. The current legislation shows its clear intentions.
Review injured workers at the two year mark and either redeem them, or rehabilitate them more or leave them on the system for another short period until their injury stabilises. They should also get a fair redemption - not just a years wages to send them on their way.
If this was followed there would be less than half the current employees, less than half the overheads and likely a surplus and no unfunded liability.
The recent Clayton report which was instigated and paid for by the board just reflects the way the board would like things done.
The public, Mike Rann and all of his catholic mates should
realise that at no time have the current board made any clever decisions to significantly save any money that might turn the scheme around. In fact every change they have made has made the unfunded liability grow even more.
It seems there is a lot more to WorkCover woes than what is published. I am unsure how much is invested (business levies) in the sub-prime markets. Maybe Mr Foley will include it in the treasury report??
We also have had directions from Minister Wright back in 2003 on the issue of redemptions. If I can see what has gone wrong, why are they blaming and penalising current and future workers? All seems to be adding up now.
Australia’s Reaction to the U.S. Subprime Meltdown
By Dan Denning
• March 15th, 2007 •
Everyone loves a good panic, just like everyone loves a parade. The U.S. subprime meltdown story has the potential to be a great story because it has all the elements of good newspaper copy. Money will be lost. Lives ruined. Arrests will be made. There is blame to dish out! Who is responsible for the destruction of dreams!?
Subject : VICTORIAN AGENCY LOSES $300M IN SUB-PRIME MELTDOWN
Every Victorian should be disturbed at the report today that the agency in charge of superannuation investments for many of Victoria's public servants has lost $300 million because of the sub-prime financial market crisis.
Just over three months ago, the Premier told Victorians that the exposure of the Victorian Funds Management Corporation (VFMC) to the sub-prime market was "extremely limited".
Yet at the same time that the Premier was on his feet in Parliament claiming the VFMC's exposure to sub-prime was "extremely limited," market volatility caused by the collapse of the sub-prime housing finance market in the United States saw the value of VFMC's investments collapse by $300 million.
It is now apparent the scale of these losses was the reason John Brumby refused on many other occasions to answer questions in Parliament last year about this issue.
The sub-prime crisis has plunged the sharemarket into chaos, yet the Premier has had his head in the sand about its effect on the billions of dollars of investments made on behalf of Victorian taxpayers, particularly public service superannuation and investments on behalf of other Victorian Government agencies including the Royal Children's Hospital.
The Labor Party boasts the Victorian economy is in safe hands, but John Brumby's claimed ignorance of a $300 million loss by its premier investment agency reveals that there are serious financial issues affecting the future of Victoria which Mr Brumby refuses to disclose.
BACKGROUND ON VFMC: The Victorian Funds Management Corporation (VFMC) is the primary investment agency of the Victorian Government and is responsible for managing investments of $41.3 billion on behalf of 14 clients, all of whom are Victorian Government entities.
It currently invests primarily on behalf of insurance funds such as the Transport Accident Commission and WorkCover, and superannuation funds including the Essential Services Superannuation Fund. The VFMC also invests a number of smaller portfolios on behalf of departments and authorities such as the Royal Children's Hospital, the Royal Women's Hospital and the National Gallery.
Further information on the December quarter VFMC losses can be found at http://www.vfmc.vic.gov.au/investmentprofile_performance.asp
(Background information from VFMC website: http://www.vfmc.vic.gov.au)
After reading the bill for reforms in the WorkCover legislation I have noticed so many flaws that I really hope it gets passed. It is going to be one big nightmare and if the government can not see it then they deserve the backlash. I hope there will be more than one ombudsman appointed because the workers who will stay on the system should keep him/her busy for quite some time, they wont have time for any new claimants. And how long will it take to evaluate each workers capacity? How much is it going to cost?
Has anybody told the Minister about all this?
Looks like the unions have backed down, this is ashame for all future injured workers. This has proven how weak the unions are. There will be some very unpleasent unsettling times ahead as the above comment suggests as this will cause a legal minefield. Also "Retrospective" is a very nasty word in the legal world, and I cannot see the system settle for years.
In the event of corruption - Who would one complain to??
I wonder if anyone really had problems about the way Work-Cover was doing things-who would they complain to?
If they complained to a member of parliament -they would be targeted by Work-Cover like that guy a few years ago.
The Police would likely say well its Work-Cover they look after themselves.
If they complained to the Ombudsman I am sure there would not be any available resources to deal with the matter in a timely and efficient manner. In most cases the response would simply be a uniquely tailored letter responding to your concerns that does not actually deal with the issues and sidesteps everything you complained about.
If you complain to Minister Wright- You will no doubt get a thank you for your letter. Nothing more will be done about it.
If you complain to anyone in Work-Cover or the press you will simply be targeted.
The answer??
Well at least posting it here on the blog makes your complaint accessible by the public.
Govt 'sorry' for raped nurse's pay issue
March 5, 2008 - 5:43PM
Advertisement
The Queensland government has apologised to a nurse who was sexually assaulted on a remote Torres Strait island and then told to claim worker's compensation.
The 27-year-old nurse told police she was raped as she slept in her home on Mabuiag Island in the early hours of February 5.
Since then, her employer Queensland Health has declined to pay her any wages or expenses because the "injury" occurred at work and it was an issue of workers' compensation, The Australian newspaper reported on Wednesday.
The nurse also was told by health authorities immediately after the attack that if she left Mabuiag Island she would have the days away deducted from her leave, the newspaper said.
Health Minister Stephen Robertson apologised to the nurse and said she would be paid according to her contract.
He said the nurse had been employed on the contract to February 28 as part of a program that would rotate nurses in and out of the area for three months at a time.
"It would appear an error has occurred, an administrative error occurred, that stopped her payment early prior to the completion of her contract and that is being attended to today," Mr Robertson said.
"So there was nothing malicious about that, it was a simple administrative error that occurred ... so there was nothing that was as a result of the very unfortunate circumstances that happened to her."
He said her WorkCover claim would go through the normal process.
Nurses have threatened to leave far north Queensland if the government fails to take action on security concerns within a month.
A 22-year-old man is in custody after being charged with rape and burglary over the incident, while the nurse has been relocated for treatment.
Can anyone confirm that under this proposed new work cover legislation, does it also apply to the members of parliament supporting it's introduction, after all they are only worker's too.
I would like to see them if injured, cut 20% after 13 weeks and after 152 weeks left high and dry.
12 March 2008
Dear Reader,
Injured workers' entitlements are under threat due to the State Government's proposed changes to
WorkCover legislation.
The proposed changes will see:
• Payments to Injured workers cut after 13 weeks to 80 percent of their average weekly earnings.
• Weekly payments discontinued altogether after two and half years following injury.
• If an injured worker disputes their claim, they will receive no payments during this time.
• Reduced compensation for loss of a limb or body function at the discretion of WorkCover.
While the State Government is currently debating these changes in parliament, Premier Mike Rann believes cuts to entitlements are necessary because of unfunded liabilities of more than $840 million. Despite the schemes financial blow-out, Premier Rann also wants to reduce employers levy rates, arguing these changes will make the SA WorkCover system the fairest in the country.
Along with SA Unions, the ANF fails to see how this proposed legislation is fair to injured workers. The primary focus of workers compensation should be effective return to work for injured workers. However the State Government's plan to improve financial viability of the scheme is directly contrary to the interests of injured workers and will not facilitate early return-to-work outcomes.
If this proposed legislation goes ahead the ANF is deeply concerned for the welfare of all injured workers including nurses, midwives and personal care attendants.
I am urging all members to take action now to protect the rights of injured workers. By signing ANF's electronic petition you can help stop this proposed legislation from going ahead.
To sign ANF's petition, visit the website <http://www.sa.anf.org.au> and follow the link to:
<http://gopetition.com/petitions/protect-the-welfare-of-iniured-workers.html>
To find out all the latest about future campaigns, news and information, why not forward us your email address and/or mobile number. By emailing or SMS we can keep you informed with events as they happen. You can update your details on the ANF website or contact membership on: 08 8334 1902.
Yours truly,
Elizabeth Da bars Secretary-elect
ANF (SA Branch) and ANF South Australian Branch
191 Torrens Road Ridleyton SA 5008 : PO Box 861 Regency Park BC SA 5942 Tel: 08 8334 1900 Fax: 08 8334 1901 Toll Free: 1800 809 642 Email: enquiry@sa.anf.org.au Web: www.sa.anf.org.au
APRIL Fool's Day could provide an important indication of how much of a fight the government has on its hands over WorkCover reform.
Thats the day parliament resumes after a three-week break.
Angry unions are planning a rally on the steps of Parliament aimed at showing the government how they feel about WorkCover reform, especially plans to reduce compensation benefits.
The last time worker's rallied on the steps over Workcover was 1995 and Mike Rann was Opposition leader and leading the protests.
The opposition is yet to decide its stance on the Government's reform legislation and has been slightly compromised already by comments from front bencher Duncan McFetridge that entitlements should not be cut but administration expenses reined in instead.
The questions to be answered on April 1 will be whether Premier Rann fronts up to the rally and what Opposition leader Martin Hamilton Smith will say.
Has anybody noticed the WorkCover Advertisements in "The Advertiser"? it shows a brick layer being helped by a physio. The funny bit is the person standing behind the concrete mixer. Returning a worker before one is fit could be detrimental.........
I heard Michael Atkinson on 5AA the other night. He was questioned on the WorkCover issue plus the issue of the new prison and the new hospital. He stated that the new hospital and prison couldnt be built overnight and a process was in place for these projects. These could take 6 years, He then went on and said he was not going to stand there and watch the WorkCover unfunded liability reach a $Billion. The simple fact is they have all watched it grow to this figure without any action, they have been warned many times.
Why is it that a process was to be put into place for the much needed hospital and prison when it seems no process was needed to force in the new kneejerk WorkCover legilsation. They try and run this spin and get caught every time.
Regarding Mr. Bruce Carter’s three critical factors on the demise of WorkCover, it would have to be noted that one overlooking critical factor was that these all occurred after Mr. Carter was appointed chairperson of the WorkCover board. Comments such as his could lead to playing the blame game but one has to look at the causation in its endeavor to seek why such critical points occurred in the first place.
A perfect example if the new reforms comes into place. Occupations just like teachers will now have to protect their employment status as the new reforms has no considerations for loss of the ability to sell ones employment potential if one was to go on WorkCover.
I hope Business SA has notified its Business members that this will become a common reacurrance.
South Australian teachers say time is running out for the State Government to settle a new enterprise agreement.
Australian Education Union state president Correna Haythorpe said the existing agreement would expire on March 31, but the government had yet to respond to the union's claims.
"We began our part of the process last year, devised a detailed, carefully argued claim which explained the necessity of what we're seeking and allowed plenty of time for the government to respond," Ms Haythorpe said.
As well as higher pay, the union wants the government to agree to measures to attract and retain staff, to allow for smaller classes and more manageable workloads and policies to improve the work-life balance.
Much of the public commentary over the past few weeks ignores three critical facts in relation to the WorkCover scheme:
Answer: One critical point overlooked in that these three points were all generated after Mr Carters appointment as Chair of the board.
1) Fewer injured workers successfully return to work on our scheme than any other scheme in australia, often at a devastating costs to families.
Answer: mis-management and "fair" redemptions removed on the instructions from Minister Wright in 2003
2) Under the proposed reforms, the scheme will remain the fairest, according to workers' compensation expert Alan Clayton, and the most generous overall.
Answer: Alan Clayton also suggested in this report of mis-management.
3) The scheme is unsustainable in its present form and must be fixed in a way that is fair to injured workers and affordable to business.
Answer: WorkCover has sat back and has done nothing to a point where it would be questioned if it has actually sabotaged the system.
The legislative reform proposed by the government has a clear focus on achieving better return to work outcomes. This is the key to fixing the scheme through a combination of sound claims management and the right legislative tools.
Answer: Starve the injured workers back to work without considering the occupational hazards and further aggrevation. The workers are too familiar with the current tools so lets change the rules.
In its entirety, the package will significantly improve the state's return-to-work rates and gradually decrease the cost of the scheme to employers.
Answer: Employers will soon realise they have more of an obligation to offer workers employment and increase relationship tension within the employer/employee.
Much has been said about diminishing injured workers' entitlements. The fact remains that by accepting the proposed changes, South Australia would continue to have the fairest and overall most generous scheme in Australia.
Answer: This model copies the Victorias scheme in which common law is in place for an employee to seek damages through employer negligence.
The very basis of every argument put forward by WorkCover and the Government for the proposed cuts to Workers Entitlements is that fewer injured Workers are returning to work.
This is a complete distortion of the truth.
In 1997 there were 2141 Injured Workers on Benefits for 12 months or less. In 2006 there were incredibly 2141 Injured Workers on benefits for 12 months or less.
If we look at the 24 months or less figure we find that in 1997 there were 2640 Workers on Benefits and in 2006 there were just 2788, an increase of only 148 workers on benefits in 10 years.
How then is it possible that WorkCover try to suggest that there are fewer workers returning to work?
If we then consider the greater than 24 month group, the group that are internationally accepted as permanently incapacitated with only a 6% chance of ever returning to work we find that in 1997 there was 1970 Workers on benefits but in 2006 there were 3725 a 100 percent increase.
These figures obtained by FOI from WorkCover objectively prove that there is NO deterioration in return to work rates as WorkCover try to suggest but a 100 percent increase in the number of permanently injured Workers trapped by the ministerial policy to stop complying with the Act and paying reasonable redemptions.
WorkCover simply confuse the argument by including the ever increasing number permanently disabled Workers each year that find themselves trapped on benefits rather than paid out as the Legislation intended are somehow malingering and should be back at work.
Well as everyone will know businesses in South Australia expect that bodies like Workcover are run by competent management. With the unfunded liability one must wonder about how competent they really are.
The recent full page advert in the advertiser stating"pass the workers compensation bill now" is obviously showing the pending desperation of businesses........or is it a show of people who have other interests.
The advert appears to have been sponsored by the following
Aged Care Association Australia (South Australia).
Australian Hotels Association
Business SA
Engineering Employees Association of South Australia
Master Builders Association
Motor Traders Association
Property Council of Australia
South Australian Chamber of mines and Energy
As an injured Worker I will make it my duty never to support any of the above organisations.
Posted by You want it when?? at 11:30 AM, 21/3/2008
How ironic "The Advertiser" should use an appropriate photograph of the one finger sign (FxxK you) to describe Bruce Carters opinion on crucial arears WorkCover is failing all of us. (friday 21st march 2008). It just goes to show the contempt he has towards injured workers and workers as a whole in this state.
I would like to make a comment on the statement made from The Advertiser under Bruce Carters column. It generalised that most sprains heal within a 6 week period. Take my word that the 6 week healing process will now extend to 13 weeks as there is now a safety factor been put into place thanks to Mr Clayton. Having said that, the new bill actually is an update of the type of employment and the injuries that may occur in this 21st century. Office workers have taken over from the labour type of employment hense when the original act was written in 1986 where there would have been more of the back, sprains, slip discs etc. Today you will find stress is becoming the more common injury type and dare i say the more difficult to treat. It is a positive sign that stress related cases are now more accepted as the norm and there is an element where compensation can now be claimed from this. The 10% threshold will be the only thing that would have to be proved in such claims.
Posted by The new 21st Century culture at 8:05 AM, 22/3/2008
What Bruce Carter has done is very Mike Rann. ie. He spoke to the majority and to hell with the minority.
He is right about how few Workers actually need WorkCover. In fact he understated the true picture. Of the 37000 reported Workplace injuries, 32000 healed and were back to work within 2 weeks with no claim for Income Maintenance on WorkCover. The Worker probably took it for granted that should the injury have been worse, WorkCover would have covered them.
He could also have stated that some 95 percent of all injured Workers are back to work within 3 months and any of the proposed changes won't affect them.
But the key point that Bruce refuses to understand is that the very intention of Workers Compensation is to be the safety net for those suffering the debilitating injuries that keep them out of work beyond 3 months.
More so, for the half of one percent of all injured workers that are permanently incapacitated. In denying Injured Workers the right to Common Law Action, the Legislation protects employers. Bruce however feels that those permanently incapacitated workers don't deserve dignity and should lose their rights.
Bruce Carter has so much to be ashamed of in his puerile arrogant and worthless life selling assets for a fraction of their worth but the mess he made of WorkCover in just 5 years takes the cake!
Not only is Bruce Carter willing to ignore the intent of the WorkCover Legislation but he has taken creative licence in his description of its original intent.
There is not, and has never been, any suggestion that the Legislation had a “short term” focus, in fact, by denying the Injured Worker their Common Law right, it is reasonable to suggest that the Act is intended to provide long term support to the few that need it.
The balance between Workers and Employers Rights was lost when WorkCover decided to bank $250 Million annually and in doing so trapped permanently incapacitated on benefits costing SA $400 Million annually.
Bruce Carter does what he knows best in his insolvency expertise and that is rid of the so called bad debt. What he has also done is infiltrate the labor party in believing that what he does to businesses is ok to do to vunerable innocent injured workers. What ashame they are falling for the trick and the many thousand (including family members) are going to experience this callous action.
ABC Stateline 28/09/2007 Julia Davison stated there were 36,000 claimants on Workcover. Wrong..
Sunday Mail 23/03/08 Julia Davison states that it is incorrect that current workers will be cut off the system completely after 2 and a half years.?????
As WorkCover "chief" I doubt you have any credibilty left.
WORKCOVER chief Julia Davison has stepped in to end what she calls "unnecessary anxiety" over changes to the troubled compensation scheme.
She says SA will have Australia's fairest worker's compensation system.
"It has been reported that all injured workers would be cut off the scheme completely after 2 and 1/2 years. This is incorrect" she said.
Injured Workers who have no capacity for work will continue to be supported...until retirement age.
"unnecessary anxiety...Well wouldn't you be anxious if you had Julia Davison and Bruce Carter in charge of the sinking ship??
Fairest compensation system...For who? the employers who can get slave labour cheap and then sack them because they no longer can work?
Injured workers who have no capacity for work will continue to be supported....until retirement age.
Well thats what injured workers are bloody sick of..being left on the system to rot..
With you silly bastards in charge what chance have injured workers got to return to some form of normal life whilst stuck on Workcover benefits?
And what of those that end up on the shceme critical list that Bruce and his mates on the board direct be pushed off the system or prosecuted because they have spoken out about Workcover to their local member or another memebr of Parliament?
Ah yes ..we all know about how Bruce, his board and Workcover employees target and Bully injured workers who complain to their members of parliament, to the media or to management.
All the legislation changes will do is give South Australia the title holder of Australia's most oppressive Workers compensation system, that has the highest ongoing unrestrained and unfunded liability with the worst treated injured workers, with the lowest effective compensation and with the highest frequency of litigation and the highest legal expenses per injured Worker.
Not to mention the ever increasing levies for employers.
You have hit the nail on the head. Nobody wants to stay on this sytem until retirement age, that is a jail sentence in itself. Can you imagine living each day as its your last with the amount of pressure and reviews that is going to be needed to support the incapacity, how is that fair?
Just a few days ago, Bruce Carter stated he wanted legislative tools to rein in the unfunded liability and we have Julia Davison stating she will keep them on the system until retirement age. Come on, you have been told for years now you are not managing the system properly and Michael Atkinson reckons he isnt going to sit back and watch the unfunded liability grow. Wake up and realise you have neglected the injured workers and the public as a whole.
If Dumb Freddy can see the problems with Workcover one wonders why the management and the Minister have done nothing about fixing the mess.
As for Julia and Bruce..when push comes to shove Julia is just a mouthpiece for Bruce and the board...her job depends on it..
Perhaps they are all too caught up in their own spin..and do not want to admit that the Black hole is so big they have fallen into that nobody can ever pull them out.
Even Blind Freddy can see the problems.
People should not be left on the system until they retire or die, they should be redeemed.
I read with your interest your article on the closure of Mitsubishi and the bright future of its workers. You have recently shown support for the WorkCover reforms where injured workers will be forced off the system without any such entitlements. You have praised the seperation package mitsubishi workers have or will receive and the ability for these workers to seek employment due to the mining boom. On the other hand, injured workers have found themselves in a position with no fault from their own who have had to survive with 80% of their income, their loss of superannuation and the high price of the very hard task of selling themselves to the open labour market with a workplace injury, plus the factor that injured workers will receive no seperation package, a cushion where mortgages and daily living can continue whilst in employment transition. I am afraid you have stated that the economic, psychological and political tragedy, will not come into effect from the closure of this manafacturing institute but i am sure this will occur to the many hundreds of injured workers who has it seems have been discriminated due to their incapacity.
I guess according to Julia Davison there would be no anxiety for Mitsubishi Workers who will be thrown off the exempt employer Workers Compensation system and on to the Workcover system when Mitsubishi closes.
This is probably where most of the unfunded liability comes from- employers who sack their employees or do not offer alternative work.
Workcover are too gutless to do anything about it and the Government do not want to know anything about it.
I would like to know what happens to people like me who have been promised that my top up would continue whilst I am partialy incapacitated. If i would have known this was going to happen, I would have pushed to be retrained in some level of work that was going to match my former employment. Seems like my rehabilitation company have failed me under these false beliefs. They have failed to fully retrain me in a suitable position. I wonder if they can be sued???????
Here is Victorias claim manual for some interesting reading. My husband had a workplace injury and has suffered a phsychiatrict condition, he has already been paid his sec 43 for the physical injuries. Can anybody tell me if the reforms comes in will he be able to claim for his depression now?
"A major overhaul of Workcover has been proposed to rein in its unfunded liability" is a statement in The Advertiser is the description of Business lobby groups.
How can a major overhaul be when they are using the same act and changing sections that suits them?
These reforms have failed the right of common law to sue against negligence.
In stating that there would be more support for injured workers, a streamlined administration and the safest return to work. Is an admittance that the WorkCover agents have failed the system and not the workers.
This is again bullying tactics by demanding the Bill be passed "NOW".
These lobby Business groups can afford to place full page advertisements indicates that they have the money for such tactics, instead of retraining or making the work place safer.
Do they ever show the figures of how many Businesses have been fined by WorkSafe SA for unsafe workplace practices?
Seems WorkCover's latest advertising about pushing workers back to work before they are fully recovered is not supported by real research!
Going to work ill costs $25 billion
By Adam Cresswell
May 29, 2007 12:30am
WORKERS who are over-fond of the Monday morning sick call have long been a target for human resources managers, but it seems the genuinely sick who continue to struggle in to work are costing the country far more.
Research to be published today by health fund Medibank Private puts the cost of "presenteeism" – the reduced productivity of sick workers who continue to report for duty – at $25.7 billion every year.
That makes the cost of presenteeism to businesses nearly four times greater than absenteeism, where sick workers stay at home. Previous research by Medibank Private in 2005 suggested absenteeism cost Australian businesses about $7 billion each year.
Presenteeism was found to cut productivity by 2.5 per cent – the equivalent of each employee losing six working days per year.
Medibank Private managing director George Savvides will today urge employers to invest in health programs for employees, saying the new findings showed the investment would pay off.
"If employers could invest in their staff's health and consequently halve the average productivity lost per employee, the increased productivity would inevitably flow through to a business's bottom line," Mr Savvides will say at the launch of the research.
The latest research, commissioned from independent economic consultancy Econtech, analysed prevalence and severity of 12 different health conditions, ranging from asthma and arthritis to high blood pressure, migraine and skin problems.
It found the direct costs to business – compared to an alternative scenario where workers remained at 100 per cent of their normal productivity – was $17.6 billion.
The remaining $8 billion came from the flow-on effects to other businesses, such as suppliers and customers, whose own business activity was reduced as a knock-on effect.
Depression and allergies made the biggest impact, accounting for 19 per cent each of the total loss in productivity attributable to presenteeism.
Medibank Private's public and industry affairs manager, Craig Bosworth, said the report was the first to quantify how presenteeism affected other businesses indirectly.
"If a worker produces 190 widgets a day instead of 200, that has a flow-on effect to the rest of industry which needs those widgets, as well as to the suppliers who provide the materials to make the widgets," Mr Bosworth said.
"HR managers and chief financial officers can for the first time see the flow-on cost to their business. Any direct investment in the health and wellbeing of employees can now be seen as an investment in the bottom line."
Flu vaccination programs, encouraging recreational activities for employees in breaks and after work and providing fruit and other healthy food in staff canteens were all examples of measures employers could take, Mr Bosworth said.
The Medibank Private research found that while 53 per cent of staff had taken at least one day off in the previous four weeks, 77 per cent said they had gone into work while suffering a health problem. Of those who had gone in to work, 88 per cent said they felt less productive.
On average staff said their productivity nearly halved.
BREWER Fosters has pleaded guilty to two charges following the death of a worker almost two years ago, Victoria's workplace safety authority says.
A Wantirna man was crushed between a handrail and the door of a machine which took empty bottles from pallets before they were filled with beer at the company's Abbotsford plant on April 13, 2006, a spokesman for WorkSafe said today.
The company pleaded guilty in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court today to two breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act in relation to the death.
The charges relate to the company's failure to provide or maintain the safety of its work systems and failure to provide information and instruction to its employees to ensure their safety.
Magistrate Barbara Cottrell set a plea hearing for July 24.
My son's lawyer has sent him a flyer promoting a rally on the steps of Parliament House to protest against the proposed changes to WorkCover:
1pm - 2pm, Tuesday 1st April 2008
My son is too injured to attend, but we hope to get most of his friends and family to protest on behalf of my son and for every other worker who is already suffering too much without these new, punitive measures.
Members of Parliament need to know that South Australians want to support their injured workers, not punish them.
I also will be attending the rally, i will be taking my young family to show these heartless polititions that there is a lot of people who are going to suffer all because of mis-management, wrong decisions and their failure not to act years ago when the financial situation was manageable.
As Workcover's unfunded liability grows, so do questions about the way it operates,
as Craig Bildstein reports.
Workcover is fast running out of excuses.
Last year, when its financial exposure was increasing by more than $1 million a day - Workcovers repsonse was to put up the shutters on public scrutiny.
Hot on the heels of its shocking financial results comes extraordinary allegations about Workcovers treatment of many claimaints.
An injured Port Lincoln diver Jeff Thompson, says Workcover hired Private security investigators to follow him on an overseas honeymoon and spy on him.
Further his wife, Lioudmila, claims Workcover staff stalked her, and the matter is the subject of a police investigation.
Workcover refuses to discuss these or other allegations, saying it would be a breach of privacy laws.
But its questioned practices and its inability to rein in expenditure and taxpayer liability are putting the publics trust in the organisation at risk.
Latest figures show Workcovers unfunded liability is increasing at a rate of $34 million a month.
At this rate, Workcover has the potential to be the Rann Governments State Bank.
But it is the human face of Workers' compensation beneficiaries which captured all the attention in State Parliament last week.
Liberal Backbencher Angus Redford, who has studied Workcover since his election in 1993, revealed that investigators had spied on the Thompsons during their European honeymoon.
opposition Industrial Relations spokesman Iain Evans also claimed Workcover had misused correspondence from MPs, sparking the establishment of a powerful parliamentary Privileges Committee inquiry into the allegations.
In announcing that he had found Workcover had a prima Facie case to answer, parliamentary speaker Peter Lewis instructed Workcover not to destroy any documentation."
Posted by Justice delayed is justice denied at 11:21 AM, 27/3/2008
The Workcover board and Chairman Bruce Carter bullied Thompson, intimidated him and made sure that everything was covered up.
However there still survives some remnants..
The emails and minutes of the Board retrieved under FOI.
Why is it that Greg Traughton wrote to Ian Basey and stated.
Ian,
Can you please provide Kathy and I ( retrun email will do) outlining where things are up to with the Thompson INvestigation. In short the Chair of the Board expects me to update the Board ( at least verbally) at each board meeting until completed..Further the Board agreed at its last meeting to get MGT to fast track the investigations( as adviced to Steve). Ideally a timeframe for laying the complaint would be ideal.
If I can get this today, I would appreciate it.
thanx
Greg
One of the replies states.
Ian, I presume Steve has spoken to you about this issue. In short , we need to be in a position by 30 June to know whether we are laying any charges or not. As discussed with Steve, pls let me know if this is not achievable asap.
These new reforms are going to allow workers to speak up on the way they have been mis-treated as where in the past they were targeted in unfair bullying tactics. They will have nothing to lose.
The can of worms are just about to be opened.
From; Bruce Carter (mail to bjcarter@sa.fh.com.au)
Sent Friday, 25 June 2004 5:12 PM
To; O'Donnell, Kathy
Subject : RE: Emailing: J. Thompson letters. TIF
When are we able to move this matter forward, it must be a priority.
Bruce
From: Troughton, Greg
Sent: Thursday, 1 July 2004 1:00AM
To: Bruce Carter ( Email)
Cc: O'Donnell, Kathy; McAllister, Sue
Subject : Thompson and I.............Matters.
Bruce, Just wanted to update you on 2 outstanding matters:
1) The Thompson laying of charges- we are currently seeking Millsteed's views on the charges to be laid before we formally lay them. I am doing this out of an abundance of caution and that I think , given his previous work he did for the Board ( ie appropriateness of all investigation activities carried out by us AND the suggested further work to be done prior to laying the charges) I wanted an extra level of comfort to increase the chances of success ( and defence in case of failure!) I would guess that we should only be days away form actually laying the charges and it would be my intention to somehow publicise the fact charges are being laid ( whilst obviously not as good as publicising any outcome, the laying of charges themselves on this occasions will send a strong message also)
Defence in case of failure??
Publicise before charges are laid??
Talk about intimidation by Workcover and the board for speaking out to your politician about your ill treatment by Workcover and their excessive expenditure of employer funded money.
Bruce
.....I am meeting with Michael Roder (barrister engaged and instructed by corporation) tomorrow morning to demonstrate the vigour with which the Board wants teh charges to be laid.
Bruce to Greg Traughton
Re Hows this for Thompson Issue
I do not feel comfortable about the suggested media response. Get the lawyers to suggest a release and progress this matters as a total priority.
Posted by Still standing for my rights at 11:47 AM, 27/3/2008
He is a problem now..cut his pay..lawfully or otherwise..
Dear Greg
Thank you for your e-mail confirming the letter is to issue and we will ensure that the case manager does same today.
We suspended payments to the worker on 18/08/04
(lawfully or otherwise)...
Please let me know if you wish to discuss the matter.
Greg Traughton.
to Bruce
Just to briefly update you on this matter- income maintenance payments to Mr Thompson stopped on 18 August and the formal letter backing up that position. ( ie simply telling him the reason for stopping being the pending fraud case against him) is going today. Once again, we have sought the relevant legal advice in order to minimise any legal brouhaha on the part of Mr Thompson.
I would antiticipate that the media may well pick up on this soon.....I will keep you posted
Greg.
Posted by Let the truth be known at 11:57 AM, 27/3/2008
So was the above prosecution and unlawful cessation of weekly payments done with due dilligence and in good faith by the board and Workcover employees?
Seems that Workcover's internal lawyers, and the Board will do anything to bully injured workers that are causing problems..
Sometimes they will it seems act otherwise than in accordance with the law..
Not to mention the fact that after 4 years of FOI applications I am still waiting for records to be produced by Workcover..something in which the Ombudsman's office seems under resourced when it comes up against corporations that have trouble understanding the difference between "freedom from information" and "freedom of information."
Posted by Bullied by Workcover at 12:02 PM, 27/3/2008
From Hansard..what powers does parliament have over Workcover?
I looked into this issue above in hansard..interesting reading..
The SPEAKER: For the purposes of clarification, the
chair points out that the chair understands the leader to be
inquiring about why WorkCover set out to investigate how
the Leader of the Opposition—if the Leader of the Opposition—
came to be in possession of papers relevant to Work-
Cover and its dependencies, whether they are claimants or
plaintiffs, or how ever else you may wish to describe them.
That seeks to undermine the privilege which the public has
vested in members of parliament and in the institution of
parliament to do its work as an institution and to do their
work as members of the parliament on behalf of the public
in whose interest privilege is established.
Accordingly, having had to make those remarks, it has
driven my mind in the direction of revealing something of the
nature of my view of the inquiry already made by the member
for Davenport. There is some serious misconception in
prospect within the management ofWorkCover that it is free
to go anywhere and do anything, including intimidate both
members of the public and members of the parliament, in the
course of pursuing its inquiries through its compliance
division. That, where it relates to parliament, is entirely
improper, and it is for that reason that I direct that none of
those files be interfered with until after a considered opinion
is provided to the house on Monday. The chair recognises
that the minister understands the gravity of that position and
that, should WorkCover not otherwise come into possession
of the information of proceedings today, the minister will
undertake to appraise them of it.
In relation to the above comments, can I be right that the new reform allows for an OMBUDSMAN? and if so would be able to act on complaints from injured workers currently on the system? Would the Ombudsman have enough resourses as I feel the office would be quite busy.
Why has this guy not complained ot his members of parliament about this?
Surely they would protect an injured worker against bullying and intimidation by the Board and Workcover employees.
How can the system work if injured workers are silenced for speaking out?
I was going to give evidence to the SARC committee..I am not sure of I should now..I might be targeted by Workcover for speaking to them and I am stuck on Workcover and they could really make life hell for me and my family.
I remember reading about this worker in that he went on a holiday overseas and investigators followed him. The guy is injured and not a criminal who skipped bail. it just goes to show that there is no rehabilitation element in WorkCover SA, just easy ways to kick people of the system. Why would a board member have anything to do with a claim. All smells a bit corrupt to me.
Many will recall the State Bank Collapse and the charges against Tim Marcus Clarke.
Few will know that the Auditor General Inquiry stated that one of the key elements leading to the downfall of the State Bank was its Chairman meddling in the day to day affairs of the bank such as pushing for loans to be approved etc.
Now aint history a funny thing? Here we have Bruce meddling in the day to day operations of WorkCover but has not idea how F&cked up the scheme has become under his Board and Management.
Even Julia Davison recently admitted that the plan to throw everyone off benefits won't succeed and WorkCover under its current and proposed models will remain an unfunded pension scheme which by the way Bruce, it is not and was never intended to be!
March 27th, 2008 by Critical Times
When Michael Wright was the Opposition spokesperson for Industrial Relations and Workers Compensation prior to the election of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) to government in 2002 he was provided with an enormous amount of information from people inside the Trade Union movement and within the WorkCover Corporation that clearly showed that the scheme was on a downward slide as a consequence of political decisions that had been taken by the Liberal State Government and the leadership of the Corporation.
In 2000/01 the WorkCover Board and the CEO of the WorkCover Corporation decided to not only reduce the levy rate but also to provide a rebate to employers throughout South Australia.
In 2000-01 Michael Wright attended at least three meetings at the United Trades and Labor Council’s office on South Terrace. On one occasion the Opposition Leader, Mike Rann, accompanied Michael Wright. On each occasion Michael Wright gave an absolute assurance that, on election of the ALP to government, the Workers’ Rehabilitation and Compensation Act would be improved to benefit injured workers.
On one occasion Michael Wright stated that should the ALP be elected in 2002 he would have a review conducted of the workers’ compensation scheme within six weeks after being elected and the findings would be introduced through legislative change. The Trade Union representatives involved in workers’ compensation at the time felt that the timeframe was ambitious but the commitment was welcomed.
On being elected Minister Wright established the Stanley review and the findings were handed down in mid 2002. However, it was not until 20 December 2002 that Minister Wright officially released the findings. They have gathered dust ever since.
Minister Wright is to be condemned for his failure to honour his commitment to the Trade Union movement and his lack of responsibility in addressing the leadership and management problems within the WorkCover Corporation.
Approximately 18 months ago the Treasurer, Kevin Foley, supported by representatives of the business sector stated that there was a problem with WorkCover and that it would be fixed. Treasurer Foley and the chairperson of the WorkCover Board, Bruce Carter, decided that the Board would put up recommendations to the government to change the WorkCover legislation.
The recommendations that were put forward were extremely draconian. However, Bruce Carter and the majority of the WorkCover Board were so confident that the recommendations that they had put to the government would be introduced that the WorkCover management established a unit within the WorkCover Corporation specifically to assist the government in drafting the necessary legislative changes.
In mid 2007 I and another Union official were invited to Minister Wright’s office to discuss our concerns that the Corporation was outsourcing their responsibilities under section 58B and 58C of the Act to Employers Mutual which was like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. The Minister stated that he shared our concerns but was powerless to do anything about it as it was a Board decision.
During our discussion I raised with Minister Wright the Trade Union movement’s concerns that the Corporation was working on amendments to the legislation that were draconian. He gave his undertaking that while he was the Minister responsible for workers’ compensation in South Australia he would not introduce legislation that was detrimental to injured workers.
History has now shown that Minister Wright has reneged on that undertaking, just as he reneged on his promise in relation to the Stanley review in 2002.
Minister Wright however is not the primary architect behind the proposed legislation that will have dramatic adverse affects on injured workers in this State and undermines the conditions and protection for workers that Unions have fought for. Treasurer, Kevin Foley, has played the leading role in promoting the proposed changes to the legislation and is working hand in hand with the business community to ensure their passage through parliament.
This is the man that masquerades as a Laborite but in reality is more conservative than his
counterparts in the Liberal Party. This is the man who got it wrong in the Nicole Corns saga, the Port Adelaide bridges, the Victoria Park corporate grandstand and considers South Australians as whingers. His philosophy is more directed at looking after and protecting the business interest of his corporate mates in the business sector than the average working person in this State.
Foley’s cohort, Pat Conlon – purported to be the leader of the left wing of the Labor Party – is another that deserves to be condemned for his involvement in this sorry saga. This fellow espoused working-class socialist left principles for years before he got into parliament. Once elected, however, his ideology changed. If he had voiced his opposition to the proposed legislative changes and used his influence with Rann & Foley injured workers would not be confronted with the harsh and unjust legislation that is currently up for debate in parliament.
Rann, Foley, and Conlon claim that even with the proposed legislative changes, the South Australian workers’ compensation scheme will still be the best in Australia. The reality is that, if passed by parliament, the proposed legislation will be extremely detrimental to injured workers and their families and the business sector will benefit.
Let’s look at the facts and not the political spin:
• Injured workers will be forced back to work after 13 weeks. That will lead, in some cases, to workers developing chronic injuries because they will not be able to afford to not be at work.
• Injured workers will have even less rights to require their employers to provide them with suitable employment or the equivalent. One, if not the most significant reason, for why the Corporation has a large liability is the fact that some employers put barriers to frustrate the return of the injured worker to the workplace to the extent that the worker eventually has to give up. In a lot of instances, workers have to have psychological counselling as a consequence of the employers actions. There is no amendment to the Act to allow punitive action to be taken against an employer who fails to meet their obligations to provide suitable employment after a worker is injured. In actual fact the way the legislation is currently proposed will allow employers further scope to stop injured workers from returning to the workplace where they sustained their injuries.
• In 1991 the then Labor government through negotiations with the Trade Union movement removed common law from the legislation on the proviso that injured workers would essentially be looked after. Irrespective of how serious the negligence of the employer an injured worker cannot sue the employer under common law. The proposed legislative changes however propose that if an injured worker is not totally and permanently incapacitated after 130 weeks he/she will be thrown on to the scrapheap. Again, another betrayal of the Labor Party.
• The Rann government is claiming that the families of workers who are killed on the job will be looked after. However, if a worker is terminally ill from a workplace cause and their claim has been delayed and not been accepted prior to the death of the worker the Corporation will not have to pay out anything to the workers family.
• The Rann government is making great claims about rehabilitation and return to work coordination i.e. where employers employ more than 30 employees the employer will nominate one employee as the rehabilitation and return to work coordinator. But in reality this person will have no more authority than an occupational health and safety representative. The employer will still have the ultimate say in what actions are taken.
• Presently a worker who is issued with a Discontinuance Notice has the right to appeal against the determination and immediately they lodge a Notice of Dispute the compensating authority is compelled by law to continue paying the worker until the matter is heard in the Tribunal. The proposed legislation will change this and it will mean that the worker will have to lodge a Notice of Dispute which could take up to at least six weeks to be heard before they can argue that payments should continue. This is designed to starve injured workers back to work.
• The current Act allows an injured worker to pursue a lump sum payment if, as a consequence of their injuries, the injured bodily parts are permanently impaired (permanent loss of function or disfigurement). There is no threshold level except for industrial deafness (5%). With the new legislation there will be a threshold level of 5% which will, in effect, stop workers who have 4.9% impairment from claiming approximately $6,500. A worker may have sustained four separate injuries and the four are all below the 5% threshold. In effect, under the present legislation they would receive approximately $24,000.00 but under the new legislation they would receive nothing. This will provide a windfall for employers. It is still unclear as to how a person will be assessed to see if they have a loss of function but it does appear that the Rann government is moving towards establishing regulations or “WorkCover guidelines” allowing WorkCover to establish and enforce their own guidelines. This will be like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.
• The legislation will allow WorkCover to request costs to be awarded against Union advocates or officials if it is found that there were delays in the Workers’ Compensation Tribunal proceedings (even if the delay was not their fault). Again, this is another bullying tactic by WorkCover against injured workers and their representatives. From my own observations over many years of practicing in the Tribunal the vast majority of delays are caused by Self-Insured Employers, Employers Mutual SA (WorkCover’s Agent) of their legal representatives.
• Medical panels will be established by WorkCover. Such panels will destroy the rights of injured workers and deny them basic entitlements. The vast majority of doctors in South Australia would not seek to become members of the panel. It is only those that presently provide services to WorkCover (Employers Mutual SA) and self-insured employers who will seek membership as it will be another way to profit at the expense of injured workers.
• A WorkCover Ombudsman will be established and at first flush it appears to be a good idea but in reality the ombudsman will be a toothless tiger because he/she will not have the power to prosecute employers for breaking the law.
Premier Rann, when introducing the legislation in parliament, claimed that the proposed new legislation would not apply retrospectively. Clearly his statement was wrong as the majority of the new legislation in its current form is intended to apply retrospectively.
The proposed workers’ compensation legislative amendments demonstrate that the Rann Labor government leadership is prepared to sell out the interests of injured workers to boost its relationship with the South Australian business sector. The primary interest of the Rann government is to look after the financial interests of the business sector to the detriment of working people who traditionally have supported the ALP.
The Rann government’s obsession with maintaining a triple A financial rating is influencing the introduction of policies that betray workers who are forced to depend on the government to protect them. This is a violation and abuse of the trust that was put in that government when it was elected to office and must not be tolerated.
Issued by Les Birch, a Workers Compensation Advocate employed for the past 14 years by the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (Forestry and Furnishing Trades Division). Les has been actively involved in workers’ compensation since 1979 and from April 1987 to June 1994 was a WorkCover Board member.
Posted by Time is up Minister Wright at 8:18 PM, 28/3/2008
Workcover - Doubts cast over leader of new inquiry
NICK HENDERSON
STATE POLITICAL REPORTER
The Advertiser 29 March 2008.
One of the men responsible for the State Government's WorkCover review previously has faced a barrage of criticism from senior Labor ministers.
WorkCover's former actuary John Walsh, with Alan Clayton, was appointed to jointly produce a major review of the state's ailing workers compensation scheme.
Liberal MLC Rob Lucas this week produced comments previously made in Parliament by Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright and Treasurer Kevin Foley criticising Mr Walsh.
"I was advised by the former board that the former actuary, who to the best of my memory was sacked by the former board, may have underesti-mated the unfunded liability by $100 million," Mr Wright said in December, 2006. Three years earlier in Parliament, Mr Foley said the corporation had received "very, very poor actuarial advice" under the former Liberal Government when Mr Walsh was employed.
Mr Wright yesterday admitted his comment related to Mr Walsh but said it was made based on advice provided by the former WorkCover board.
Mr Lucas now is questioning if it was appropriate for Mr Walsh to conduct the review.
"Mr Wright now has to explain publicly why he has appointed an expert who he has been attacking and denigrating for almost five years," Mr Lucas said.
"If Mr Wright now accepts Mr Walsh is an expert actuary then he and Mr Foley should apologise publicly to Mr Walsh for attacking and denigrating his reputation over the past five years.
"This is another embarrassing bungle by the error prone Mr Wright and sooner or later the Premier will have to have the courage to remove him form the ministry." Mr Wright yesterday defended Mr Walsh, saying he was one of the best actuaries in the country.
" The Government's comments concerning Mr Walsh were based on advice form the former WorkCover Board," he said.
" Mr Walsh's involvement in the recent Workcover review was a positive. He is regarded as one of the best, if not the best, actuary in Australia.
JOANNA VAUGHAN
POLITICAL REPORTER
The Advertiser 29 March 2008
A FIREFIGHTER, who was critically injured at work, has spoken out against the proposed cuts to WorkCover benefits, saying he would have struggled to survive and support his family if he had been injured when the benefit was cut.
Mount Gambler resident Des Kloeden, who works for Forestry SA, was away from work for a total of 12 months after he was "almost killed" when a fireball engulfed his car at work in February, 2000.
Mr Kloeden spent 293 weeks in intensive care and his family was told to prepare for the worst.
Mr Kloeden, however, was able to fight his way back to health and return to work part-time only three months after his near-fatal accident.
The State Government has proposed a major overhaul of WorkCover to rein in its ballooning unfunded liability.
Among the controversial changes are injured workers' weekly entitlements being cut to 80 per cent after 13 weeks, compared with the current 52 weeks. "I am an example that the current WorkCover scheme does work," Mr Kloeden said.
"People say in its current form, it doesn't encourage you back to work, but with the support of my colleagues I was able to get back initially after only three months and I was badly injured.
"If the benefit was cut when I was on WorkCover, I would have been penalised significantly from being injured at work and I would have struggled to support my young family."
Public Service Association secretary Jan McMahon said the Government was turning against people serving the community.
"This is a classic example of how unfair these proposed cuts to WorkCover truly are," she said.
$4.5m fraud conviction
An Adelaide accountant has been sentenced to more than three years jail after an attempted $4.5 million GST fraud and forgery, the Australian Tax Office says. Colin John Coker, 50, pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception and two counts of forging Commonwealth documents. In April 2003 Coker used the company Australian Mining and Exploration Pty Ltd to lodge a false activity statement and claim a refund of $4,560,007. The refund was stopped by the tax office. Tax Commissioner Michael D'Ascenzo says the tax profession plays an important part in maintaining the integrity of the tax system. "Tax fraud is not a victimless crime," Mr D'Ascenzo said. "Offenders diminish the ability of government to provide for community needs and also impose an unfair burden on honest taxpayers." Coker will be eligible for parole in a year.--AAP
Obviously they had it in for Musolino..perhaps he was going to blow the truth on Workcover and they thought they better prosecute him to shut him up..
Extract from Musolino v Workcover corporation.
The sentencing magistrate sentenced the appellant to one sentence in respect of all of the offending of 38 months and two weeks imprisonment with a non-parole period of 19 months. The magistrate declined to exercise his discretion to suspend the sentence.
The total amount paid by WorkCover in respect of the frauds was $74,021.95. How much of this was received by the appellant remains unclear. Counsel for the appellant agreed with WorkCover’s submission that it would approximate $20,000.00.
Posted by Musolino- The next MMQ ? at 7:13 PM, 31/3/2008
This just goes to show how injured workers have been handled by this holistic approach of WorkCover. Whoever put in that comment should be thanked for letting the readers of this blog site know how workers are unfairly treated. It compares closely to domestic abuse where you can have the physical and mental abuse and WorkCover mentally abuses the injured workers!
Move on with your lives you f!*cking whingers.
Seriously, you people are pathetic.
Hope you end up on the injured workers scrap heap. Perhaps you might reconsider if your kids and family get injured at work..and then up on the Workcover system..
It will be a first hand experience at corporate corruption and bullying..
Then you might do a u turn..on your comments.
Then again..the above comment was probably placed by Bruce or one of his bum buddies..
It is probaly one of "Denial's" comments. After all she was offended but some of the comments on here, it just goes to show who are the better people in this world.
For the gutless, anonymous fool posting that crap, kiss your family before you go to work tomorrow because if something tragic were to happen, you will all find out how terribly wrong you are.
I know injured workers that would give anything if their only problem left them in a wheel chair. Look beyond the stereotype, ignore the myth and pray it never happens to someone you care about.
Seems that the F*&Cking Losers are those in WorkCover and EML that choose to attack people using any methods they can.
Funny thing is, I now know how far they are willing to go and now they know I know so let the fools suffer the shame they bought on themselves!
To the person who wrote this comment must know how the system works and I am sure when they applied for their job there would have been a question where they were asked if they ever put in a WorkCover claim? It is quite a common question which makes it quite hard for injured workers to gain meaningful employment. If it wasnt disciminating they should then remove it from application forms.
Posted by Discriminated against..... at 1:27 PM, 2/4/2008
RANN, WE URGE YOU TO FIND THE REAL PROBLEM IN WORKCOVER
RANN, WE URGE YOU TO FIND THE REAL PROBLEM IN WORKCOVER,
Maybe injured workers could organise a banner and stand outside parliament house every day (take turns) until the Bill is put through.
my wife came home from work today and told me her employer had a copy of the new ammendments to the workcover legislation
if this is so how come when it hasnt been fully passed
I believe they have changed the amendments to the initial Clayton report to help business's even further, it has not passed as yet as it still has to go to the upper house, having said that it will get passed but the contents is still unknown.
Here is some interesting reading for the Labor Ministers who think businesses deserve a better go with the reforms.
Here we have a 12 year old son of a company driving a forklift and causing injury to an employee.
A & B Property Developments Pty Ltd v Lovatt [2007] SAIRC 88
How would injured workers in the Self Insurers scheme feel as they have done nothing wrong, their scheme is fully funded and this is the reward they get????
Posted 39 minutes ago
WorkCover says its unfunded liability has risen to $911 million.
It made a $68 million loss for the half-year to December.
WorkCover says the loss is due to the falls on world investment markets and the rate of returns to work after injury.
WorkCover says its average levy will remain at 3 per cent next financial year.
The South Australian Government is legislating in an effort to reduce WorkCover's unfunded liability.
Pity they did not sack the board. They might have saved themselves and South Australian employers a packet.
I could have got myself a redundancy package and retired.
Its on me Boys...THe Employers will pick up the tab..
WorkCover liability heads for $1 billion
Article from: The Advertiser
GREG KELTON, PAUL STARICK
March 30, 2007 01:15am
THE State Government has rejected a recommendation by WorkCover's board to slash workers' benefits to rein in an unfunded liability which could hit $1 billion within months, instead opting for another review of the scheme.
The shock decision was described as "a slap in the face" for WorkCover board chairman Bruce Carter, appointed by the Government to bring the corporation's finances and operations under control.
It also led to the Opposition moving a no confidence motion in Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright.
WorkCover results released late yesterday showed the scheme had an unfunded liability of $722.7 million, up from $694 million in mid-2006.
This might rise beyond $1 billion if a review in June is not satisfied that more injured workers have been returned to jobs.
Mr Wright said the WorkCover review was needed after 20 years of operation and would be carried out by two workers' compensation experts, Alan Clayton and John Walsh.
Mr Wright said any changes to the scheme would be directed towards:
INJURED workers receiving fair financial and other support to enable the earliest possible return to work.
AVERAGE employer levy rates being reduced from 3 per cent and contained within a range of 2.25 per cent to 2.75 per cent by July 1, 2009.
THE scheme being fully funded as soon as possible.
But the WorkCover board, chaired by Mr Carter, sent a report to the Government last November calling for major changes to the way the scheme operated.
These included cuts to workers' entitlements, such as reducing weekly income maintenance payments, capping entitlements to medical expenses, limiting solicitors' capacity to charge injured workers and ceasing maintenance until disputes were resolved, with any arrears paid to the worker where the dispute was resolved in favour of the worker.
Mr Wright said the board's recommendations were "very broad and sweeping in nature".
Treasurer Kevin Foley also ruled out any government cash injection.
He said the corporation was not in difficulty - just the unfunded liabilities needed to be controlled.
Mr Carter said legislative change was required to ensure the scheme was effective in supporting injured workers to recover and return to work at a reasonable cost to employers who funded the scheme.
I believe you have stuffed up the WorkCover system and you should both quit your positions. Everybody knows the Government is sacrificing injured workers just to protect your interest!
Maybe they didnt stop, but have a look at how much they have decreased after 2000. Less 800 redemptions yearly at $80,000 a peice average is a hell of a lot of money but consider keeping those 800 on the scheme. i wonder if Bruce knows a good accountant?
I just had a look at Mr Carters statement and found an inconsistency.
He stated that 06/07 there were 431 redemptions at average $78,644.
Reading the WorkCover annaul report page 41 states there were 408 redemptions at $65,400.
I am just wondering how much else has Mr Carter got it wrong, and isnt this mis-leading in the interest of the public?
Well we all know of a certain employee who was fraudulent.
Wonder if there could be more.
$800 million dollars unfunded liability?
Where has all the money gone?
Correction: "Blowout started when redemptions stopped"
RELEASE DATE 18/03/2008
The following statement was made to the Leon Byner Program on 5AA radio on Tuesday, 18 March 2008.
I write to you in regard to comments made by, or attributed to, the Hon Rob Lucas MLC on your program of 17 March 2008. It was stated that the “real blowout of the scheme's unfunded liability started when redemptions were stopped”. This statement is incorrect. These comments do not accurately reflect the evidence that was given at the Parliamentary inquiry last week, which can be confirmed by reference to Hansard.
The first point to understand is that redemptions have not been, and never were, stopped and this was the evidence given to the Parliamentary inquiry. The way in which redemptions are used and the claims to which they are applied is a matter of Board policy. It has never been the policy of this Board, or previous Boards, to cease redemptions. To assert that the liability started to increase when “redemptions were stopped” is incorrect.
In my evidence to the Parliamentary inquiry, I explained that the deterioration of the Scheme’s funding position was, in hindsight, becoming evident in the late 1990s. This fact was confirmed by workers compensation expert, Alan Clayton in his recent review of our Scheme. He noted that the warning signs were beginning to show despite the Scheme appearing to be operating in a healthy manner at the time. Refer to pages 8 and 9 of Alan Clayton’s report.
The key driver of the liability increase was that more people were staying on the Scheme for longer. People were not returning to work and redemptions became the most common way that people left the Scheme.
The actuary saw that redemptions were creating a lump sum culture and affecting behaviour, resulting in people staying on the Scheme for longer. It is worth noting the large quantity of expert advice about redemptions that exists in Australia and internationally that warns against overreliance on the use of redemptions.
At no time were redemptions stopped, as evidenced by the table overleaf.
I would appreciate if you could communicate these facts to your listeners. As mentioned, this evidence can be viewed in full in Hansard. My full statement to the Parliamentary inquiry will shortly be published on the WorkCover website, www.workcover.com.
Regards,
Bruce Carter
Chairman, WorkCover Board
Enquiries: Danielle Martin, WorkCover SA – (08) 8233 2381 or 0418 295 324
TABLE 1: Redemptions paid by WorkCoverSA 1995/06 to 2007/08.
Financial year Number of redemptions Ave redemption $
1995/96 1,897 29,825
1996/97 2,224 28,944
1997/98 1,168 32,454
1998/99 1,277 44,137
1999/00 923 45,130
2000/01 779 43,842
2001/02 830 41,585
2002/03 1,113 50,693
2003/04 505 46,521
2004/05 864 42,420
2005/06 1,436 53,592
2006/07 431 78,644
2007/08 404 84,718
Well Bruce the figures certainly do indicate the redemptions did not stop...but they certainly pulled up in a seriously abrupt manner.
Seems to be the slow down in redemptions was about the same time as the liability started to grow.
Just a coincidence?
I think not..any dummy can see why the liability has escalated.
Bruce Carter stated in his press release of 18 Mar 08 that the benefit of hindsight allowed him to infer that the WorkCover scheme was deteriorating in the late 90’s.
It appears Bruce’s hindsight is neither supported by the figures, nor by Mr Alan Clayton.
From 1996 – 1999 the number of people on benefits actually decreased from 4610 to 4603 and the WorkCover liability fell from $80 Million to $22 Million over the same period.
Alan Clayton acknowledged this in his report stating;
The WorkCover scheme was reasonably stable during the late-1990s, with the availability of redemptions, and their strategic implementation, successfully extinguishing significant amounts of tail liability. At the same time reported claim numbers continued to reduce, especially after the increase of employer liability for short term income maintenance.
During the same period claim payments were very well controlled, reducing in real terms throughout the five year period. The average levy rate stayed at 2.86 percent of wages during this period, allowing a gradual erosion of the deficit such that the Scheme achieved a high-point funding ratio of 97 percent as at 30 June 2000, representing a deficit of $22 million.
Is there any wonder WorkCover is in such a dire financial position when its CEO fails to understand the figures, even with the benefit of hindsight!
Yet again Bruce Carter and his minions at WorkCover have shot themselves in the foot.
On 18 Mar 2008 WorkCover distributed a press release “correcting” Rob Lucas who stated that the real rot in WorkCover began when WorkCover ceased paying reasonable redemptions. WorkCover even provided some figures to support Carter’s claim.
As Bruce and the team have comprehensively shown in the mess they have made of WorkCover, they have a real difficulty interpreting simple numbers.
Bruce suggested that redemptions have not stopped yet his own figures show that in 1996 and 1997 an average of 2061 Redemptions were paid yet in 2007 and 2008 an average of 417 Redemptions were paid.
The Liability in 1997 was $77 Million, in December 2007 it was $911 Million.
Article from: The Advertiser
NICK HENDERSON, GREG KELTON
April 04, 2008 01:30am
THE State Government is facing a backbench revolt on its controversial WorkCover laws following a secret meeting yesterday of up to 12 Labor MPs.<
As WorkCover released its half-year report showing its unfunded liability has blown out by another $68 million in just six months, the MPs – a majority of the party's Left faction – met in Old Parliament House to discuss their opposition to the Bill.
There is widespread speculation that some MPs are considering to cross the floor of Parliament.
A Labor source has revealed that a motion was passed by the Left faction at a meeting last Friday that the legislation should be withdrawn.
The motion said if it were not withdrawn nor not negotiated, there should be a special state conference of the party to discuss the legislation.
"Everyone knows if there was a special state conference, the leadership would be rolled," a Labor source said. Another party source said: "It is obviously an uncomfortable issue – there is no doubt about that."
WorkCover's latest huge loss has been partly blamed on a decline in world investment markets. But WorkCover CEO Julia Davison said a poor return-to-work rate for injured workers was a major problem. The unfunded liability is now $911 million.
A spokesman for Industrial Relations Michael Wright yesterday said he was aware of the meeting but had no comment.
Independent MP Kris Hanna, who has proposed 91 amendments to the Bill, said there was little support within Labor. "The cracks in the Government are getting deeper," he said.
"There are only four people in the ALP who want this Bill – Mike Rann, Kevin Foley, Michael Atkinson and Patrick Conlon."
In what was a deliberate tactic to ensure Labor backbenchers were forced to reveal their position on the issue, Liberal backbencher Graham Gunn yesterday voted against the Bill. In order for the Liberals to force a vote on the Bill, two MPs must vote against it. Mr Gunn joined Mr Hanna, who opposes the changes.
"He didn't cross the floor, we asked him to stay there," Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said.
"We did it so all those marginal seat members in the Labor Party who claim they are standing up for working families, can be seen voting for the WorkCover Bill."
All Labor backbenchers in the Lower House supported the Bill yesterday.
Seems like the "Big 4" may have been mis-lead. In any event it might be wise to keep the WorkCover act the way it is and sack the board and its agents for causing this mess. The self insurers had no problems with the current act because they used it as it was written.
The second matter to which I refer is the return-to-work rate which, it has been claimed, has been deteriorating over a period of time. According to the information which has been presented (including the Clayton report) this is a matter of serious concern. Information which has been presented from one of the very many parties that have put in a submission includes a claim that freedom of information documents from WorkCover on this issue have disclosed that in 1997 the number of injured workers on benefits for 12 months or less was 2,141 and that in 2006 the number was exactly the same.
The second thing that is asserted from this freedom of information material is that the number of injured workers on benefits for 24 months or less (in the same corresponding period) in 1997 was 2,640 and in 2006 it was 2,788. That is an increase of 148 workers on benefits in this 10 year period. The third thing that they claim is that the number of people accepted as permanently incapacitated—that is, with only a 6 per cent chance of ever returning to work—and in receipt of benefits in 1997 was 1,970 and in 2006 it was 3,728—a 100 per cent increase. If one were to accept that these figures are both accurate and illustrative of the issue of concern, it begs the question whether the claim of a significant deterioration in return to work rate is the case. I ask the minister to clarify whether that is the position, that is, whether or not that information is accurate because, that, along with the unfunded liability, is a significant factor of why we are even here debating this legislation.
The reasons there are long term claimants today is because the rehabilitation providers are just job seekers and not rehabilitation consultants. And remembering Mr Carter has stated that the redemptions have decreased since. Mis-management is the key here...
The reason there is so many injured Workers still on the system is because their employers do not take them back to work.
Workcover employees and claims agents staff have been responsible for informing employers how to evade their responsibilities under the Act.
Thats the truth of the problem..lets not blame it on the injured workers who are them left with a disability in the open job market.
Obviously nobody wants someone who is injured when they can employ someone who is not.
So if Employers do not have a common law responsibility any more why should they care about employees who they injure.
Why should they give them their old job back and help them rehabilitate?
Well the facts are there for everyone to see.
Ask Bruce why he can not make Workcover self funded..
He is in charge of the show..
It is quite common the current system does not allow Rehabilitation and only concentrate on return to any job function and a top up was the carrot. The fact is the current claimants will be pushed off the system stuck with their job capacity, maybe now they can submit retraining in a suitable employment. The new claimants under the new bill will get retraining. What ashame WorkCover did not follow the old system as it was written. This unfunded liability will continue way past the next election.
Having a look at 2006/07 WorkCover annual report has a write up on how an employer Amcor operates its occupational health and safety and WorkCover. What it fails to tell us that in 2006 it was guilty in the magistrates court under the act. Go figure......
April 4th, 2008 by seanie
The Verdict
The state government’s amendments to its controversial WorkCover legislation have served to tip the scales further in favour of employers.
SA Unions Secretary, Janet Giles has disputed the Industrial Relations Minister’s suggestion that the amendments were achieved through discussion with unions and business.
“These changes are manifestly inadequate and show that our concerns are falling on deaf ears. We have put comprehensive proposals to the government in the past 2 weeks, yet none of yesterday’s amendments reflected the union position.”
“These changes are a stunt that proves the much vaunted negotiations were a sham. The amendments are merely an attempt to make Minister Wright appear reasonable, while distracting the public from our highly effective campaign.”
“Minister Wright’s subsequent comments that this is his final position have exposed a government determined to attack injured workers by cutting their pay and stripping away their rights, while at the same time delivering a financial windfall to employers”.
“Mike Rann has lost the right to claim he’s a Premier who represents the interests of working families”, Ms Giles says.
“We are watching this government like a hawk and will do so until we achieve a fair fix for WorkCover.”
WITH the skills shortage and the nation's lowest unemployment in 33 years, a new imperative has arrived - people are more important than the product.
It's now not only important to keep the staff you want, but to keep them happy as well since any fall in a worker's performance due to unhappiness on the job inevitably means lost revenue and opportunities as well as extra costs.
Don't be fooled into thinking that the number of Permenantly Injured Trapped on benefits is a big number. It has been increasing by just 179 per year since WorkCover decided to change their redemption strategy.
It is not indicative of bludgers or employers not wanting compo claimants, it simply is an indication of the number of people that suffer injury of significant consequence that they simply can't return to work. This number represents less than one half of one percent of all WorkCover Claims and is the reason the legislation provided for Redemption in the first place.
Ironically Bruce Carter lied to the Parliamentary Committee by trying to suggest there was never such a change in policy. Maybe he should have read what he said in earlier annual reports, the SARC will!
I believe Business SA have pushed in their reform package that Business's will have the power to sack an injured worker after 6 months of the injury. This goes to show that returning to work from the injured workers perspective would be quite difficult as they are simply un-employable. If their own employers dont want them, well who does? Most job application forms want to know if a worker has a workcover history due to occupational health and safety issues.
It is discriminating that nobody mentions. So here we have redemptions being scaled down and return to work quite difficult so what does an injuerd worker do to survive? A redemption could buy a business to earn a wage or even enough money to pay of debts and send a spouse to work. Is it that hard to work out?
I injured my back at work in the foundry and still have problems with it. The company I work for are good to me and let me do some garden work sometimes around the foundry and at the managers home for a day or two a week when I feel alright. But its not really work and they just do it to keep me happy. I tried a few times to get a redemption and Work-cover keep telling me that my injury is not stable yet.
Can anyone tell me how I can get a redemption?
I have been on compo for 7 years now and if I had a redemption I would be much happier and it would save Work-cover lots of money as I would not have to see all the doctors all the time. I would be happy to get $200,000 for a redemption. They have already paid about $250,000 on my wages and about $50,000 on medical and operations etc.
What I can not understand is they want me to stay on work-cover and it costs them more and more the longer I stay there.
If they give ma a payout in say 5-6 years time I would still want $200,000 but they would have paid another $200,000 in wages and now the knew laws come in and they want me to stay on until I retire..
That takes it to $800,000.
Can anyone tell me how to get off the system and save the government some money?
2005/06
Remuneration $17.2 BILLION to injured workers from registered employers.
Levy income relating to remuneration paid $528.6 MILLION.
Can this be right?
I went in for my redemption last week after being in and out of the tribunal for the last 8 months. EML sent two of there monkeys and they offered me just over a years wages. and told me that i if i stayed on the system they were 100% sure they could kick me off with the 3 panel system. With one of the panel members being Dr Ewer what hope does anyone have of a fair go. So what do you do i have in total of 75% in disability who will give me a job and i would have to wait 82 weeks for the pension. I hope we get a miracle and they bring back common law to try and even out this one sided corrupt system!
It would only be fair to bring back common law, and how would the business's feel? levy rate drops to 2.25% but they would have to take out another insurance policy to protect them from common law. The board has really stuffed up the system as the members of parliament are now realising mis-management and the lack of fairness with the new Bill towards workers. They are pushed into the corner as they know it will hurt them come election time when the overspill from these reforms will be firmly felt. Someone has to be accounted for.
Can someone tell me if they know about another March to be held soon, I was told another large union organisation, larger then the amwu are holding it???
Trev,
I believe the Ombudsman's first complaints would be to determine if the Medical Examiners are Independant. I believe there are a group of workers as we speak collecting information on these Doctors who have been used by WorkCover regularly to seek how independant they actually are.
Prosecution - Plea of not guilty - Whilst hot rollers were turning an employee attempted to feed paper into them - Access to rollers was through a safety gate - Employee’s hand was drawn into the rollers resulting in a severe crush and burn injury - Whether employer failed to adequately guard moving rollers of machine by failing to fit an interlocking device to the safety gate so as to prevent rollers moving whilst the gate was open - Whether risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable - Whether foreseeability extends to precise circumstances of employee’s actions at time of injury or applies to possibility employee may forget to, or decide not to, isolate the machine before passing through safety gate to perform work duties - Application for disqualification on grounds of apprehended bias – Whether an awareness of prior sentencing remarks of different magistrate for s 19 charge that were acknowledged to be irrelevant warrants disqualification - Application dismissed - Held - Defendant guilty of charge - S 19(1) Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986.
Mr RAU (Enfield) (12:22) wanting to go home early and just does not care.
"Members opposite cannot have it both ways: they cannot have their cake and eat it too. The opposition is either voting with the government on this, in which case it should wish this legislation a speedy passage so that the unfunded liability problem is dealt with, or it should come up with an idea, an option, a solution, or just cop it. It seems to me that it has excluded the first three of those options; they are not available to it, so why not go for the fourth, and we might even be able to go home at 6 o'clock!"
Given that that is the position of the opposition, and the most constructive engagement that the opposition can make on this topic is to effectively say, 'Okay; we agree with you,' I do not know why we are still debating this. I do not know why the member for Morphett does not jump up at the end of my speech and say, 'Let's just dispense with the committee stage and the rest of the second reading, and let's put this thing through so that our colleagues in the upper house can do the same thing, and so that we can all vote for it and move on with other business.' The member for Schubert has hundreds of private members' matters that we could deal with instead of this.
I am sure Mr Rau hasnt been told about the mis-management of the scheme yet.
Or could he be against a Bill for an anti-corruption body which is gaining momentum?
"CORONER Mark Johns has urged the overhaul of laws controlling police complaints, bringing more pressure on the State Government to set up an anti-corruption body".
I am slowly agreeing with the changes in WorkCover. The workplace will be a safer place, workers will take extra time in their practices because they would be fully aware that an accident will see all their entitlements, mortgages and daily living standards disapear. Productivity will certainly decrease and Business's will suffer but you can never put a price on safety!
Posted by former workcover claimant. at 1:33 PM, 8/4/2008
Memo: Mr Rau: Whether a corpse is “goods or materials”
If Mr rau is more interested in going home and thinks the WorkCover Bill is not worth debating about, maybe he should read a case (below) and ask himself if still supports WorkCovers principles?
Judicial Determination - Deceased was involved in the funeral business and was conducting that business for another - Deceased’s widow seeks compensation on account of his death - Deceased’s work activities involved driving a vehicle for reward - Whether deceased was a deemed worker for the purposes of reg 5(1)(e) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Claims and Registration) Regulations 1999 - Whether a corpse is “goods or materials” - Whether the vehicle involved was a commercial vehicle - Whether the deceased operated another vehicle for work purposes - Held that the deceased was not a deemed worker - Whether the deceased was working as an employee or independent contractor - Relevant indicia for and against discussed and considered - Held that the deceased was an employee - Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986
In referance to the above comment, bring in common law rights and watch the employer also become more consiencious towards safe work practises. If the common law rights are not implemented than unfortunately employers do not care about safety.
The State Liberals have renewed their call for an independent commission against corruption with backing from the State Coroner.
The State Coroner has backed the plan to review the Police Complaints Authority under their model for a proposed anti-corruption body.
State Coroner Mark Johns said the secrecy provisions in the Police Complaints Act should be changed to be less restrictive.
Shadow Minister for Police David Ridgway said the Police Complaints Authority needed to be more transparent and should be replaced with an independent commission.
"Well clearly the State Coroner says that the existing system we have and the legislation is deficient," Mr Ridgway said.
"It certainly just doesn't wash that the cost is, you know, at what price for transparency and appropriate scrutiny of all government agencies?"
I have just read Hansard and Mr Rau's opinion on the Bill. He was expecting the Liberal Party to argue the contents of such reforms in a vigorous way and was somewhat confused that the opposition didnt agree with the refoms but are going to vote for them anyway.
Mr Rau, can I give you two well known phrases you might soon well be accustom too.
..........Being hang out to dry...........
..........Falling on ones sword..........
Why is everyone so gutless!!!
Surely if Workcover is a statutory body and is responsible for itself there is only a small handful to blame for the liability.
The Board and Management.
If they were a private company they would all have been on the lineup at Social security many years ago.
Seems there are too mnay friendships within the government who are all holding each others hands.
When will this government wake up and do whats best for South Australia?
Sack the board and management of Workcover!!!
INTERNATIONAL WORKERS MEMORIAL DAY - APRIL 28th 2008ţ
I have received an email from Andrea Madeley
"VOID" in regards to INTERNATIONAL WORKERS MEMORIAL DAY - APRIL 28th 2008ţ. you can go to this site to print out the poster.
http://www.void.org.au/
Dear all,
This message is a plea for help.
Attached to this email is a poster. The poster serves to promote the International Workers Memorial Day. I could think of no better or more cost effective way to spread the word about this important upcoming day.
The International Workers Memorial Day falls on April 28th each year. Very few people are aware that the day exists, much less why or what its meaning is.
Aside from remembering the workers who have died as a result of a workplace accident or succumb to diseases caused by harmful, cancer causing substances, it is about recognising the 'value' of the human life in our workforce. It is every bit as much about you as it is about those of us who grieve the loss of a loved one.
My wish would be that as many of you can print off a copy or two of the poster on your printers and pin these up in a place where it can be seen. It may be in a workplace lunch room or at the notice board of your local shop (or both) ... it doesn't matter. What matters is that as many South Australians as possible see it.
Please support and help us build on putting this day on the calendar so that every South Australian is aware of its existence ... and meaning.
He says it was not a WorkCover policy to move away from paying redemptions. He is a liar and a fool.
The 2000 and 2001 Annual reports make it clear that they had developed a policy theory along those exact lines.
In the 2003 Annual report however the Independent Actuary said that the theory was flawed and that "the anticipated improvement in return to work results had not emerged, instead it created an increase in claims continuance" and of course increased the liability.
That was in 2003 when the Outstanding Claims Liability was $323 Million. Today the Outstanding Claims Liability is $2.3 Billion Dollars.
Seems Bruce was warned but he felt he knew better..... OOPS!
The Labor party have finally got their wish in pushing thru the reforms in the lower house. What comes with it is the surfacing on how the system has been mis-managed. There is still more to come as the injured workers shackles are slowly being released and there will no longer be a fear factor. One thing I would like to ask is when this new rehabilitation fund runs out, do injured workers hang on to the system until more funds are available. The reason I ask is most workers who cannot return to the pre injury employment will seek retraining. There would even be workers who may be able to go back but will take the opportunity to be retrained anyway.
By the time the next election comes, the unfunded liability will be lower but real debt will be much higher.
I wonder if WorkCover have a plan to contact injured workers as there may be some anxiety concerns with these reforms being passed. These are real concerns.
Posted by they just dont care at 5:18 PM, 10/4/2008
Has anyone ever considered the following issues in relation to Workcover?
In a normal police investigation there are a number of separate government departments and persons which deal with crimes, the investigation and prosecution.
They are.
1) The victim - a member of the public.
2) The investigator -(the police or detectives)
3) Search Warrant- Magistrate or Judge
4) The prosecutions -DPP. High integrity, impartial.
5) A prosecutor - DPP contractor or employee
6) The matter is decided by the courts in an impartial manner, the person is assumed innocent until proven guilty.
7) Legislative changes -Implemented or recommended by findings of the courts, the Attorney General or members of parliament who take up certain issues.
The prosecutor then deals with each police officer and each witness independently as there is no financial connection or driving force for a conviction at all costs.
So there we have absolute integrity in our current police prosecution.
Workcover
1) The victim - Workcover a statutory body. Accountable to Minister Wright.(Who has a hands off approach)
2) The investigator -A workcover employee who investigates the situation on a consideration of how much money may be saved by forcing the person off the system.
3) Search Warrant- issued by Workcover- S 110 can be used at any place at any time over a three month period. No evidence required to exercise it, No written instructions, no records kept of when exercised or how, no accountability as to how and when used, no cross checking of records obtained. Evidence is and can be destoyed or withheld with no accountability.
4) The prosecutions department - Workcover and its monetary motivated board members
5) A prosecutor - workcover lawyer or employee. In some cases workcover lawyers are engaged in s110 investigations and then claim privilege over material they collect.
6) Workcover decide the matter by its conduct throughout the whole investigation process-The matter can not be decided in an impartial manner as there is no accountability for evidence obtained, or how it is obtained. Workers often have their weekly payments stopped when proceedings commence to ensure they are not adequately funded in their defence, Legal aid is insufficient to mount a proper defence, presumed guilty before investigation commences. Evidence is withheld to tailor all of the evidence collected and provided to the court. Conviction pursued at all costs as Board members interfere and exert pressure throughout the whole investigation and prosecution process.
7) Legislative changes -Implemented or recommended by members of the board drivne by an unfunded liability through years of poor management.
TASMANIA'S Deputy Premier Steve Kons resigned abruptly in disgrace yesterday, prompting renewed calls for Tasmania to establish an anti-corruption commission.
The State Government was last night in full damage control following Mr Kons' resignation as a government minister after being caught red-handed lying in parliament on Tuesday.
His public humiliation after being given an ultimatum by Premier Paul Lennon to either resign or be sacked has also increased political pressure on the leadership of Mr Lennon.
Mr Kons, 45, became the second deputy premier in the Lennon Government to quit under a cloud in the past two years after he admitted making "inaccurate statements" in parliament about if he had signed a document recommending lawyer Simon Cooper be appointed a magistrate.
Mr Kons was caught out after the Tasmanian Greens produced a patched-together document recreated from shredded paper, that was confirmed as the former deputy premier's signed recommendation to go to Cabinet endorsing Mr Cooper's appointment.
Mr Kons had previously denied that the document existed, had been destroyed or even that he had ever wanted Mr Cooper to be a magistrate.
I would like to Congratulate Bruce Carter and the rest of the board members for achieving to be the first board members to send a Government Corporation broke. I am sure it will look good in any of your future board applications. It is slowly becoming more obvious on the real reasons these reforms have come into place and believe you me, its not the spin that has been advertised.
mike rann has sealed his and labours fate at the next election
maybe once this state grinds to a halt then those for the changes will realise that they screwed up and were led by a dictator
And Mike Rann wants us to have confidence in his leadership. Are there any job for your mates in WorkCover?
****He said Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright was ‘told what to do’ by Mr Foley and that powerbrokers supported the Paul McMahon appointment as part of a factional deal.
“This is a job for mates,” a union official complained. He said Labor’s Right wanted to be rewarded for the defection of two former Left unions, the CEPU and AMWU, into its camp.
****Now 13 years on a second senior and former Chief Forensic Pathologist has suffered the serious fallout for withholding significant forensic evidence from both juries in the two trials.
****It is claimed Mr Walsh, who described himself as "the smiling assassin", handed Ms Lennon a letter stating that Premier Mike Rann intended to terminate her position.
Mr Walsh, it is claimed, told Ms Lennon "that she should not trust anyone, not himself, not (Premier's department chief) Warren McCann, and not any minister."
*****The Justice Department has confirmed the 60-year-old is the executive director of Performance Management and Review – part of the Attorney-General's Department – and was due to face the Adelaide Magistrates Court during the week.
Lindner is charged with failing an alcohol breath test, failing to stop, assaulting police and resisting arrest.
Normally I'd sign my name. I kinda think going under cover is being a coward - but today I'm so damned tired I don't care.
I'm not an injured worker but I close my eyes every night and I'm angry because I know these reforms are wrong. I know that my life today would have meant caring for an injured worker for the rest of my life -- had he not died.
It's not just the Government - it's the apathy of our community. I got a call from my dead son's grandfather the other day. He saw my picture in the paper where it showed me in a moment of weakness - crying. He wanted to know what the hell I was getting mixed up with. I was lost for words - but only for a moment.
Don't people realise that this legislation will only serve to punish the most seriously hurt - the ones that need long term help? Why do ordinarily bright people believe these changes will somehow magically fix the massive unfunded liability? They are being conned and it makes my blood run cold to listen to these naive attitudes.
I spoke on talk back the other night. The converasion was cut short when the presenter was finding it hard to cope with what I was saying. He said it was sad ... I was talking about my dead son's injuries and what his life would have been like on workcover had he lived. Why the heck did he feel the need to end the conversation? If it's hard for him to listen to, how the hell did he think it would be for those who actually live it?
Do they think these workplace accidents only happen to other people?
The Familiar echo of harrassment of injured workers for commenting to MPs.
NICK HENDERSON
STATE POLITICAL REPORTER
GOVERNMENT MPs have been accused in Parliament of being "bastards" over WorkCover changes stance.
The accusation came amid claims of surveillance against
politicians involved in the issue.
Independent MP and former Labor politician Kris Hanna described politicians supporting the Bill as "bas-
tards" before the WorkCover laws were passed in the Lower
House shortly before midnight on Wednesday.
"These bastards are willing to transfer the cost of work
injuries to the injured workers," Mr Hanna said.
A frustrated Mr Hanna singled out Deputy Premier Kevin Foley for laughing in Parliament while he was speaking about the issue which Mr Hanna says sticks
"the knives into some of the most vulnerable people in our
community.
"I note in passing that the Deputy Premier actually
laughs while I am giving this speech," he said.
Mr Hanna was ordered by Speaker Jack Snelling to
withdraw his comment the MPs were bastards after Mr
Foley complained.
Labor MP Frances Bedford told Parliament she had con-
cerns about the Bill.
"All MPs have encountered injured workers who have had
problems, not only received through their injury but also
caused by their participation in the WorkCover scheme,"
she said. "That is the thing that concerns me most about
the Bill."
Ann Bressington, in the Upper House, said she was
photographed talking to a WorkCover recipient, high-
lighting intimidation and harassment techniques being
used by investigators.
"My attention was drawn to a man, known to be a lawyer,
crossing the road pointing and smirking at the claim-
ant," she said. "The man crossing the road then pulled
out his mobile phone and took a photograph of the three of
us standing on the comer." She questioned if the lawyer
was sending a "warning". Labor's State Executive will
meet today to vote on holding a special convention to debate WorkCover changes.
Here is another correction from the WorkCover web site in response to a Australian Lawyers Alliance Advertisement:
"WorkCover – The true cost"
Released 4 April 2008
RELEASE DATE 04/04/2008
The following statement was read out in the SA Parliament by the Minister for Industrial Relations, Michael Wright on Thursday, 4 April 2007 in response to this advertisement placed by the Australian Lawyers Alliance
You will notice they have got the dates wrong, 4 April 2007. Bruce Carter in an earlier correction stated different figures to what the yearly reports state in reltion to redemptions. This is typicle of how claims are managed, mistakes after mistakes.
I have just read Michael Wrights speech from (possibly) April 4 addressing the ALA advertising.
Seems misinformation is king with WorkCover. This is how they have run the campaign from the start. The throw in a bit of spin and change perception in an attempt to get the big 3. Marginalise, Trivialise and dismiss.
He did however offer one insight to the challenge WorkCover will face in throwing people off benefits given their tendency to offer the most inane rehabilitation and retraining. Alan Clayton suggested that is going to be their biggest challenge and they may not realise it yet.
Here is an insight to the misinformation and spin from the press release;
Correction: "WorkCover – The true cost" April 4
The ALA claimed Michael’s payments would cease immediately upon passage of this Bill. Despite being injured more than 2.5 years ago he would remain on 80% of his pre-injury earnings providing he was working to his maximum capacity. If he was not working to his maximum capacity, his entitlement to ongoing payments would cease. It is important to note that the nature and extent of rehabilitation provided would be considered when determining whether there is a capacity for work. The South Australian Workers Rehabilitation Scheme(1) is not an ongoing pension scheme. Its objective is to provide short-term support and rehabilitation to injured workers while they recover and return to work,(2) providing only longer-term support to those who are seriously injured and unable to return to work.
In regard to Sascha who the ALA said struggled to her claim accepted and will now have her payments stopped – under the new legislation she would be entitled to payments immediately under provisional liability enabling rehabilitation to commence immediately. If Sascha had no capacity for work after three years, she would be entitled to ongoing weekly payments at 80% of per pre-injury earnings. Similarly, if Sasha had capacity to work and was working to that capacity, she would be entitled to ongoing top up weekly payments at 80% of pre-injury earnings. However, if she had capacity and was not working to that capacity, she would no longer be entitled to ongoing payments. This is consistent with the objective of the Scheme to provide short-term support and rehabilitation to injured workers while they recover and return to work, providing only longer-term support to those who are seriously injured and unable to return to work(3).
Comments
1. Seems they are not keen to acknowledge that the scheme actually has the Word Compensation in its name.
2. I have read the objects and don’t see short term being mentioned, in fact, return to the community and denial of common law infers WorkCover is in for the long haul!
3. Now they seem to have confused themselves, it is only short term for those that need short term support but it is long term for those who need long term support!
I just had a look at that statement from Michael Wright and everything seems to be a huge mess. I also had a look at Bruce Carters statement on redemptions and that too does not have any consistency to it. If the lawyers are reading the reforms completely different to what WorkCover and parliament are reading it, how many disputes are there going to be before everything is going to be ironed out (well past the next election). Can Michael Wrights statement be used in court as I often read a judges decision sometimes states that it was or was not the intention of parliament about a certain part of an act that is disputed
I believe Mike Ranns opening speech about the reforms indicated that they would not be retrospective. If this is the case wouldnt those comments be mis-leading? WorkCover will probaly do another press release to correct that statement now.
Rann warning puts an end ot wrangle over WorkCover.
The state Labor Party has halted a final bid to stop new WorkCover laws after Premier Mike Rann yesterday warned that failing to act over the ailing scheme could lead to a financial disaster comparable with the collapse of the State Bank.
During a speech to the Labor State Executive yesterday, Mr Rann criticised attempts to scrap the WorkCover Bill.
A proposal to bold a special party convention to decide the ALP's position on the controversial issue was defeated in a vote, 12-6, following the speech.
The vote ends any chance of Labor's Left preventing the Bill passing in Parliament.
A senior Labor source told The Advertiser Mr Rann discussed the party's past mistakes in a bid to convince ALP members the WorkCover laws were necessary.
"He took them back in history to when we last lost government and talked about how hard it was to get back in to government," the source said. He Talked about how long it took to get the AAA credit rating and at the end of the day he is not going to reign over a government that allows what happened to the State Bank (to happen) under him. He made reference to the State Bank and how this Government is going to be much more responsible in running the economy than what his predecessors have been."
Despite the Bill now being guaranteed passage through the Upper House, the unions have vowed to continue a campaign for major changes. The Public Service Association yesterday launched a statewide advertising campaign costing $250,000.
The campaign involves billboard and television advertising.
"These are the kind of people, often doing dangerous work for the benefit of us all, that the Government is attacking," PSA General Secretary Jan McMahon said.
Mr Rann said the decision to change the WorkCover system was necessary.
"What we are doing is basically having the guts to govern and having the guts to govern means having the guts to govern responsibly," he said.
N. Henderson
State Political Reporter
The Advertiser 14th April 2008
Business Levies
Current: Average of 3 per cent.
New Scheme: Levies will come down to 2.75 per cent from July 2009.
Weekly Payments.
Current: Full wage for 12 months down to 80% after 12 months.
New: Full wage for first 13 weeks down to 90 % after 13 weeks and 80% after 26 weeks.
Maximum lump sum payment
current $230,000; New $400,000.
In the event of death, Maximum payment to family
current up to $230,000. New: up to $400,000
Example
Aisling Murphy, 50
Full time wage for cleaners $400 a week.
Following injury weekly cleaners wage.
Under current scheme:
After 52 weeks wage drops to $480 a week.
After two years the worker has a review in consultation with the workers doctor.
Under proposed new Laws.
After 13 weeks $540 a week after 26 weeks $480 per week. After 2.5 years the workers payment is reviewed to determine their capacity. If the worker has some capacity to work they must return to work in that limited capacity but can receive top up payments.
In referance to the above comment, thats how I read it. It is also my understanding that rehabilitation which includes retraining has to be completed before a worker can be matched to a new job goal, eg: a truck driver who has done his back has to be fully retrained before he can work with a computer. I know many case managers read this and I would like their opinion. I also would like to know how many current injured workers have been unsuccessful from the square peg in the round hole process and now require retraining? I would suggest WorkCover redeem all all of these workers before the legislation kicks in so the unfunded liability does not embarrass these decision makers.
I have been reading some comments on the Adelaide Now web site and I am very annoyed at what people percieve that injured workers are rorting the system. What is wrong by protecting ones entitlements as that is what most claimants are doing. You have to remember that wages already have decreased, there is no superannuation and there is little compensation for non-compensable, all the same time of losing your trade and dealing with an injury that stays on your history for life when looking for employment. There is no compassion what so ever from case managers, rehab consultants or WorkCover lawyers whose main person is to find anythiong that will rid you off the system without fullfilling their obligations. I am sure if any WorkCover employers ever had their house burnt down or their car stolen they wouldnt accept anything lower than what they were insured for. There is a culture that injured workers rort the system, WorkCover try and catch them out, injured workers therefore need to protect themselves. Simple as that!
Take away the fear and be genuinly fair and watch the system improve..
Here is the program transcript of Sarah Ferguson's report "Dirty, Sexy Money", first broadcast 14 April, 2008. Some interesting reading on how Labor Ministers operate with the unions in NSW.
"The simple fact is there is no guarantee that the changes proposed in the government's current legislation will make the system better, because it fails to address the core problem."
"Until there is an independent inquiry into the operation of the WorkCover rehabilitation system, I fear we will not see any improvement in return to work rates. It would therefore follow that we won't see an improvement in the scheme's financial performance either."
If people take the time to read the proposals and the report by by Clayton they will see that there are some serious problems arising in the system.
It must be obvious to all including members of parliament that
1) Changes to the legislation will not fix the unfunded liability.
2) The problems with WorkCover will not be fixed unless there is a change in direction and management.
3) A 15% maximum levy on employers is the only way the system will be fixed. Pity that employers are really not aware that their levies will be doubled to fix up the mess that Bruce and his members have made.
By the way can anyone please post here anything they know about the relationship between.
Sandra De Poi having a business doing section 38 reviews of injured workers?
Members of SA unions being on the board.
What the relationship is between Bruce, Kevin and Peter Vaughan of business SA.
Are they just friends or are they all feathering each others nests?
I can only correct you on one thing and that is parliament did a backflip on the levy threashold form business's from 15% down to 7%. So I can only assume now the Clayton/Walsh review can not be blamed for any further deterioration of the scheme.
I have read that the Ambulance drivers are now wanting to take action over the WorkCover reforms. For those who thought the injured workers were the only ones who will suffer may have to think again. The general public will now experience what these reforms mean and unfortunately will never know that the people who have sabotaged the system will get away with it. I wonder if any of their family members will experience the affect?
I believe there is a protected species on the WorkCover board. This species is also on other government boards and therefore the management of WorkCover may never be formaly questioned on its perfomance or lack off.
I wonder if all of the Board members, employees of Workcover and employees of EML have undergone special training to de humanise all of the injured workers and the manner in which they are treated.
It seems that this could be the only explanation for injured workers being treated the way they are.
And reference here is not to injured workers not getting redemptions or fair treatment..its referring to injured workers being stuck on a system that leaves them with no direction in life, no self esteem, financial problems and poor health and increased stress.
Perhaps injured workers should start treating their claims manager in a like manner- as droids not humans..
BTW you can abuse droids as much as you like-they have no feelings as they are not human.
they just dont understand that genuine injured workers do not want to stay on this sytem they call WorkCover. I have heard comments that workers are staying on the system too long and this is the reason there is an issue at the moment. This may be the case but everyone has to understand this is not a very good environement to be in. Injured workers have little choice but to stay with it because they have mortgages, families to feed and dealing with an injury whilst knowing the future is bleak due to the unability to find an employer who may understand. I have never liked using the word "redemption" because this is not whats its all about but now it is becoming more clearer I should have taken the easy way out. By the way, my claim is now totalling more than $700,000.
so the case manager who threatened a claimant was forced to quit today, no big deal really as they are at the bottom of the workcover food chain....this also proves how much the the government doesnt really want to know or deal with the mess as michael wright stated it was a one off thing. you just showed your true colours michael
Isn't it funny that Bruce Watson, WorkCover's new Actuary seems to have been told that someone is saying the number of claimants isn't the cause of the Liability?
Seems Denial isn't happy concocting stories to create problems for the gadfly, now she is creating arguments that don't exist!!!!
Oh well, it was good of Bruce Watson to provide the graphs that prove what I have been saying, the only segment that has increased is the 36 month plus group, the permanently injured and that there is NOT a deteriorating Return to Work Rate.
The frustrating bit is, they would rather lie and deceive than do what a real business would do and fix it.
Mr Bruce Carter has taken out a full page in saturdays Advertiser to explain in his view on the WorkCover scheme. First impressions are,
Who is paying for the full page advertisement?
Whilst reading the letter I was anxious to read the facts but all i got was what everybody knew anyhow.
He did state that the package of the reforms will be provided in the immediate future. If that is the case,
why couldnt he supply them before it went to the upper house? maybe they are not as fair as he stated? Its not if he ran out of room in this full page advertisement.
Does he know what the package contains and why isnt he releasing them?
One thing is for certain, everybody knows who is at fault.
You have made an interesting observation in that who ever is at fault seems to be justifying themselves. And I too would like to know why Bruce Carter chooses to withhold the reform packages. I am sure he knows what they are. I am wondering whether the WorkCover lawyers who wrote up the new legislation and Lawyers alliance read it completely differently. What a circus its going to be.
The advert in the Advertiser would obviously cost a couple of bucks.
If it was paid for by Workcover nobody will really know.
Workcover withhold that sort of information from being disclosed under FOI. Thats a fact.
They effectively stop the auditing of the books and their actions by not being open and accountable.
If it was paid for by the Advertiser..well we all know what the problems there are. Just ask Mike Rann's brother who works there.
If it was paid for by Peter Vaughan...well business paid for it..donations and ceremonies are all perks that go with the job. (see any media release on corruption with Woollongong Council NSW).
Anyway at the end of the day it comes down to the fact that the advertisement is part of the continuing cover up by Bruce and his board members of the mess they have created.
Why would they come out and admit what a mess they have created for the state? They would all be embarrassed and lose their cosy $50000 a year board positions.
One thing is for sure..the dirt will come out in the wash sooner or later..
tell us more before it goes to the upper house, tell us more so there are no more anxiety, tell us more if there are anymore case managers that you decide to keep with the reforms, tell us more if the current WorkCover board are going to be retained and why and finally tell us more of the fact the board knew in 2003 that the scheme was floundering and why nothing was done about it even though Bruce Carter in his Adevrt stated it was a concern over the last "few months"
Tell us more on why Bruce Carter and other Board members were pursuing with vigour injured workers who had complained to their MPs about the extraordinary manner in which Workcover was spending its money and conducting its investigations.
Tell us more why Workcover have chosen to throw the book at injured workers who speak out against the system.
Tell us more on why the Board turns a blind eye to the unlawful and illegal actions of its employees, solicitors and the claims agents.
Want to know more..
You betcha..
Stay tuned.
It will all come out in the wash sooner rather than later !!!!
The WorkCover debate has split unions, the Labor Party, Caucus and Cabinet -even the Liberal Party But apparently the WorkCover organisation itself isn't too fussed.
Last week, independent MLC Ann Bressington revealed that as she was standing outside Parliament House talking with a constituent, a man rushed over and took a photograph of the pan-talking. The constituent was a man, an injured worker who was complaining to his Member of Parliament about his treatment at the hands of WorkCover. The man with the camera was a WorkCover claims investigator.
Ms Bressington (right) was outraged. "People are entitled to speak to their elected representative without being harassed or intimidated by WorkCover agents," she said.
WorkCover has not bothered to find out more about the incident. "Ms Bressington didn't contact us so we know no more about it," a spokesperson said.
Couldn't WorkCover have made the first approach and phoned Ms Bressington? "Well, yes. But we're waiting for her," was the reply
Meanwhile, WorkCover is staying silent about who might be masquerading as the well-known WorkCover critic, Phil Moir.
Moir is WorkCover's bete noire. A former defence force intelligence analyst, personal assistant to a medical professor, Moir created and operated a multi-million dollar business with 85 staff. "I have a very good understanding of matters financial," he told a parliamentary committee last week. Moir is both an employer and WorkCover claimant. His fight with the organisation has been public - he's a prolific letter-to-the-editor writer and campaigner against WorkCover practices, management, and finances. WorkCover has, in the past, attempted to dissuade publication of his letters by falsely alleging that Moir was under police investigation and was a public safety risk.
Last week it emerged that Moir's name had been used in a website blog. "The blogs attributed to me were malicious, threatening and dangerous," Moir told the committee.
But Moir hadn't posted them. The blog master was able to track the IP address of postings to that site, and identified they'd been posted from a home address different to Moir's, and by a different person.
Here's how the exchange went in the committee room:
The Hon, R.I. LUCAS:And that is an employee of WorkCover?
Mr MOIR: I would suggest that they are not an employee of WorkCover: They are associated with several WorkCover committees.
The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: What do you mean, 'associated'-'they are on WorkCover committees?
Mr MOIR: They are on WorkCover committees as representatives of groups.
Contacted this week, the WorkCover corporation maintained piety. "Not our employee," a spokesperson said, "so we're not responsible."
Tasmanian police will investigate how the shredded document that forced deputy premier Steve Kons to resign for misleading parliament was made public.
The Tasmanian Greens today have precipitated the admission by the Deputy Premier that he made an ‘inaccurate statement’ to Parliament, an understatement of the obvious fact that he misled Parliament throughout the course of extensive questioning, and say that having misled Parliament there is no choice but for the Deputy Premier to resign or be sacked.
So Bruce Carter needs to inform the public on the reforms package. I have read hansard plus I have listened to all the advertisements frrom Business SA. Could I be corrected in saying there is more to the reforms than what has been told to the members of parliament who had to vote on it or have they been told something behind closed doors? Anyway thats the way i read the letter.
Seems Bruce Carter has yet again shot himself in the foot at great expense to each and every South Australian.
WorkCover spent approximately $15 thousand in full page adverts over the weekend to publish a letter from Bruce that gave rise to more questions than answers.
1. Why does Bruce suggest the scheme has been deteriorating for 10 years yet Alan Clayton said in his recent report that the scheme achieved its best position in 2000?
2. Why is it the 36 month+ group has increased in number by 150% yet Division 4 of the Act clearly says they should be assessed as a capital loss and paid out?
3. Return to work rates are an annual measure. (ie only 0.5% of injured workers annually end up remaining on benefits beyond 36 months). If only the 36 month+ group have increased, doesn’t that infer there is no deterioration in annual return to work rates, rather an increase of permanently injured trapped on benefits?
4. If the proposed changes to the SA Scheme don’t include the common law rights afforded by the other schemes referred to, how can it remain the “most generous”. If your car insurance pays the highest repair costs but should the car be written off you get nothing, it is not hard to see how low the bar will be set for write offs. In the other states, the write off becomes a common law claim.
5. If, as Bruce said in his third paragraph, the problem is caused by permanently incapacitated workers remaining on benefits for more than 36 months, why does he then suggest the changes will keep those who need it on benefits till retirement age? What’s it gonna be Bruce?
6. Bruce says that if the changes are passed “our scheme will be fully funded within 6-7 years. Now that is a brave call from a Corporation that has not been able to correctly forecast its funding position for the past seven years. It is only 24 months and $500 Million in losses ago WorkCover said EML’s appointment would save $100 Million annually. At least Carter put his name to this statement and not deferred to someone else’s theory.
7. If the proposed changes intend to keep injured workers deemed permanently injured on benefits until retirement age, thus changing a Compensation Insurance Scheme into a Pension Scheme, how can he then suggest it will deliver improved return to work rates let alone a lowering of the levy rate?
8. It is not hard to see where the confusion and ambiguity comes from with a nonsense like Bruce’s letter being paid to be placed in the media. It is up with his recent misleading statement that Redemptions were not stopped preceding his chart that showed they had in fact dropped 80 percent!
9. Bruce says “in the immediate future we will provide South Australians with the facts...” So what has the abundance of information flowing from Waymouth Street in the recent past been?
10. Bruce suggests its time to dispel the Myths and get back to the facts”. All injured Workers, their families and employers can say Bruce is bring it on!
it may have been pointed out elsewhere but has anyone noticed that the sacking of the case manager was NOT mentioned in the advertiser are they helping rann cover his and his cohorts tracks
also saw an ad on an employment website for a case manager 24 hrs pw
now can someone tell me how this person is supposed to do a quality job for claimants at these hours
also as i am totally incapasitated my docs, lawyers ect have recommended i take a payout before the sh*t hits the fan (as they say)
now i wonder if i can sue workcover for failing in their part ie rehabillitation
i only saw channel 10 do a story on the case manager who was asked to resign over that "letter". maybe leon byner could bring it up on his show? this is not an isolated incident as stated by michael wright, it may well be isolated as it was in writing but i can assure you the threat was pretty lame compared to other "unwritten" tactics that goes on.
the subject of part time case managers is also an innteresting one as i currently have a part time rehab consultant. michael wright has also shown to be a part time industrial minister! where has he been the last 6 years?
has your rehab or case manager in the past suggested retraining is not required because workcover will top up your remuneration? well due to these new reforms that would not be the case and a lot of workers have been duped. i hope there can be some legal remedy to rectify this.
Bullying of injured workers is part of the Work-Cover system.
Its common to see comments about claimaints being targeted.
Comments about their treating doctors, how to avoid paying them their weekly income maintenance to harrass them.
Maintaining a stance of " throwing the book at them" this is often used when we just want workers off the system because they have either caught us out or are likely to have a big win against us in the tribunal.
At the end of the day it is only the injured workers who suffer, the de humanised system of managing claimants engages the employees of Work-Cover in a game of hatred and persecution of injured workers in the never ending war of trying to throw them off the books with as little entitlements as possible..
Rosemary in her latest Newsletter states this:
"My only requests are that Minister Wright give the Public Forum at least 3 hours of his most valuable time before the end of June ’08, that he take questions from the floor and that he give his personal commitment that any injured workers attending the Public Forum not be targeted by the WorkCover system."
Is she admitting that WorkCover are targetting injured Workers?
How could it be that the current government and Ministers sit back and let it happen??
Can anybody tell me if Section 43 under the new reforms be retrospective? I have a workplace injury and sec 43 is yet to be settled. This is the sort of information that should be told to the public of fellow South Australians.
i believe from what i have read and been told that section 43s will be scrapped under the new legislation could be wrong but i do know that payouts will cease
Well that means I have been sucked in twice, firstly my rehabilitation consultant told me to take this job placement that pays way less than my remuneration and that I will get the top up and now that will be obolished and secondly i will miss out on my section 43 payment as my case manager said my injury has not settled.
I am not a lawyer but can suggest this for claimants.
If you apply for a redemption now pre - the new legislation you should in all fairness be considered under the current legislation.
Once you have proceedings in place it would seem inconsistent with legal principles that the government could change the law to suit itself so that current lawsuits are invalid.
This gives an option of proceeding for section 43 and 42 redemptions under the current system.
In the event of change to this part of the legislation the ability to withdraw or continue the proceedings depending on whether the new legislation is more favorable will remain an option.
The Advertiser April 22 2008
Nick Henderson Political reporter.
WorkCover advertisements portray injured employees as "bludgers" and are " a waste of money".
State Finance Sector Union secretary Debbie Black yesterday told the Statutory Authorities Review Committee Hearing examining WorkCover the advertisements were "ridiculous".
When asked by Liberal MLC Rob Lucas about advertisements encouraging injured workers to return to work, Ms Black said they were "ridiculous".
"It would be better spent on rehab and retraining, and also focusing no ensuring that employers comply with the legislation in providing suitable duties."
WorkCover chief executive officer Julia Davison said the advertising campaign was designed to encourage injured workers to return to work.
The primary aim is to create awareness and behaviour change in relation to return to work...the importance of return to work as part of recovery."
Posted by Former WorkCover employee and a waste of money. at 2:19 PM, 22/4/2008
Well we all know Julia about awareness and behaviour change..
Perhaps as CEO of Workcover you could implement some changes to WorkCover so that the employees are aware of their own dishonesty and unethical work practices when it comes to dealing with the management of claims.
The system has brought itself into disrepute by the actions of its employees and contractors who treat injured workers with no respect.
Funny they didnt mention the other states enjoy common law!
Why would you take out two full pages in the weekend paper where you have the most readers and state the facts in a tuesday paper where it is known to be the less read day?
Me thinks the Labor party are using WorkCover funds to assist the next election. This is all about vote retaining now for them.
With great humility, I am very privileged to be the leader of this great party at its finest hour.
"This is all about making sure the confidence and momentum we have in this state now continues for the future.
"As we form a new government and start doing all the hard yards ... it's all about making sure that the confidence and momentum that we have in this state now continues for the future.
"We are going to continue to get results because that's what we were elected to do and that's what we dedicate our second term to."
Do the Actuaries committee ever get it right, Are they like the Bureau of Meteorology? Can the Actuaries committee predict the stock market crash, or how many workers are going to be injured each year. We are in a sad state of affairs if this is the case, so much for occupational, health and safety.
A statement made by Peter Vaughan after the 2006 state election.
"Business SA chief executive Peter Vaughan praised Labor's economic management and welcomed the decisive mandate, telling ABC TV a majority government will give the state stability for the next four years".
I guess this is one of those newbiesites. I always bookmark them and when I get a bit of free time I always come back and visit.
Phew..WorkCover has certainly been the topic of the month lately.
About time someone challenged them.
I mean look at all the staff turnover. something must be worn and everyone seems to complain about their bully tactics, poor record keeping, the way they are not treated properly, rehab consultants who seem to be after the money and not interested in rehab etc.
Seems to me that the whole system simply exists only because WorkCover wants to exist.
I mean really if they paid all the injured workers out and just gave them a wage to carry them over until their injuries settled down a bit wouldn't everything be better?
Well it does not take a smart person to work that out. So why does this government insist on ripping off employers and paying injured workers for years on end and simply keeping them on the system?
Seems a company thats been formed to exist simply for its own purpose.
WorkCover is simply a scam and is ripping off employers and injured workers.
Do you think that the new legislation will change anything?
Well they are changing it but changing it to make sure you stay on it forever if you are injured.
Dopey bastards..
If everyone pushed the other way that they did not want redemptions and wanted to stay on the system I think they would legislate the other way.
Just watch the unfunded liability spiral with the new legislation.
More injured workers than ever before and more unfunded liability with no way of throwing them off the system.
WorkCover will not be able to blame the legislation then, they will only be able to blame themselves..its a sure bet heads will roll in the future when the real truth comes out.
Like everything the blowout will be far more than what they say.
These are just a way for the government to get around having to use section 38 to stop paying disabled workers, just incase the worker's dispute over a Sec38 is successful these new laws will leave no avenue for contest! Even though the only present avenue is Sec38's disregard for antidiscrimination laws of the commonwealth!
Another full page in todays Advertiser by the Business's of South Australia boasting they are Half way there in implementing WorkCover reforms. I tend to look at the motives of government advertising and this is showing the public they are bullying their way through parliament to achieve what everybody sees as unfair. I wonder if all the members of the upperhouse read the paper, because they have the last say. Whatever decision is made, a war has started between Business and Workers in a time when skilled workers are a shortage.
WORKCOVER
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (14:58): Â I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Attorney-General and the minister responsible for WorkCover and industrial relations a question about WorkCover.
Leave granted.
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Â I was contacted by a constituent who has been found to have received WorkCover payments by dishonest means. The conviction was secured by using unlawfully obtained evidence to discredit his claim for compensation and, in turn, secure the conviction. Specifically, the injured worker alleges that in 2005, when WorkCover commenced its prosecution case against him in the Magistrates Court, and at the same in the midst of a custody dispute, WorkCover knowingly and unlawfully used that information relating to his personal Family Law Court matter in litigation against him in order to fight his claim for compensation. This use of Family Law Court documents was clearly for a collateral purpose. Chief counsel (litigation) for the Australian Government Solicitor, Tom Howe, in his legal briefing for the Australian government agencies, states:
In the course of litigation before courts and tribunals, government departments and other agencies and the lawyers acting for them may gain access to information recorded in documents made available by the other party or non-parties. If such access is obtained under compulsory court or tribunal process, it will automatically be subject to an implied undertaking prohibiting use or disclosure of the material, except for the purposes of the subject proceedings. My conclusion is that the commonwealth is bound, like any other third party, not to use information which is gained by one party from the other via the court proceedings under the court's compulsory processes for any purpose other than use in those proceedings. To seek to use the documents in deciding whether or not to prosecute, or whether or not to take enforcement action, is a 'collateral or ulterior' use, which requires the leave of the court.
It is evident from this that leave of the court or consent is required before documents are disclosed or used. WorkCover did not seek leave or permission to use the documents in this case, and Magistrate Ackland also made a finding that it was wrong for WorkCover investigators to have used those documents. Despite this finding against WorkCover, the evidence was accepted on the grounds that 'to remove the evidence now is like removing flour from a baked cake'. My questions are:
Will the Attorney-General take appropriate action in relation to this matter on the basis that it is against the public interest for there to be any interference with the freedom of a party or an individual to court proceedings to provide information freely to the courts without fear of the use of the document for some other purpose?
What efforts will be made to remedy what is clearly a breach of all laws and rules pertaining to the use of documents provided under compulsion in another court's jurisdiction?
Will the state Attorney-General refer the matter to the federal Attorney-General with the view of prosecuting WorkCover for contempt of the Family Court?
What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the state government and all its agents will comply with commonwealth laws, rules and legal principles to stop the integrity of the court system being undermined?
Why does WorkCover not have to comply with the prosecutorial requirements observed by the DPP when prosecuting cases for alleged fraud?
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (15:02):Â I will refer that question to the Attorney-General for his response.
I have been involved in a bitter Custody dispute with my ex husband over my children and would be horrified to know that Work-cover had been prying into my private life and collecting anything about my family and children.
How is it that they can do what they like and not care about privacy?
How would one have to complain to, they seem to be a law unto themselves and nobody seems to be in charge of anything they do wrong.
I believe there was a workplace fatality last week and this was overlooked by the press or did Business SA instruct The Advertiser in not reporting it due to the current environement as they would have knowledge of this, I wonder if they had any sympathy as they were preparing their "half way their" campaign. Does Business SA still like to blame injured workers?
i hope nobody did anything stupid to themselves because of the anxiety of these workcover reforms. i wonder when bruce carter is going to notify the public of south australians what the reform package contains. i am sure they know what they are and with the advertisements business sa are putting in only makes it worse.
Open letter to Associations paying full page adverts for WorkCover
Greetings,
I write with regard to the full page advertisement placed in the Adelaide Advertiser on Wednesday 23 April, which your organisation was flagged as supporting.
I am extremely disappointed that you would put your name to an advert without undertaking some research into the issues confronting the State with regard to WorkCover.
Your advertisement suggests that the SA Workers compensation scheme is the worst performing in Australia yet shows NO understanding as to why it is the worst performing and what went wrong.
In 2000, the scheme, under the current legislation was becoming the BEST performing scheme in Australia. At a time when most schemes were struggling, our scheme was almost fully funded and levies were being dropped in line with its performance. All the while Business was enjoying the highest level of Statutory Protection in Australia. While businesses in Victoria and NSW pay a lower statutory levy for Workers Compensation, in order to protect themselves from common law actions, they must acquire Employers Liability Insurance amounting to approximately 2.5-3 percent of their payroll. In SA the current legislation precludes employees from taking common law action and the extra level of insurance is not required.
In 2000, WorkCover management came up with a theory that should they move away from paying redemptions they could save money. Since that time, WorkCover have dropped redemptions by 80 percent and, what should be of most concern to your members, banked in excess of one billion dollars in retained levies. The problem confronting Employers in SA is that by not investing the funds in extinguishing the tail liability created by workers remaining on benefits, the outstanding claims liability increased from $300 million to $2.3 billion in just seven years making the SA scheme the worst performing in the country.
Incredibly, in 2002 Michael Wright and his new WorkCover Board realised something was seriously wrong and ordered an immediate inquiry. The new auditor bluntly warned the Minister and his Board that the redemption theory was flawed and had created an increase in the number of injured workers on benefits, thus blowing out the liability by $323 Million in just two years. WorkCover however refused to accept the warning and persisted with their flawed policy ultimately costing Business a further $1.5 Billion.
Just 24 months ago, this same board told Business that their appointment of EML would save SA $100 million annually. Since this time they lost a further $500 million.
The current proposals to slash workers entitlements to offset the enormous corporate losses may seem the only option given the abundance of spin emanating from WorkCover. The truth is whilst it might provide a short term solution to a small percentage of the problem, the risk to Business that the auditors that got it so wrong in 2000, and the board that got is so wrong in 2006 have got it wrong again. Furthermore, Unions and the legal fraternity already calling for common law rights to be reinstated should the proposal for change be introduced.
The solution to the WorkCover crisis is in compliance with the existing Legislation and investing some of the $1.5 billion in levy funds retained in just 7 years, not through a knee jerk reaction that may well set off a chain of events that will expose your members to even greater costs.
I have no doubt WorkCover compellingly argue that what I present is incorrect but I do not offer assumptions or theories, rather objective references to their own annual reports.
It is great to see someone else is realising that the changes to the scheme is a smoke screen.
When your job is on the line, and you can spend other peoples money trying to save your ar$$, why the hell not!
More people need to ask why Michael Wright and Bruce Carter ignored their actuaries warning in 2002 and pushed on creating the financial disaster with such terrible social consequences.
This whole workcover issue has really become an election worry for the current government. I must admit though it is a very smart move by Rann and Co. to use Business SA and the associations to fund paid advertisements to support the Labor governments decisions at a time when their previous financial backers in the unions are spending their money on knocking the Labor party.
WorkCover have placed a notice in "The Advertiser" stating injured workers will not simply be kicked off the system. The workers who has some capacity and not working will be kicked off. An injured worker who is working to some capacity will have their wage topped up until they are fully fit to return to work full time then the top up will cease.
FACTS:
For example, a nurse who would have earnt $850 remuneration per week pre injury is now employed with restricted hours in a different employment offers $600 per week. So if this nurse finally returns to full time hours can I be corrected in saying the nurse will lose the top up to $850 (less 20%) and the earning capacity has drastically decreased?
I hope the $15 million goes a long way to retraining injured workers so they can earn the pre injury remuneration.
Who determines if a worker has capacity to work, and can this be challenged? You will note that even judges get it wrong, thats why there is an appeal system.
I strongly disagree with the Rann Labor Government's actions over WorkCover. I will not support any moves in State Parliament to strip workers’ entitlements, and will fully support the SA Unions campaign fighting against changes to the WorkCover scheme.
When the debate reaches the Upper House next week, I want to be able to tell the Parliament stories of injured workers and how the proposed changes would impact on them. These stories can be attributed or anonymous, but they need to be told. It is too easy for us in Parliament to forget that the important decisions we make impact on real people with real lives.
My contact details and my workcover campaign page are on my website: http://www.markparnell.org.au
Mark Parnell MLC
Australian Greens
PS. Reducing workers entitlements at the same time as reducing the WorkCover levy is a direct transfer of wealth from working people to employers, and I for one can't support it.
Posted by Mark_Parnell_Greens_MLC at 10:10 PM, 24/4/2008
There is a lot of tossing going on in Waymouth Street
Funny thing is, WorkCover are finally starting to admit the truths that will ultimately be their downfall.
1. They won't be able to simply throw a worker off benefits. If you have some capacity and you are working, they can't throw you off.
2. If you don't have any capacity, they can't throw you off.
3. If you have some capacity for some form of work but they haven't provided retraining/rehabilitation toward that work, they can't throw you off.
4. Even with just 3000 on benefits beyond 30 months and only a handful of Medico's prepared to sell their soul to WorkCover, how long do you think it will take them to get through the files? Say 4 a day, 5 days a week? (As if)
Well even at that rate it will take them 4 years to consider the files, let alone the constraints they face throwing injured Workers off...
Even if, in their wildest dreams they could throw half of them off, it will take 4 years before the scheme breaks even at today’s debt level.
But with $2.3 Billion being indexed at say 4%, it is going to blow out by $100 Million before they add the next 179 permanently injured workers to the list! And that will add a further $200 Million to the debt level next year!
And God only knows how much they burnt playing the stock market this year but with $700M invested, in stocks, it would be reasonable to assume another $100-150m gone!
You do the math, Bruce Carter obviously can’t!
Yet heres Bruce the accountant assuring business in his full page advert that the levy WILL decrease next year and the scheme WILL be fully funded in 5-6 years. Bruce you are a complete buffoon!
If you have a notional weekly income of say $600. They cut you to $480 after 12 months. (80%) You go back to work, despite them, at say half time earning $300 per week. The top up you will receive until you are 65 is 80% of the difference between your half time income and the notional weekly earnings. i.e. 80% of $300, not 80% of $180.
PhilM, I appreciate your comment but your example if one was to return to their pre injury employment.
I have used an example where the injured worker returns to another employment due to their injuries as pre injury remuneration is a lot higher than "a suitable" employment remuneration. I am wondering if this is covered in the reforms?
For example:
Injured workers pre injury remuneration = $850
Maintenance = $850 -20% = $650
New employment remuneration = $600
Working to full capacity eg 19 hrs= $300 + $350 top up = $650
Working full capacity at full hours, top up ceases = $600
Workers reward into working back to normal hours at full capacity is a reduction of $50
and another thing, most of the current long term injured workers who have been targeted would not be employed by their pre injury employer. it would be nice for these workers to rock up at their old job on july 1st and ask for their old desk or workbench back and be paid pre injury remuneration.
I have to take offence to Mr. David Frith and the comments he made in the Advertiser April 25, 2008 by the remark “that this package is about a system for the future not about the opportunity for greedy, short term cash grabs that will hurt the local community”.
I believe he is insinuating that all injured workers are bludgers and have no right for compensation.
There is no clear short term cash grabs in the existing WorkCover act or the reform package, the only possibility for such a benefit is the compensation for non-economical loss, an area which will be increased from $215,000 to $400,000 by these new reforms, and only then such large payments are paid to the seriously injured or death.
I dare say if short term cash grab means losing 20% of your wage and superannuation rights then my understanding of these issues are to be questioned.
WorkCover spent $18 million in rehabilitation in 2006/07, Michael Wright in a recent statement indicated that they will spend $15 million on rehabilitation with these new reforms to get injured workers back to work. I hope Mr. Wright meant an extra $15 million?
This article from an employer advocate was quite extensive but was filled with plenty of fluff with the only exception of the short term grabs which seemed to have no true component what so ever. All his opinion has done is created a more severe wedge between business and employees at a time when relations are the up most importance due to a skills shortage.
The fear I have is the mis-understanding of the reforms by the decision makers of this government.
You talk of fear..the only Fear I have is that this government is so incompetent to realize the mess the current Work-cover board have put themselves into.
If only they sat back and had a look at what a mess has been created since the current Board has come on to the scene.
I can only assume that this government is not incompetent but that they have been supporting their mates Bruce, Sandra and the rest as they are all in a cosey little relationship..with their cosey little deals...Mike, Kev, Pat.- are just the three stooges for Board..
Check this out for the true facts of the matter
www.rannslam.com
Posted by Workcover reform Party at 11:32 AM, 25/4/2008
Mr Frith is obviously paid to serve Business SA.
Perhaps he should consider that the cause of Workcover's unfunded liability has its roots in employers who have evaded their obligations under the Act. That is not taken back or assisted their injured workers, the employers have all escaped paying out common law claims and then do not care about what happens when injured workers are off work because the employers have taken shortcuts with safety or adequate training.
Take a long hard look at the situation Mr Frith..you are obviously biassed with who you are representing and your comments just show how self serving your article was in the Advertiser.
The Advertiser ought be ashamed for publishing such a biassed opinion as an article..
i also read Mr Frith's article and found it quite interesting. the word compensation was not used once in his actual opinion but was used as "compo" to describe his story. "compo" is a general description of easy money, there is no "compo" in the current act or the new one.
compensation means:
1.an amount of money or something else given to pay for loss, damage, or work done, or
2.the act of giving money or something else to pay for loss, damage, or work done, or
3. something that makes amends or makes up for something else
i have not received any compensation what so ever if that is the way it is described, there is no reward but a penalty.
WorkCover have put in another advertisement in "The Advertiser" (26/04/08) in relation to a $15 million rehabilitation programme.
As I have stated above WorkCover spent $18 million in rehabilitation in 2006/07, Michael Wright in a recent statement indicated that they will spend $15 million on rehabilitation with these new reforms to get injured workers back to work. I hope Mr. Wright meant an extra $15 million?
Why did they fail to tell us the "FACTS" that they will be spending less on rehabilitation?
This is not how WorkCover SA decribed it in saturdays Advertiser.
Closing date for application submissions 31 October 2007
Following the successful launch of the $10 million Return to Work (RTW) Fund in July 2006, WorkSafe Victoria has received overwhelming interest from unions, employer associations and other eligible organisations. Importantly, the Fund has meant that WorkSafe has been able to support innovative projects designed to improve outcomes for injured workers in Victoria in priority RTW areas.
What has changed
At the time of its launch, it was anticipated that the RTW Fund would run for up to 3 years. Due to the enormous interest in the Fund since its launch, WorkSafe now considers it appropriate to nominate a closing date for applications, in order to enable the allocation of all remaining funds.
For initiatives to be considered for RTW funding, prospective applicants must ensure that completed submissions are received using the prescribed application form by 31 October 2007.
What has not changed
The individual merit of each application will continue to be primarily assessed with reference to the RTW Fund purpose, objectives and priorities. The extent to which an initiative fulfils these requirements will determine whether it is approved for support.
Completion of the application form does not constitute an offer by WorkSafe, nor an agreement to provide any funding for the proposed initiative. WorkSafe retains absolute discretion over whether an application for funding is approved, declined or whether negotiations occur with the applicant(s) regarding the terms of an agreement.
So in other words, groups or organisations would need to make an application to receive such funds before a certain date. The way I read it in The Advertiser is that when a worker gets injured and cannot return to their pre injury employment they can be retrained. What happens if there are no more funds, and since these reforms are retrospective these funds would dry up pretty quickly with a high volume of claimants yet to receive retraining.
You cannot compare these two corporations, they are completley different in so many ways. I think it would be foolish to use snippets from one act to compare with the other when there are so many elements that contribute to how the act is written. Currently the Victorian act is also under review.
In the debate regarding proposed changes to the WorkCover legislation, several parties have
cited the Local Government Association's Workers Compensation Scheme (LOA WCS).
It Is certainly true that the scheme has been enormously
successful.
Last year, we completed our 15th consecutive year with a reduction in claims and the scheme remains fully funded. We have also won awards for our Innovative healthy life styles program.
The keys to success have been the willingness of councils and their chief executive officers to embrace risk management to avoid injuries, the effectiveness
of rehabilitation of Injured workers to get them back on the
Job quickly and maintenance of good relationships with unions. In this, councils are doing the right thing by workers and saving communities millions of dollars in unnecessary expenses.
However, it is wrong to compare our 68 professional council
employers, all established under a common legislative framework and members of this association,
with the huge diversity of employers covered by WorkCover.
• JOY BALUCH,
President, Local Government
Association, Adelaide
Well Ms Baluch. I think the majority would have to say they agree with your article which also appeared in the Advertiser.
This just goes to show that the current system can work and does work with sound management practices in place.
Obviously the council is in a different position to Workcover.
Workcover management depend on injured workers, without them they would not exist. The more they have on the system the more jobs they create.
The council however depends on workers who are productive, its in their best interest to promote safety and recovery in their employers when they are injured at work.
This is a clear demonstration of why there is a failure of the current system and it should be obvious to all.
Why else would the current management of Workcover blame the legislation, why else would they blame the injured workers.
The answer is quite clear.
They are too scared and gutless to admit their own mistakes and are blaming the vulnerable injured workers for the mess they have placed the corporation in...
The letter from Bruce Carter, chairman of the board of the WorkCover Corporation, which featured in a full-page advertisement (The Advertiser, 19/4/08) was, in my opinion, self-serving.
Injured workers and employers are both stakeholders in the scheme. The proposed legislative changes have been tailored to benefit employers at the expense of injured workers. Why doesn't Mr Carter simply ac-knowledge as much?
As someone who has spent most of his professional life interpreting the WorkCover legislation, I challenge Mr Carter to provide examples of injured workers who, under the proposed amendments, will be better compensated in weekly payments.
A fact which did not feature in the advertisement is that South Australia is the only state which has abolished the common law rights of injured workers to sue their employers in negligence. I'm not sure how this makes the scheme "the fairest in the nation".
•MICHAEL SAIES, Adelaide.
Here is a statement from WorkCover in The Advertiser 27th April 2008
“The original intent or our workers rehabilitation and compensation system.
The system was intended to provide rehabilitation support and fair compensation in the short-term for all injured workers, and adequately ongoing compensation and long-term 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.”
1. As this system in now 20 years old, why has it taken now to realise it is not a so called “pension.”
2. What has changed, Policy instructions maybe?
i have made an agreement with a certain member to oversee my claim and the way it has been handled at the moment. So far there has been some interesting issues as my case manager does not we are doing this. I am sure she will soon find out as it is heard in parliament
Unions will hit SA Government with work bans over WorkCover rules
Article from: The Advertiser
NICK HENDERSON, STATE POLITICAL REPORTER
April 29, 2008 11:25am
PUBLIC servants will hit the State Government with work bans if its WorkCover Bill is passed in Parliament.
The Public Service Association, which represents workers in high-risk jobs such as correctional services and social workers, yesterday issued the blunt warning ahead of today's debate over the Bill in the Upper House.
PSA general secretary Jan McMahon said the Bill attacked injured workers' entitlements, causing huge concern among members.
"This government has to be accountable,'' she said.
"Our members go out there every day - child protection, in prisons - looking after the government's policies and programs and it is totally unfair that this government chooses to attack its own workers. It can never be an employer of choice.
"We will be looking at introducing restrictive work practices where our members will no longer put themselves at risk to allow government to have its own policy and programs.''
Ms McMahon said one of the restrictions would include preventing workers from carrying out jobs alone if there was a risk they could be injured.
"We will be sending members out in twos,'' she said.
"They will no longer be able to go out individually.''
She was unable to say how much the bans would cost the government.
Greens MLC Mark Parnell yesterday said he would lead the opposition against the Bill in the Upper House, flagging his intention to introduce more than 100 amendments.
"Mr Rann and Mr Foley take their union heartland for granted at their peril,'' he said.
"A political party that fails to stand up for the people it was put there to represent is on a slippery slope to oblivion.
"Voters are sick and tired of politicians saying they represent one thing and then turning around and doing the exact opposite.''
Mr Parnell said the scrutiny he and other minor parties and independents will put the government under in the Upper House proved there was a need for the Legislative Council which the government wants to abolish.
I can't believe that now so much of the truth has come out about WorkCover and their 'strategy' causing the mess they are in now that the Spin Doctors are so willing to sell their soul and lie about everything to save their sorry behinds.
One thing the need to remember, sell your soul to the devil and one day he will cash it in.
I hope they day he does that you people remember the needless victims of your incompetence and lies.
The government allowed the scheme to deteriorate and is now, by its own incompetence, forced to downgrade workers' benefits. The excuse one also hears around the corridors (although not in the parliamentary debate) from government members is that the board is responsible for the situation at WorkCover. This, of course, was exactly the same argument that Labor members used in relation to another ill-starred Labor event, namely, the collapse of the State Bank. There, the Labor premier of the day claimed his government had a hands-off approach to the State Bank, and it cost this state and its citizens dearly and is still costing this state and its citizens dearly.
76—Amendment to section 112—Confidentiality to be maintained
The maximum penalty for disclosing confidential information contrary to section 112(1) is currently a fine of $3 ,000 . This clause amends subsection (1) by increasing the maximum fine to $5 ,000 .
A new subsection authorises the Corporation to enter into arrangements with corresponding workers compensation authorities about sharing information obtained in the course of carrying out functions related to the administration, operation or enforcement of the Act or a corresponding law. A disclosure made in accordance with such an arrangement will be permitted, as will a disclosure authorised or required under any other Act or law.
A corresponding workers compensation authority is any person or authority in a State or a Territory other than South Australia with power to determine or manage claims for compensation for disabilities arising from employment.
Section 43A sets out a scheme for assessing the degree of permanent impairment. An assessment is to be made in accordance with the WorkCover guidelines (to be published by the Minister for the purposes of section 43) and must be made by a legally qualified medical practitioner. The practitioner must also hold a current accreditation issued by the Corporation.
The guidelines are to be published in the Gazette. They may adopt or incorporate the provisions of other publications, whether with or without modification or addition and whether in force at a particular time or from time to time. Other requirements and options in relation to the guidelines are listed in section 43A(4). The Minister may amend or substitute the guidelines from time to time but must, before publishing or amending the guidelines, consult with the Australian Medical Association (South Australia) Incorporated and any other prescribed body.
You will notice WorkCover has used the section 43 reforms in an advertisement in the Sunday Mail 4th May 2008 to compare with NSW and Victoria. How ironic they didnt mention the guides and also the common law component.
SOUTH Australia's peak lawyers' body has joined the growing list of opponents to the Rann Government's hardline reform of workers' compensation.
The Law Society says the changes to WorkCover - which, among other measures, would cut workers' payments after 13 weeks, down from 12 months - are too harsh.
"The amendments go too far," the society says in a 15-page report on the legislation before parliament. "There is a significant risk that workers with quite serious disabilities, who should probably remain in receipt of compensation benefits, will have their payments stopped."
The Law Society's criticisms come as Mike Rann prepares for a showdown when the WorkCover amendments face a vote in the upper house next month.
The Premier wants to rein in the scheme's unfunded liability, which has ballooned from about $60 million to more than $840 million since Labor was elected in 2002.
Despite disquiet in the caucus, Mr Rann shepherded the WorkCover bill through the lower house using the support of right-wing Labor unions.
However, he still faces a concerted and public campaign from left-wing Labor unions, who accuse him of cutting off debate within the party, as well as from the wider union movement led by the Public Service Association, and from minor parties in the upper house.
Among the measures in the legislation, workers' payments will end after 2 1/2 years if they are not fully incapacitated by a work-related injury.
But the Law Society says this opens up potential injustices for claimants. "Once 2 1/2 years has elapsed, they will not be entitled to weekly compensation when they need to go to hospital for further treatment."
The report, by the chairman of the society's accident compensation committee, John Fountain, admits the bill would cut the scheme's unfunded liabilities.
But it says the legislation fails to address the underlying problem of poor claims management.
The society points to the ability of self-insured businesses to move previously injured workers back into employment, and challenges the Government to follow suit.
"Why are self-insured employers able to operate under the legislation so successfully when WorkCover's claims performance is so poor? The answer is simple: effective claims management," the report says.
Dozens of seriously injured, long-term WorkCover recipients are having their payments reduced or stopped by the authority in an “unfair” process that could leave some suicidal, according to industry experts.
According to lawyer Paul Mulvany, the principal of Workforce Legal and former judge of Victoria’s Accident Compensation Tribunal, who has had more than 30 years’ experience with WorkCover.there had been improvements to the authority in recent years, but there remained “pockets of sub-standard performance” including “inappropriate determinations” for long-term claimants.
State legislation requires WorkCover to reassess injured workers at least every two years, but recently the authority had a project to reduce the number of long-term claimants, Mr Mulvany said.
He likened the reassessment process to “rolling the dice”. Those who had poor rulings could seek a review through a WorkCover-funded conciliation process, an independent medical panel or the courts. Mr Mulvany estimated that 70 per cent of those who fought their assessments had them overturned on appeal. “The story is they get it wrong a lot of the time,” he said.
Another lawyer, Patsy Toop, said four clients had lost benefits in the past 12 months. “It’s appalling when you consider that the Victorian WorkCover Authority made a billion-dollar profit this year that they would be attacking those people who are long-term recipients of WorkCover benefits,” she said.
Leading WorkCover practitioners have called for greater transparency and care by the authority and its doctors, whose reassessments have denied some long-term claimants payments and treatment after more than 10 years of regular benefits.
Workers’ Occupational Health Centre physician Helen Sutcliffe estimated up to 50 seriously injured workers would have had their benefits reduced following adverse reassessments.
“I don’t think there’s any doubt that many long-term WorkCover recipients are being targetted,” she said. While a re-examination of claims was reasonable, the way it was done was “inappropriate” and “unfair” for quite a number of people, she said.
Workcover cuts may increase suicide rate Dr Sutcliffe said some had been left in a such vulnerable position physically, mentally and financially that she “wouldn’t be surprised if there’s suicides as a result of this”.
Trades Hall WorkCover officer Jarrod Moran said there was “room for improvement” in the treatment of long-term claimants, who were the most dependent on the WorkCover scheme.
WorkCover Minister Tim Holding would not respond to the criticism. A Victorian WorkCover Authority spokesman said it had to ensure people received appropriate benefits. Reassessments could be appealed to a free conciliation service or medical panel, while the Australian Medical Association handled complaints about doctors.
Motorist, especially those over 55, are putting lives at risk by driving while drowsy, dizzy and clumsy on prescription medication, research shows.
More than one in 10 Australians (11 per cent) admit driving after using marijuana, cocaine, speed or ecstasy, research commissioned by insurer AAMI shows. However, almost twice as many (21 per cent) admit to driving after taking prescription or over-the-counter medicanes.
Medications dangerous when driving include Valium, Xanax, Prozac, Codeine, Vicodin and Voltaren.
Scrap WorkCover, an employment contract stating employer to provide safe work environment. If an injury occures, sue the employer for breaking employment contract.
Yet again the medical panel is finding its reasons
are being scrutinised by the Supreme Court.
Another application for better reasons was recently
heard by the Supreme Court. The applicant worker
was aggrieved that the reasons did not contain the
Goniometer/Inclinometer readings taken by the
examiner in the assessment. This is American
speak for the protractor like devices that measure
the range of movement of a body part. The readings
are required in some areas by the AMA guides to
compute the impairment. It is pretty intricate stuff.
The Supreme Court decided that the readings
should have been included in the written reasons
and ordered the Panel to supply better reasons. The
court, however went out of its way to make it clear
that the decision should not be viewed as a
precedent for the provision of intricate reasons. The
court also expressed the view that the expanded
reasons were unlikely to provoke a remedy. The
decision raises difficult issues. On the one hand the
request for more detail is reasonable as it is often
only possible to determine whether or not an
appropriate methodology has been used by viewing
the measurements. On the other hand the
requirement is going to cause a bit of chaos within
the Panel as it will have a significant effect on the
ability of the Panel to meet its ever-increasing
demand. (See Benito Martinez v Dynamic
engineering Consolidated Pty. Ltd. & Ors. VSC
4841/2005).
The outcome of another Supreme Court challenge to
the Panel may have the effect of lightening the
workload of the Panel. In a matter of Kamener, which
has previously been to the Supreme Court, the legal
argument took a surprising twist. The WorkCover
Authority was seeking to invalidate a finding of the
Panel that found that employment was a contributing
factor to an injury. It canvassed the very real difficulty
of Panellists determining matter of fact. The
Application was being heard by Justice Ashley, who
is perhaps the most experienced appellate court
judge in Compensation Law.
In the course of argument he raised the issue of the
effect of the decision of Hegedis on the issue. The
first stage of the appeal in Hegedis was heard by
Justice Ashley and his findings and reasons, in a rare
endorsement method, were unreservedly adopted by
the Court of Appeal. The issue flagged by his Honour
was subtle but fundamental. His Honour pointed out
that the provision of significant contributing factor was
neither relevant to injury simpliciter nor to a medical
question for that type of injury. Indeed His honour
raised the issue that the ‘significant contributing
‘factor test was contained in an entitling provision and
did not itself impact on the definition of injury but
merely the consequent compensability of the injury.
Could it be therefore that the Panel has no role to
pronounce on the contribution until the existence of
an injury has been found to exist? Such a ruling will
have profound implications for the scheme. The
Panel and lawyers on both sides who have had some
discomfort with the Panel's judicial role may welcome
it! (See Martin Kamener & Ors v Phillip Griffin & Ors
(No 2) VSC
The unions have made a number of submissions to the Government in relation to fraudulent conduct by employers, in respect of not having workers compensation policies, and providing false information to insurance companies, in relation to wage declarations, number of employees and manipulation of premium industry classifications.
The Unions are of the view that the incidence of fraud by employees is very low, largely because it is easily detectable. An employee can only perpetrate
fraud by making a claim. The evidence substantiating the claim is then available and can be tested. The same is not true of employer performance.
Anyone who's been through the trauma of a breakdown, caused by their employment knows it's not a road recommended. I would truly have my right arm severed, (not trying to suggest a physical illness is any less significant) it just that many people think if it can't be seen, it not there, your a phoney, a loser or worse...why should people with servere mental disorders be excluded from lump sum payments when they and there familys have to live as does the next person
The Court of Appeal observed in Barwon Spinners[47] that, "arguably", all that was "made irrelevant by s 134AD is the type of error commonly identified (by reference to House v The King[48] ...) in appeals against the exercise of discretion". The Court of Appeal went on, in a passage set out earlier in these reasons, to emphasise the importance of demonstration by the appellant of "specific error" on the part of the primary judge when deciding whether there was "serious injury"[49]. This approach to the construction of s 134AD reflects the earlier statement in Barwon Spinners that, allowing for the terms of that section, "[n]one the less the appeal is justified by s 74 of the County Court Act ..."[50].
This confluence of ideas distracts attention from the terms of the imperative requirement of s 134AD with respect to determination of the question "whether the injury is a serious injury". Where it operates, s 134AD does so despite anything to the contrary which might be deduced from s 74 of the County Court Act or from House v The King. Barwon Spinners should not be accepted as providing a proper guide to the construction of s 134AD.
The classification of an injury as a "serious injury" within the meaning of the Compensation Act is a conclusion drawn from the facts disclosed by the relevant evidence, and after any resolution of disputed facts; it involves the application by the court in question of the statutory criterion of "serious" to the facts as found.
In the present case, upon the application by the appellant to the County Court there was no relevant issue of witness credibility, and upon his appeal to the Court of Appeal there was no challenge to the facts found by the County Court. Judge Millane considered the appellant to be a straightforward witness; he did not seek to embellish or exaggerate his condition or the impact upon him of his impairment.
In the County Court the respondent had led evidence on film, lasting about one hour, which showed that in October 2004 the appellant, as the primary judge put it, had appeared "to function well and to use his right arm effectively". The film was not shown to the Court of Appeal. The appellant did give an "in-court demonstration" to the Court of Appeal. This led to the statement by Eames JA: "It is indeed an unpleasant injury but it is markedly less so than at the time of the ... photographs [tendered to the County Court]."
Eames JA concluded that: "I am not persuaded that her Honour was wrong to conclude that [the appellant's injury] did not pass the threshold to become a serious disfigurement, within the terms of the Act." The respondent submits that in speaking of the ultimate issue for the Court of Appeal in this way, Eames JA was but expressing his own agreement with the conclusions of the primary judge and so was meeting the requirement of s 134AD that the Court of Appeal "shall decide for itself whether the injury is a serious injury".
However, if the reasons of Eames JA are read as a whole several further matters appear. First, his Honour treated Barwon Spinners[51] as stating among a number of important propositions respecting the phrase in s 134AD "to decide for itself", that it is for an appellant to persuade the Court of Appeal "that the decision produced below was the wrong one and should be reversed, or at least set aside". But for the Court of Appeal to do that is not to decide for itself whether on the balance of probabilities the injury of the appellant was a "serious injury" in the defined sense. Nor is the appellate jurisdiction one merely to set aside the primary decision; the appeal is finally to resolve the question of serious injury by creation of the issue estoppel of which par (c) of s 134AB(19) speaks. Secondly, the tenor of what follows in his Honour's reasons, particularly in the references to the "specialist" expertise of the County Court, suggests a significant measure of deference to the outcome in the County Court and an approach seeking from the appellant the demonstration of error on the part of the County Court.
Maxwell P remarked[52]:
"We are deciding for ourselves, as on any appeal, but subject to the principles governing such an appeal which Barwon Spinners so clearly spelt out.
As Eames JA pointed out in argument and as is clear from the propositions from Barwon Spinners which are set out in his judgment, we must be satisfied that the trial judge [sic] was wrong in coming to the conclusion she did. Like his Honour, I am not persuaded that her Honour was wrong."
The appellant correctly submits that this passage, and those in the reasons of Eames JA, with both of which Neave JA agreed[53], misstated the statutory power and duty that the Victorian Parliament reposed in the Court of Appeal. The consequence is that the Court of Appeal failed to exercise the jurisdiction which it was called upon to exercise.
To the suggestion that this view of the legislation fails to pay regard to the status and role of the Court of Appeal, as the highest court of the State and as a general court of appeal, and to the appropriate deployment of its judges given the nature of the decisions to be made and the risks of inconsistent decision-making between its judges because they are "rarely exposed to physical evidence of this kind"[54], the answer is threefold. First, it is what the legislation says. Secondly, it is what the Minister implied to be the purpose of the legislation, aiming to restore rights to damages subject to conditions. Thirdly, it arguably reflects the compromises inherent in achieving such a purpose. It centralises the ultimate decisions on such matters in the Court of Appeal with its comparatively small cohort of judges, having the consequence that a fair degree of consistency is expected to emerge in a relatively short time. Any amendment of these arrangements is, as Maxwell P recognised[55], a matter for Parliament.
The statutory definition in the Transport Accident Act 1986 includes a whole person impairment of 30% or greater and the narrative definition includes:
*Serious long term impairment and loss of body function.
*Severe psychological/psychiatric disturbances.
*Serious scarring and;
*Loss of foetus.
Under the new reforms, this Business will be rewarded
Prosecution - Guilty plea - Three deemed employees were at the defendant’s distillation plant at Osborne - One of the three employees was carrying out hydro blasting whilst the other employees were providing crane and rigging services in relation to the hydro blasting work-– All three employees were exposed to a risk of injury and were injured when ammoniated liquor escaped from a carbonation tower adjacent to where they were carrying out work - Failure on the part of the defendant: -To undertake a job safety analysis and develop a procedure for the draining of the carbonating tower to prevent the release of ammonia gas; - To develop and maintain safe systems for addressing the hazards that may have arisen from the escape of ammoniated liquor whilst persons were in the vicinity; - To provide such information, instruction and training as were reasonably necessary in that it failed to provide adequate instruction as to the requirement to remove a plastic strip from the respirator provided; - To provide and maintain a safe working environment in that all three employees were exposed to ammonia gas; - To provide and maintain plant in a safe condition in that the respirator provided was not operable without the removal of a plastic strip - Held: Conviction recorded - Fine of $17,000 after 15% reduction - S 19(1) Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act 1986.
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 76 ALJR 382
What is that you said about Clayton MInister Wright?
Government to examine sacked work laws
KARA PHILLIPS, POLITICAL REPORTER
October 03, 2006 12:15am
Article from:
Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
THE Federal Government has vowed to look at improving the WorkChoices unlawful termination scheme after state Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright slammed the Howard Government over its "evil" laws.
The scheme offers $4000 towards legal costs for a worker sacked unlawfully.
But Mr Wright said the scheme required that a lawyer giving advice and receiving the $4000 was banned from taking the case.
"Hundreds of thousands of South Australians have had their rights obliterated - and this scheme just adds insult to injury with this cynical Clayton's assistance," Mr Wright said.
"It means unlawfully sacked workers can get taxpayer-funded legal advice they've got a great case, but that lawyer is banned from helping them."
Mr Wright said the most vulnerable workers would be left without the money to defend themselves from unlawful dismissals in court.
He said his comments had convinced federal Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews, at Friday's Workplace Relations Ministerial Council meeting, to examine how the scheme might be improved. Mr Andrews has also announced a softening of regulations covering legitimate sick leave; preventive orders to stop employers forcing workers to unfairly cash out leave entitlements; and a six-month moratorium on measures making bosses comply with onerous book-keeping provisions.
A spokesman for Mr Andrews said yesterday that concerns by Mr Wright would be investigated. He said the scheme was designed to provide people with the opportunity to get free legal advice to assess the merits of their claim.
"The Government is seeking to protect individuals from ambulance-chasing lawyers offering 'no win no fee' advice that only proved to be a way of making lawyers rich at the expense of their clients," he said.
Posted by Clayton's reveiw and claytons legislation at 2:24 PM, 25/6/2008
I had an examination with a WorkCover Doctor today and I asked him if he would apply to be a member of the medical panel which will be implemented next year. He told me "no" as the mechanism of medical panels would not work...figure?
Lets hope Professor Goldney is not part of the new medical panels. I dont know of one case where he has ever supported the worker. He has also reported against workers where the injured worker has won his claim.
The trial judge, having weighed the competing medical evidence, which primarily comprised of the evidence of two prominent psychiatrists, Professor McFarlane in support of the worker and Professor Goldney against him, found that the worker was suffering from a PTSD.
Medical Panels/ Fitness to drive: I would be including this on a review
The appearance of literature pertaining to the use of practical driving tests in the assessment of medical fitness to drive is a relatively recent phenomenon. Despite this, the literature is sufficient to provide some guidance to practitioners seeking to design practical driving assessments (PDAs) that will reliably identify unsafe drivers. The preceding review of the literature published prior to 2006 and of South Australian practices has revealed a number of ways in which the latter could be improved to better approximate the methods recommended in the literature.
One of the main recommendations from the literature that could be implemented in South Australia is a greater role for occupational therapists (OTs) in the conduct of the PDAs. OTs have considerable expertise in the identification and evaluation of functional deficits and are well placed to determine the likely capability of drivers to compensate for their impairments.
OTs should accompany the Safety Education Officers (SEOs) during PDAs so that they can observe the performance of the drivers referred for assessment and evaluate their capacity to benefit from retraining or adaptive equipment, bearing in mind the likely course of the condition(s) causing their deficits in functioning.
The presence of OTs in the car during PDAs will also be of benefit to the implementation of detailed, standardised scoring procedures. The most important objective of SEOs during an on-road test is to maintain the safety of themselves, the driver being evaluated, and other road users. Their ability to maintain safety would be considerably enhanced by no longer having to be responsible for scoring the driver’s performance, while the OT, who does not
have to concentrate on the maintenance of safety, would be able to record very detailed notes on the driver’s behaviour during the test. It is important, however, that members of a multidisciplinary team respect each other’s roles and responsibilities.
The use of OTs in PDAs also provides the opportunity for the greater use of pre-on-road
assessments. An interview with the driver can yield important information regarding the role that driving plays in their life and the degree of insight they have into the reasons for their referral. The degree of insight is a good indicator of the driver’s likely ability for selfmonitoring and adherence to restricted licence conditions. Observations of driving performance by the OT can also be guided by the results of pre-on-road testing of sensory, physical and cognitive abilities. The nature of functional deficits identified by standard ‘laboratory’ tests provide a useful guide for which aspects of driving performance are likely to be problematic for the driver. Given this information, the OT can then focus on these aspects of performance and assess the degree to which the driver is able to compensate for their deficits.
PDAs should also be conducted in dual controlled vehicles, rather than the vehicle normally driven by the driver being assessed. The main reason for this is one of safety. In a dual controlled car, the SEO would be better able to ensure safety on the test. The use of the same car for all PDAs would also aid the standardisation of the assessments. Without
standard vehicles, drivers may be at an advantage or disadvantage according to the quality of the car they own. It is essential, however, that the standard vehicle used in a PDA matches the vehicle normally driven by the driver according to whether it is fitted with an automatic or manual transmission. The use of a vehicle unfamiliar to the driver also necessitates that a period of driving in a safe environment (e.g. closed course, car park) is set aside prior to the test so that the driver can familiarise themselves with the standard vehicle provided by the testing agency.
Another way in which South Australian practice could be improved is by requiring more lengthy on-road evaluations. The public road component of PDAs in South Australia lasts for 25 minutes, compared to an average reported in the literature of 45 minutes, and a recommendation from a focus group of OTs of one hour. PDAs need to be long enough to provide a sizeable sample of driving performance and provide multiple opportunities to
assess the ability to perform the same driving manoeuvres. In South Australia, there is anallowance for double assessments (50 minutes) in cases for which it is deemed to be beneficial but it would be ideal if all assessments were this long. However, South Australian PDAs are consistent with the recommendations provided in the literature that tests should be based on standardised routes and set manoeuvres.
The scoring system available for use in South Australia is appropriately detailed but the inability of the SEO to take notes during the drive precludes the use of the scoring protocol.
The presence of an OT in the back seat would make it possible to record detailed notes on the driver’s performance that would enhance the reliability of the tests and aid in communicating and explaining the test outcomes to the drivers. However, South Australian practice is consistent with the recommendations in the literature for extra weighting to be given in the tests to more serious driving errors, while habitual errors that do not greatly increase crash risk receive less attention. The strong emphasis given to driving instructor interventions in South Australian PDAs is also consistent with the literature.
PDAs in South Australia can lead to a wide variety of different licence recommendations.
The availability of a variety of options is consistent with the literature, and with the ideal of promoting the continued mobility of older drivers. The further involvement of an OT in the process of evaluating the driver and formulating recommendations would be of considerable benefit in enabling mobility for drivers affected by functional deficits for which adaptation
and compensation are possible.
South Australian practice could be improved with regard to the follow-up discussions with drivers having their driving assessed. Greater assistance could be provided with the purchase and fitting of adaptive equipment, although the current preparation of an information brochure is a step in the right direction. The provision of immediate counselling and information regarding alternative transport options for all drivers whose licences are cancelled would also be an improvement, although it should be recognised that follow-up counselling from the driver’s general practitioner or a social worker may be necessary as
well. The loss of a licence can be a distressing experience for older drivers, many of whom rely on driving for their independence and mobility, and so counselling should be provided as soon as the driver is informed of the licence cancellation decision. The implementation of pre-on-road interviews and functional testing, and presence of an OT in the vehicle during
the PDA, would also provide a better basis for post-assessment counselling from the OT.
The OT would have a better idea of how the driver performed during the test and the driver would be more familiar with the OT.
Finally, it must be recognised that the recommendations in the literature are not based on
best practice determined by assessments of the validity of on-road driving tests. The validity of these tests is not able to be examined because of the lack of opportunity for those whose licence has been cancelled to be involved in crashes that would justify their categorisation as unfit to drive. However, an assessment of the post-PDA experience of drivers allowed to continue driving but with adaptive equipment or restricted licences would be a useful area for future research. If the decisions by the assessors were appropriate, these drivers should not have more crashes than drivers who are allowed to continue driving without restrictions.
Practical driving assessments to determine medical fitness to drive are a relatively new field of practice. Much improvement in methods and expertise can be expected in the years to come. Specifically, further experience in the conduct of such assessments and further research can both be expected to lead to improvements in PDAs in the future. Nonetheless,
experience so far has suggested a number of components that characterise equitable practical driving assessments. In South Australia, many of these components are already in place. However, there is still considerable scope for PDAs in South Australia to be updated to better represent current thinking on the best methods for assessing fitness to drive.
i am an injured worker on this pay cut, i fractured my L1 and am currently doing physio trying to get better. seeing how my pay was cut how am i supposed to be able to live? i cant work thats why i am on workcover in the first place know i have workcover telling me to go back to work if i want my old pay so iam either supposed to go into debt while on work cover or i go back to work hurt myself further and have a bad back for the rest of my life just so i dont end up finacial ruined after my claim. if this is some idea to stop people from bludging then ssend th case managers home because every week i have been on workcover they have stuffed up on every one. for about 6 months know.i am in constant pain , i cant do any of my hobbies any more because of my injury know i will have to go into debt as well . ths has impactedon my every day life and so far no good has come from it, all i want is the chance to get back on my feet but instead of the government providing that for me(in the form of workcover that i have beeen paying while working) i am forced t either injure myself further t maintan my living standards or go into debt and end up finacially ruined. their is no win that i can see. the government needs to go see their injured workers send a person to go see them in persn not over the phont like workcover then they can see the person and evaluat them wait that is an occupational therepast that they send you to. so if they have a trained doctors, occcupatonal therepast and a physio therepast opionionson theinjured worker then where is the problem all three say no workswtill need time to recover so they make it harder for you by cutting your pay. that is not fair. what evr happed to australian value's, Mateship and and general sympathy gone from the work cover scheme???
I would suggest you go back to your workplace and force them to give you anything you are fit for. If not clock in every day and collect your full wage.
This government cannot get away with reducing injured workers wages which may cause further stress to workers.
Injured Worker Survey
Hello injured workers, please if you could take the time to complete this new survey organised by the SA Unions on the impact of the south australian state government's legislation on injured workers:
I have been told by work cover if I do not take an redemption now it will not be offered to me or anyone again after this year.Over the years I have had abused/threats/hassled to the point of a break down by work cover and near losing my sanity and to them it is very funny.My storey like many others has been really disgusting. if I do not put in for a redemption then I have been told I will have to front up to the work cover doctors (6 I am told on the board) and go through more absolute bullshit again until I retire. I feel I am being squeezed and I do not know what to do as I certainly do not trust work cover a all.
I have had 4 operations all failures and the first two operated on by a butcher who added to my injuries.if my questions cannot be answered here can someone offer me help to speak to some body who knows or cares? I do appreciate any information and need to know my rights and what to do.Leon Byner are you reading this you are the best?
Mike Rann 'the drone' you are one useless piece of a Politician! you are up there with the worst of them you will be remembered for absolutely nothing go collect your pension and get out Regards, Biddy
The only thing I can suggest for you is when seeking a redemption be sure it is signifcant. If your injury is as serious as it is and you accept a redemption then you will never be able to claim compensation again. I gather that you are receiving your 80% of your wage which means you would be deemed to have received this wage for the rest of your life (65).
My suggestion as much as it would be hard is to push workcover to rehabilitate you and place you in a job, you will only be able to work modified hours. Then try and get a redemption on the hours workcover have to top you up. Good Luck.
I am in victoria and have found that some of these assessments are not fair or accurate. Whether this is deliberate or a miscomunication - one can only guess. There is a website rate md that allows you to rate doctors (go to the australia/nz section the your state). i suggest that if you are unhappy, go to the website, and put onthere that you had an independent assessmnet for work cover then say if you think it was accurate, rate the Doctor. If some dr's keep getting bad reviews maybe other workers can refuse to be assessed by them. Tell all injured workers you know to do this. It mmay help weed out the shonky dr's
