Description
A forum for interaction about Workcover South Australia and the experiences of Injured Workers.
My Links
»
»
»
»
»
|
Workers' compensation amendments
Workers' compensation amendments which reduce entitlements to injured workers have passed the House of Assembly, but critics of the changes maintain their attack.
The Advertiser 28 April 2008 |
Posted: 10:26 AM, 30/4/2008 |
Add Comment |
Avoiding poverty
David Frith of Business SA (The Advertiser, 25/4/08) fails to impress injured workers and unions in South Australia. Mr Frith states that with the new legislation, WorkCover in SAwill be the most generous scheme in the country. Unfortunately, what he fails to explain is that SA is the only state in Australia which has abolished common-law rights for injured workers to sue their negligent employers while WorkCover offers redemption payments equivalent to one year's salary to injured workers knowing they have no legal remedies under common law.
Injured workers in SA are not the recipients of the best WorkCover scheme in Australia and remain in the system only to avoid living in poverty.
ALAN KINGSLEY, Burnside.
Quoted from The Advertiser 28 April; 2008 |
Posted by Alan Kingsley at 10:31 AM, 30/4/2008 |
Link |
|
Stop chest-beating
I AM concerned that the workers' compensation debate is being driven by the Government's political spin and some South Australians (including MPs) are falling for it.
One example is the spin that after the changes are introduced SA will still have the fairest scheme in Australia. This is nonsense as the changes are based predominantly on the scheme that exists in Victoria but without an injured worker having the right to sue when his or her injury occurs as the result of an employer's negligence.
Another example is that these changes are needed to improve return-to-work rates in SA. Again, this is nonsense because the changes will do nothing to help injured workers recover and get back to work.
The worst example of spin is that the cuts to injured workers' entitlements are necessary to turn around the performance of WorkCover. The truth, in my opinion, is that Premier Mike Rann is out of touch and only listening to
organisations such as Business SA, which cares about profits and not the welfare of injured workers, It is time for Mr Rann to stop chest-beating and start talking to injured workers.
• M. WILLISS, Aberfoyle Park.
Quoted form The Advertiser. 28 April 2008 |
Posted by M. Williss at 10:34 AM, 30/4/2008 |
Link |
|
Well managed ??
I READ with interest Ms Joy Baluch's comments (The Advertiser, 24/4/08) regarding the success of the Local
Government Association's Workers Compensation Scheme (LGAWCS) in contrast to the WorkCover Corporation's performance.
While councils have a large and diverse workforce of both blue and white-collar staff, it is not the type of workers that are employed but the management of the claims, particularly the effectiveness of rehabilitation and getting workers back on the job as quickly as possible, that has delivered success.
How does the LGA WCS do this? Because the scheme has been well managed and the 68 different employers all co-operate with the LGA WCS to keep the scheme in surplus and thus keep low their own costs.
There is no reason why the LGA WCS could not be used as a mode! by WorkCover to improve its performance. It is not the quick and dirty fix that the Rann Government has come up with.
The Government's plan of slashing and burning injured workers' entitlements will do nothing to fix the real problems which, in my opinion, are the result of poor management of the WorkCover Corporation, ineffective rehabilitation and uncooperative employers.
• KEN DRURY, Adelaide.
Quoted form The Advertiser 28 April 2008 |
Posted by KEN DRURY, at 10:41 AM, 30/4/2008 |
Link |
|
No cash grabs
I HAVE to question remarks by Mr David Frith (The Advertiser. 2/4/O8) 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 hope this comment does not insinuate that all injured workers are bludgers and have no right to compensation.
There is no clear short-term cash grab 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 that will be Increased
from $215,000 to $400,000 by these reforms, and such large payments are paid only to the seriously injured or
upon death.
WorkCover spent $18 million in rehabilitation in 2006-07, Minister Michael Wright, in a recent statement,
indicated that WorkCover would spend $15 million on rehabilitation with these reforms to get injured
workers back to work. I hope Mr Wright meant an extra $15 million?
• WAYNE MATTNER,
Edwardstown.
Quoted form The Advertiser 28 April 2008 |
Posted by Wayne Mattner at 10:42 AM, 30/4/2008 |
Link |
|
Hansard
Mr HOLLOWAY, what is the bottom line and what is fact? you have stated in the same argument that "employers cost are much higher in this state" and "We are doing it for one reason only: the fiscal stability of the scheme is under threat and injured workers deserve a scheme that is sustainable. That is what the government is seeking to achieve".
Whats it going to be Business or Employees?
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY:The bottom line is that the cost to employers is much higher in the state than in any other state, but the return-to-work level is much poorer than in any other state. Of course, those two factors are not unrelated. Obviously, if you have a poor return-to-work record the scheme will cost more. That is why the government is seeking to address it. Whatever one might think about the solutions to that, I would have thought that everybody now would agree that it is not sustainable to have a system that has a liability of—
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That is right; it is a statement of fact. Just before the election it dropped the rates. Clearly, that was not sustainable. What this government will not do is play politics, which is the opposition's history—playing politics. That is historical fact. If the honourable member thinks that the government is going through this WorkCover exercise just because we are masochists or for the fun of it, he can think again. We are doing it for one reason only: the fiscal stability of the scheme is under threat and injured workers deserve a scheme that is sustainable. That is what the government is seeking to achieve.
|
Posted by riffman at 7:04 PM, 1/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Dennis Hood certainly highlighted the problem
| EML's inexperienced case managers (and I am told that is the case) and their poor management of rehabilitation has seen it make a thorough mess of this and, as I said at the outset, a ruin of what ought to be a generous and fair workers compensation scheme. On a related note, it seems to me that if you do not change the management that has made the mess but change the legislation, surely we can conceivably find ourselves in the same situation in a few years' time. Will we be asked in 2011 to make even more draconian cuts because management have failed to implement these changes that are going to pass this parliament now? |
Posted by M. Simons of N. Adelaide at 8:49 PM, 1/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Dennis Hood
| Dennis Hood in his speach in parliament also highlighted the small amout of fraud convictions by injured workers. Why is it that business convictions from occupational, health and safety act thru Safework SA never get a mention. |
Posted by Anonymous at 11:03 PM, 1/5/2008 |
Link |
|
WorkCover is a dirty word
How the culture is finally changing, first it was difficult to find employment due to being on WorkCover but now it is becoming more apparent that WorkCover employees looking for new employment will have to put on their resumes that they have worked for WorkCover. A scare that will last for the rest of their working lives. |
Posted by J.Peterson at 9:18 AM, 2/5/2008 |
Link |
|
The stigma of being a workcover employee.
Workcover employees will be able to get public service jobs, or jobs as rehab. officers.
But how will they fare once this corrupt government is crushed and we get a government that upholds honesty, accountability and integrity as its main values.?
I think they will get their just desserts..
Imagine the social stigma involved with being a workcover employee..
I could just imagine being at a party and having someone introduce themselves and tell me they were an employee of workcover or EML...
|
Posted by D. Price at 10:37 AM, 2/5/2008 |
Link |
|
WorkCover Employees
| What about having the title of "Head of the WorkCover board that failed the system" I am sure that should make people a bit wary. |
Posted by Anonymous at 2:45 PM, 2/5/2008 |
Link |
|
ACTU president warns women will be biggest losers in WorkCover changes
Article from the Advertiser.2 May 2008
Typical of this government and its "boys club attitude"
Obviously the three stooges did not stop and think about what the workcover changes will do to working women..
WORKING women could be the biggest losers in changes to South Australia's workers' compensation laws, says ACTU president Sharan Burrow.
Ms Burrow said the proposed changes to the state's WorkCover scheme, including moves to reduce payments to some injured workers, would make the scheme the least generous in the nation.
"Women receive, on average, less pay than men," she said.
"The government's plan to cut WorkCover entitlements would further reduce their pay if they are injured.
"Many women are in lower paid, higher risk jobs such as factory production lines, cleaners, and human services.
"They have significant injury rates, and often these injuries require lengthy rehabilitation for them to safely return to work."
Ms Burrow said the government's changes to WorkCover laws, currently before state parliament's upper house, would make recovery from injury harder for women.
"That adds to their burden, especially if they're also trying to manage a household and look after families," she said.
"(Premier Mike) Rann's plan would worsen the inequities women face.
"And to add insult to injury, the cuts to workers are mirrored by a push by business for reduced WorkCover levies."
SA Unions secretary Janet Giles said unions were determined to maintain their fight to protect working families.
"The ACTU is watching this development with concern, because business is making a similar attack against the federal workers' compensation scheme too," she said.
"We don't want South Australia to have the worst workers' compensation system in Australia, nor do we want it to be the thin edge of the wedge that leads to a degradation of workers' compensation nationally." |
Posted by Georgina Sawley at 11:00 PM, 2/5/2008 |
Link |
|
MP toes the party line on WorkCover
Posted Fri May 2, 2008 1:13pm AEST
Updated Fri May 2, 2008 1:22pm AEST
SA Parliament
Labor MP Frances Bedford says there have been divisions in the ALP about reducing WorkCover benefits. (ABC News: Gary Rivett)
A government backbencher says many Labor MPs are unhappy about proposed changes to WorkCover but have had to accept the party line.
The South Australian Government's plan to reduce injured workers' entitlements has produced division within the Labor Party and has outraged unions.
The bill has already passed Parliament's Lower House and is being debated in the Upper House.
Labor MP Frances Bedford says crossing the floor to protest against the bill in the Lower House would have achieved nothing.
"I think it would be fair to say a lot of people aren't happy with the change, the whole package," she said.
"I mean some of us have different opinions about how certain bits might have been looked at and that's why it's still in the House.
"I know there's a whole pile of amendments being talked about this week so it's still a work in progress." |
Posted by Reader at 12:15 AM, 4/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Rannscam
| Could it be that there is a major reshuffle of the front bench in the coming future which Mr Rann might be using as a carrot for these members to do what they are told? |
Posted by just a thought at 7:39 AM, 4/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Rannscam
Unions are accusing the independent Member for Mount Gambier, Rory McEwen, of selling out his constituents by supporting the Rann Government's controversial WorkCover legislation.
SA Unions secretary Janet Giles is visiting Mount Gambier today to meet representatives of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the Australian Workers Union.
She says workers in high risk industries will get less support under the new legislation.
"It's very important that the people that work in one of the most dangerous industries, the timber industry, understand the impact of the Mike Rann WorkCover legislation on them as injured workers," she said.
"It's important that they also know that their local member, Rory McEwen, voted for these laws which could see their wages cut and their rights taken away."
|
Posted by Anonymous at 9:38 PM, 4/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Bruce Carter the insolvency expert...
The chairman of WorkCover says he knew the organisation was out of control five years ago.
Bruce Carter joined WorkCover in August 2003, and gave evidence today to a parliamentary committee inquiring into the scheme.
In 2003 WorkCover's unfunded liability was almost $600 million, and has now reached $843 million.
The State Government has introduced legislation to reduce the blowout.
Mr Carter says he knew the scheme had significant problems soon after he was appointed as chairman.
"The first month of being there I realised this was an organisation out of control and that there was a lack of virtually anything you would expect to find in a statutory organisation," he said.
|
Posted by Anonymous at 9:43 PM, 4/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Claytons review.......
Here is a story in relation to Tasmanian reforms and a report from Alan Clayton, The same Alan Clayton who has suplied recommendations for the South Australian WorkCover. In the Tasmanian submissions he has stated that
" including changes to make it easier for a seriously injured worker to sue a negligent boss".
This just goes to show that these reforms were probaly written by WorkCover itself.
Tasmania's Shadow Attorney General, Michael Hodgman, has accused the State Government of deliberately delaying scrutiny of a report on workers' compensation.
The Attorney General, Steve Kons, released the review yesterday.
Alan Clayton's report made 19 recommendations to improve the system, including changes to make it easier for a seriously injured worker to sue a negligent boss.
The WorkCover board received the report in September, but Mr Clayton did not send it to Mr Kons until early December.
Mr Hodgman says Mr Kons could have looked at the report earlier if he had wished.
"I don't mind the WorkCover Board - as the principal board - having every opportunity to look at it," he said.
"But why didn't Attorney General Steve Kons, if he's really interested in being Attorney General, why didn't he say while you people are looking at it, I'll have a look too.
"He deliberately chose not to look at it until the second week of December - an act of cowardice because he knew that if he had looked at it, he could have been questioned in the parliament and he didn't want that," he said.
|
Posted by something is smelly at 9:50 PM, 4/5/2008 |
Link |
|
And here is his recommendation.
17. That consideration be given to the introduction of a narrative test of ‘serious injury’ to facilitate alternative access to common law damages for seriously injured and ill workers. That the regime for ‘serious injury’ set out in section 134AB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) be considered as the model for this purpose.
|
Posted by Anonymous at 10:18 PM, 4/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Common Law
I would like to make some comments on the issue of common law with the WorkCover reforms.
1. Clayton/Walsh report was written in conjuction with the Tasmanian WorkCover report and a recommendation to include common law. The South Australian report was given an extra month before the SA government made it available for perusal. Why would Mr Clayton urge a recommendation in one reform but dismiss it in another?
2. A common law component would drastically improve occupational, health and safety due to the employer having a greater responsibility in the workplace in fear of being sued.
3. To include a common law component in the SA reforms would mean the Bill would have to be non-retrospective as employers with current and past injured workers would not have an insurance policy in place. Being non-retrospective would have defeated the purpose in the short term.
4. The entitlment for serious injury or death has been increased to $400,000 although this is just the threashold as the guides for assesment is yet to be determined (in using a comparison, a maximum in sentencing in criminal law is never fullfilled). This figure of $400,000 is a pawn as it is shown to be higher than other states. The fact is that amount is still a considerable lower if a worker had the option of sueing for negligence if seriously injured or killed.
|
Posted by Freeman at 11:53 AM, 5/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Fairest in the country........i dont think so
A far cry from the $400,000 WorkCover SA are offering.
Victorian Common law:
Damages for pain and suffering must not be awarded if the amount is less than $45,590: – s134AB(22) Maximum amount for pain and
suffering damages is $462,720: – s134AB(22)
Damages for economic loss must not be awarded if the amount is less than $47,210: – s134AB(22)
Maximum amount for economic loss damages is $1,062,800: – s134AB(22)
|
Posted by facts searcher at 9:09 PM, 5/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Common Law
The above figures were obtained from the SafeWork Victoria web site. The pain and suffering is equivelant to our section 43 (non-economical loss) There is no economical loss component in the WorkCover SA scheme.
THIS IS NOT THE FAIREST IN THE NATION !!! |
Posted by Facts searcher at 7:47 AM, 6/5/2008 |
Link |
|
WorkCover Admittance
It is about time WorkCove havs admitted in an advertisement from the Advertiser that business's in the past have not put in their claims when workers get injured. The funny thing is now they get rewarded for something they should be doing anyway.
Reward counter in the New Reforms:
Business: 158
Injured workers -98 |
Posted by Anonymous at 2:57 PM, 6/5/2008 |
Link |
|
I wonder if they got rewarded from WorkCover for putting in an early claim
Sentence - Failure to adequately guard dangerous moving parts of machine - Failure to fit interlocking device to existing safety gate - Employee’s hand drawn into heated rollers while attempting to re-feed paper - Employee suffered serious crush and burn injury resulting in amputation of all fingers and part of thumb - Dominant hand rendered near to useless - Sentenced as a first offender but seven prior offences considered - Defendant’s commitment to OHSW compliance considered - No discount of penalty due to defence of charge and mistaken accusations made against victim - Serious breach - Obvious risk to employee if he forgot to fully switch off machine had been previously recognised by defendant - Held: Conviction and Fine of $25,000 - Defendant to pay complainant’s costs agreed at $6,479.08 - S 19(1) Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986, Reg 1.3.4 Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Regulations 1995.
Just to add
1.No discount of penalty due to defence of charge and mistaken accusations made against victim, and
2.Sentenced as a first offender but seven prior offences considered
|
Posted by Anonymous at 4:11 PM, 6/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Inconsistant or what?
Tasmania's recommendation by Mr Clayton:
17. That consideration be given to the introduction of a narrative test of ‘serious injury’ to facilitate alternative access to common law damages for seriously injured and ill workers. That the regime for ‘serious injury’ set out in section 134AB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) be considered as the model for this purpose.
South Australia's Recommendation by Mr Clayton:
The Review supports the approach and recommendation of the WorkCover proposals in arguing for maintenance of the existing exclusion on access to common law. The Review argues for the South Australian scheme, at all levels of its operation, being focused on return to work outcomes. The delays associated with, and adversarial nature of, the common law action are inimical to that goal. As well, empirical studies of the
operation of common law demonstrate that it tends to over-compensate minor injuries and significantly undercompensate more serious injuries compared to long tail statutory arrangements such as exist in South Australia. The pre-requisite requirement of having to demonstrate fault for access to common law damages departs from the philosophical no fault basis of statutory workers’ compensation schemes. As well, the Workcover Proposals Review of the South Australian Workers’ Compensation System Report 129 relatively high transaction costs associated with common law means that it is a less efficient mechanism for delivering benefits to injured and ill workers than statutory benefit arrangements. |
Posted by Anonymous at 4:01 PM, 7/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Memo P Vaughn: Keep on blaming workers at your own will
| Prosecution 26th March 2008 - Guilty Pleas - Two counts - Sentencing - Failure to ensure employees’ safety - One employee suffered serious permanent injuries when struck by a 3.5 kg blanking plate ejected unexpectedly from the end of a compressed air pipe - Failure to conduct an adequate hazard identification and risk assessment - Failure to provide a written work method to ensure pipe system not pressurised before work performed on it - Failure to install gauge to detect pressure - Failure to install pressure release valve - Held: convictions on both counts - Fines of $30,400 and $8,000 after 20% reduction - S 19(1) Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act 1986. |
Posted by no common law (sense) at 4:10 PM, 8/5/2008 |
Link |
|
John Darley
In light of this, when trying to gain an understanding of the community and professional sentiment in regard to this bill, I met with a number of organisations including the Public Service Association, Self Insurers of South Australia, the Australian Lawyers Alliance, SA Unions, the Work Injured Resource Connection, representatives from rehabilitation providers, Business SA and a number of legal professionals with vast experience in working with the scheme. The overwhelming feeling from all these organisations, except Business SA, is one of concern attributed to the proposed amendments. There was general consensus that what is needed as a matter of urgency for the WorkCover scheme is not legislative change, as the government is proposing, but rather a cultural change throughout the scheme.
|
Posted by Anonymous at 7:17 PM, 8/5/2008 |
Link |
|
This will come back to bite them......
Another concern relates to the two-year review provisions. I believe that the two-year review clause within the current act is being ignored. This clause provides an avenue whereby workers who no longer have a legitimate need to be on the scheme are identified and entitlements are ceased. Effective use of this clause would see a reduction in the tail and a reduction in the number of workers who are exploiting the scheme. Again, there are a number of contributing factors as to why this particular provision has not been effective; however, it lies largely with the claims agents. Effective rehabilitation is required within the first two years to identify whether there is any capacity to return to work. Without the application of effective rehabilitation, a two-year review is insignificant, as the true potential of return to work would be masked by the need for further rehabilitation.
As previously mentioned, it is the early notification and intervention that are the key to gaining the most out of rehabilitation. There are only a small number of people on the scheme who are trying to rort the system for financial benefit. These are the people upon whom the two-year review will focus. Since WorkCover's adopting EML as its sole claims agent, the two-year review has virtually been ignored, and the number of people who are on the scheme long-term is continuing to rise.
|
Posted by De Poi at 7:32 PM, 8/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Simple fact
| Simple fact is the Bill will be passed very shortly as the Liberals will not oppose it. Simple fact is the Liberals have indicated they do not agree with the bill so that covers them in future debates. Simple fact is the reforms will not work. |
Posted by simon says ...aye at 7:45 PM, 8/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Unions Too Little too late!
I hope the Unions are proud of the complete contempt they have shown to the injured workers for too long.
It is pretty light on to come to the debate just a month before it hits the fan and pretend to give a damn.
WorkCover have been allowed to spin their lies leaving injured workers to fight for their own survival.
This entire change is geared to punish injured workers for the corporate incompetence of WorkCover's management and its inept board |
Posted by PhilM at 9:04 PM, 8/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Business SA Vested interests?
Seems BusinessSA have much to gain from the current changes leading to the inevitible reinstatement of Common Law rights.
Despite saying SA has the most expensive W/C in Australia, they choose not to mention that whilst we may have the most expensive Statutory W/C scheme, businesses in the other States also have to pay for insurance against Common Law actions.
Employers Liability Insurance is about another 2.5 percent on top of the 2 percent Statutory Levy.
Guess who is the main agent for Employers Liability Insurance in Vic? VECC, the equivalent of BusinessSA.
|
Posted by PhilM at 9:05 PM, 8/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Medical Panels
Any wonder WorkCover push so hard for medical panels!
Last year one of their "specialist witnessess" was castigated in the magistrates court for the evidence he gave being so heavily weighted toward WorkCover that he needed to revisit his Medical Ethics.
They are a bunch of frauds.
WorkCover wanna challenge it, I am happy to name the case |
Posted by PhilM at 9:06 PM, 8/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Clayton/Walsh review
Mr Clayton recommended common law in Tasmania and not South Australia,
Mr Walsh is an ex-actuary from the former WorkCover Board who was highly critisised on his wrong facts whilst in that position.
Why didnt the Government appoint Mr Musolino as well to really top it off. |
Posted by rotten to the cor(rupt) at 10:20 AM, 9/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Parliament
| I am just wondering how much more WorkCover and Business SA are going to spend on advertising now that their wish for the bill to be past straight away did not eventuate? How ironic that WorkCover lawyers uses the exact same tecnique to frustrate injured workers claims. karma is starting to nibble back...grrrrrr |
Posted by conlonoscopy at 3:01 PM, 9/5/2008 |
Link |
|
WorkCover
| people at workcover who thinks that after these reforms comes in injured workers would stop being vigilant have another thing coming. i am sure deep down a large percantage of people think this is so unfair just because of a minute few have ruined the system and a large percantage of genuine workers and their families are going to suffer with the continual bullying tactics from workcover and or its agents. |
Posted by Anonymous at 6:27 PM, 9/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Melvin Mansell
The Advertiser Editor, Melvin Mansell in one column stated "Don't hurt working families" in relation to the federal budget and in another column wrote "Talkfest as WorkCover lies bleeding" urging parliament to sit and pass the Bill that will effect "injured workers families"
Maybe he owes Chris Rann a few favors. |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:55 PM, 9/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Melvin Mansell =Chris Rann
| Melvin Mansell = Chis Rann |
Posted by Anonymous at 9:00 PM, 9/5/2008 |
Link |
|
The Advertiser
| Nigel Mansell has to look after its interests, and that is Business SA. I am sure Business SA would have made a nice little threat to withdraw advertising if Nigel didnt tow the line. |
Posted by rotten to the cor(rupt) at 9:06 PM, 9/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Labor web site
I have perused through the Labor web site and found only one story that refers to WorkCover, not much considering the high profile of the reforms. Here it is:
Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright will today introduce to State Parliament changes to the Government’s proposed WorkCover legislation.
Mr Wright says the Government is committed to fixing WorkCover so that the scheme is fully funded, fair to workers and affordable to business.
“Last month, the Premier told Parliament that the Government was open to reasonable proposals to improve the legislation, provided they didn’t detract from the objectives of the Clayton Review and the intent of the legislation,” said Mr Wright.
“I am pleased to say the Government has stood by that promise. We have listened to the unions and the business community and we have taken their views into consideration.
“In addition, the author of the independent WorkCover Review, Mr Alan Clayton, has met with interested employer and employee groups and heard their suggestions to improve the legislation.
“Changes to the WorkCover scheme are aimed specifically at improving the rehabilitation and return to work rates of injured workers and making the scheme more affordable and efficient.
“Today the Government is introducing a series of amendments that will allow us to better achieve those objectives and ensure the scheme becomes fully funded.”
The improvements include:
Reducing weekly payments to 90 per cent (instead of 80 per cent as recommended in the Clayton Review) of pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) after 13 weeks. The weekly payments will be adjusted to 80 per cent of PIAWE only after 26 weeks.
Allocating $15 million to a return to work fund, to fund initiatives helping retraining, rehabilitation and return to work programs and initiatives.
Enabling the WorkCover Ombudsman to review a decision to cease weekly payments during a dispute where the decision is unreasonable.
Streamlining the Workers Compensation Tribunal by removing the arbitration process.
Retaining the 7.5 per cent levy cap instead of the proposed 15 per cent.
Increasing the WorkCover Ombudsman’s powers to ensure that employers meet their obligation to provide suitable employment for injured workers. (This will be further strengthened by a new penalty of up to $25,000 for any breaches).
Not proceeding with the proposal to provide lump sum payments for psychiatric disability.
Summary of Proposed WorkCover Amendments
Reducing weekly payments to 90 per cent (instead of 80 per cent as recommended in the Clayton Review) of pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) after 13 weeks. The weekly payments will be adjusted to 80 per cent of PIAWE only after 26 weeks.
Allocating $15 million to a return to work fund, to fund initiatives helping retraining, rehabilitation and return to work programs and initiatives.
Enabling the WorkCover Ombudsman to review a decision to cease weekly payments during a dispute where the decision is unreasonable.
Streamlining the Workers Compensation Tribunal by removing the arbitration process.
Retaining the 7.5 per cent levy cap instead of the proposed 15 per cent.
Increasing the WorkCover Ombudsman’s powers to ensure that employers meet their obligation to provide suitable employment for injured workers. (This will be further strengthened by a new penalty of up to $25,000 for any breaches).
Not proceeding with the proposal to provide lump sum payments for psychiatric disability.
Provide the WorkCover Ombudsman with a role to require a review of termination decisions.
Increase the minimum notice period for cessation of payments from 7 to 14 days.
Provide in the Regulations the formula that determines the fees for employers exiting the scheme.
No longer making any amendments regarding annual leave.
A provision will be included in the Bill that clarifies that medical questions will be referred to medical panels.
Amend the WRCA to provide certainty that the WorkCover levy is exclusive of GST both in terms of the levy for registered and self-insured employers. |
Posted by Anonymous at 11:33 AM, 10/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Answer me this then.
Mr Parnell, I would like to ask you a question on the subject of levy rates. SA will have the lowest levy threshold in the nation with these new reforms. NSW is currently set at 13.5%. If in South Australia, negligent employers were to be charged 13.5% and not 7.5% wouldnt the average levy therefor be lower? These new reforms will still penalise employers who have a good injury record.
|
Posted by matey at 10:04 AM, 11/5/2008 |
Link |
|
above comment
| that is why mr clayton suggeted 15% threshold on the levy. the 7.5% will not only reward negligent employers but penalise the good ones. if i was an employer who had a injury free record i would be pretty dissapointed. i wonder who business sa are really supporting. |
Posted by Anonymous at 10:23 AM, 11/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Teddy Bears Picnic !!!
What this State needs is some trimming of the fat.
MPs should for one be more accountable to ensure their portfolios are performing.
Nothing is said of the Minister for the Non-performing Workcover with its accruing $2million a week liability.
Nothing has been said of what is happening to all of the taxes that this State is raking in.
Surely must be going somewhere...One could only imagine that much of it is only for the benefit of the elite few..that is the members of parliament, that have the best superannuation in the land, the best Workcover scheme in the land, the best working conditions in the land and if one was to take the Minister for Workcover as a prime example- Our Ministers must have the least accountability of any others in the land. How else could a Minister not be criticised by his fellow members when he has been asleep at the wheel for years and now has a unfunded liability that makes the whole system look like its been a Teddy Bears Picnic for years.
|
Posted by Steve Christos at 8:06 PM, 11/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Hill brushes off doctors' quit threat Advertiser May 11, 2008 12:30am
HEALTH Minister John Hill has upped the ante in the bitter industrial dispute with doctors, saying he doesn't believe threats they will resign.
And he said the State Government's offer would make most SA public sector doctors the highest paid in Australia.
Dont fall for this one, the government said the new workcvover reforms would also be the best in the country. It is slowly becoming apparent that it isnt.
Posted by: dean richmond of fullarton 9:54am today |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:17 PM, 11/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Can this happen here?
[1] McPHERSON JA: This appeal raises the question whether, under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (the 1996 Act), the appellant Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd (“AMH”) was entitled to be present by its representative to hear, see, and comment upon submissions and material presented by or on behalf of Mr Terrence Ketchup on a reference to a medical assessment tribunal established under that Act. The tribunal in this instance was the General Medical Assessment Tribunal/Psychiatric consisting of three specialist medical practitioners, who are the first respondents to this application under the Judicial Review Act 1991. They took no part in the appeal beyond appearing to say they would abide by the order of the Court. The active opponent of the application and the appeal is Q-Comp and its statutory successor The Workers Compensation Regulatory Authority, which is the second respondent to the application and appeal by AMH.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2005/437.html |
Posted by Anonymous at 8:45 PM, 11/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Adelaide now website
At least these two are not puppets. This whole WorkCover issue is all about party policy, whether it is the right thing to do or not. Unfortunately this is a law that will be passed due to intimidation, fear and alternative agendas.
Posted by: conlonoscopy of left wing 4:50pm May 09, 2008 |
Posted by what sort of a procedure is a conlonoscopy at 9:03 PM, 11/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Adelaide now comment published
Currently if workcover is costing an extra $2 million a week due to its current form, why then didnt the Rann government act last year which would have saved some $104 million?
Posted by: dean richmond of fullarton 3:24pm today |
Posted by Anonymous at 9:35 PM, 11/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Writing letters to your member of parliament
Has anyone ever tried writing to their local member about WorkCover?
The strangest paper trail begins..
They send it to Minister Wright, he sends it to WorkCover, it gets tagged and logged by every person it is read by, it is then assigned to someone to write a reply( often dodgey and full of bullshit) another person then reads it, takes out all of the obvious lies and changes all of the words around so that the letter reads ok while not actually answering the question or spilling the beans on someone who has done the wrong thing. The letter is then sent back to the Minister Wright for him to sign off and send back to your local member. Your local member then smiles, signs it and thinks what a wonderful job they have done for you.
Problem is that WorkCover tag you and treat you like dirt afterwards and I can still not understand why they think that I could not write the same letter to WorkCover for them to give me the same smart arse reply that means nothing and just covers up someones unscrupulous behaviour in the management of your claim.. |
Posted by reform workcover-sack the board at 11:39 PM, 11/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Workcover bleeding for years
WorkCover has been bleeding for years, the government has sat on its hands and done nothing.
Just look at hansard. In 2004 and 2005 the Independent weekly had articles about WorkCover bleeding badly.
Well the bleeding just got worse as the current management and Minister did nothing to fix the real problems..
Problem is this government is not awake to the unscrupulous behaviour or otherwise it turns a blind eye to it..Any corporation which is encouraged or let to act in this way can not be relied upon to perform in any way. |
Posted by reform workcover-sack the board at 11:43 PM, 11/5/2008 |
Link |
|
letters to members of parliament
I have written to some "labor" members and as the above comment sugests, is it a process where they do forward it to minister wright, then he forwards it to workcover. everything gets ticked off through its travels and a stamp of "no action" usually finalises it. One thing has to be said is that every letter has to be actioned as it is now on record and minister wright has to write it off.
keep on writing, if only the purpose is of nuisance value. |
Posted by Anonymous at 7:41 AM, 12/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Mr Bruce Carter
| In reading these reforms it will not fix workcover. it will only benefit in "the short term" large business's. after that it will become bankrupt. lucky they have an insolvency expert on the workcover board if he stays on there long enough! |
Posted by Anonymous at 9:58 AM, 12/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Man fails to organise piss up in brewery
Adelaide, Monday: Mr Carter was dismayed last night when he discovered that he literally cannot organise a piss up at a brewery.
"It was a disaster from the word go", Mr Carter told The Chaser. "All the lads had met up at my house but the mini-bus I organised never showed up. After we'd all piled into taxis and finally arrived at the brewery, they claimed that there was no booking for our tour.
The groups outing rapidly descended into a horrific series of mishaps. Upon ditching their tour plans, they decided to have a boozy lunch in the brewery's restaurant. What ensued was a three hour wait, as Mr Carter had given their food and beverage order to a man he thought was their waiter, but was merely a bystander in a tuxedo.
By the time their entrees arrived, management had announced last drinks. It was a very sober collection of middle aged men who left the brewery that night.
"What really angers me," a despondent Mr Carter revealed, "is that when people refer to my poor organisational skills, they're not taking into account the ineptitude of the brewery staff. This is just like the brothel incident last July".
|
Posted by The Chaser at 10:49 PM, 12/5/2008 |
Link |
|
CAN THE PLAN, RANN!
Independent MLC Ann Bressington is standing up for injured workers by ensuring proper debate on the
Rann Government's controversial WorkCover legislation in the Upper House.
The Bill seeks to slash the entitlements of injured workers, kick them off the scheme after two years, and do away with redemptions. Our Government has declared war on "Aussie Battlers".
Despite what you are being told, this isn't the fairest scheme in the land. Workers in most states have common law to protect them - but not under Rann's Plan! Employer levies will be reduced to an all-time low while injured workers and their families starve and become our new homeless.
Ann is fighting for the rights of thousands of South Australians, and she needs your support.
If you are concerned about the impact these laws will have on you, your family and friends, Ann needs your presence felt in die gallery of Parliament House.
EVERYDAY WE DEBATE THE BILL ISA STAY OF EXECUTION FOR INJURED WORKERS
|
Posted by Reader at 11:45 AM, 14/5/2008 |
Link |
|
May Day anger over WorkCover
DAVID NANKERVIS
The annual May Day celebration of workers' rights yesterday turned into a condemnation of the State Government's controversial proposed Work-Cover changes.
Thousands of workers and union members chanted "Mr Rann, can your plan" as they took to the streets to protest against the proposed cuts to injured workers' entitlements.
The State Government is changing WorkCover laws in an attempt to rein in the scheme's burgeoning Billion dollar unfunded liability and cut levies charged to businesses.
March organisers said the controversial Work-Cover legislation - now before Parliament - had increased the typical May Day turnout tenfold, to a crowd of more than 2000.
The placards were damning of Premier Mike Rann and the language of speakers addressing the crowd was sometimes blue as passions ran high.
Along with the union officials. Greens MP Mark Parnell and independent Kris Hanna, there were at least five Labor MPs supporting the May Day march.
SA Unions secretary Janet Giles branded Mr Rann "arrogant" for reducing injury entitlements to fund a cut to the business levy.
"The people marching today feel hurt and be-trayed. They fought to get rid of the Howard Government's unfair industrial relations policy, only to see the state Labor Government do this to workers' compensation," she said.
Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union .secretary John Camillo told the crowd at Victoria Square that the new legislation was "bulls..,." and salaried workers would lose $1.2 billion in entitlements over the next six years.
Primary school teacher Sue Philp spoke of her concerns.
"I think WorkCover is an issue for any employee," the 55-year-old said. |
Posted by Anonymous at 11:55 AM, 14/5/2008 |
Link |
|
The pain has just started
| The pain has only began for these workcover reforms to work as it will be needed to remove every current injured worker off the system. We all know what length WorkCover and its agents can go to obtain this and I am sure there already is some policy instruction put into place. The only way it would have worked was to rehabilitate or redeem long term workers instead of the old practise of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. This will bite them in the long term! |
Posted by mis-everything at 1:23 PM, 14/5/2008 |
Link |
|
WorkCover Queensland
| WorkCover Queensland is known to have the best scheme in Australia and is the largest workers’ compensation insurer in Queensland and handles approximately 85% of all claims. South Australia WorkCover handles only 60% and some businesses want to opt out. This is an indication that the WorkCover management is the problem and not the workers! |
Posted by reader at 7:33 PM, 15/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Suitable and meaningful and productive (queensland)
Suitable duties
An integral component of workplace rehabilitation is access to suitable duties for the injured worker to improve their tolerances and functioning in a realistic environment. They are duties for which the worker is suited according to their medical condition, their age, education, skills and work experience.
Development of a suitable duties program is the responsibility of the employer and must be consistent with restrictions noted on the medical certificate. You may be asked to provide more information (if clarification is required) and approve the program.
Suitable duties must be meaningful and productive. Injured workers may be provided with suitable duties for partial hours/days or even full-time hours. If duties are available at another location, the impact of travel and the reasonableness of the time required to travel must be assessed.
The RRTW coordinator has detailed knowledge of the workplace and can assist you to assess the appropriateness of the suitable duties. In fact, the return to work or suitable duties program is often designed by the RRTW coordinator at the workplace, in collaboration with the treating medical practitioner. In some cases, the RRTW coordinator may also consult with a physiotherapist or an occupational therapist, a rehabilitation provider, or the insurer’s case manager. |
Posted by square peg in a round hole at 7:35 PM, 15/5/2008 |
Link |
|
WorkCover Queensland
WorkCover Queensland is among the most generous for employees and offers the lowest premiums of any state in Australia - including the federal Comcare scheme.
WorkCover Queensland had recorded Australia's lowest average premium rate for seven years straight, dropping in May this year to $1.15 per $100 in wages, saving Queensland businesses more than $30 million a year.
"WorkCover Queensland also has the lowest rate of disputed claims in Australia at just 3.8 per cent in 2005-06, compared to the national average of 9.2 per cent - giving Queenslanders even more peace of mind," he said. "Anyway you look at it, the State scheme is the standout.
WorkCover's simpler approach to disputed claims meant 90 per cent had been resolved within three months.
WorkCover Queensland has the highest levels of benefits in Australia for work-related fatalities.
Queensland workers are protected by comprehensive workplace standards and compliance which is overseen by 250 inspectors so the issue of safety at work is being addressed by making our workplaces safer and looking after Queenslanders who may get insured.
|
Posted by SA will continue to be the back water state at 7:41 PM, 15/5/2008 |
Link |
|
dont blame workers
| after i was injured i was sent back to work but i couldnt do my normal work. the boss put me in the store room for 6 weeks and there was nothing to do. this wasnt meaningful or productive so i started to talk to the other workers to keep company as i was tearing my hair out and the boss lost patience with me and told the rehab person there was no duties anymore. i have been home for 3 years now. no one to talk to except for the guy at the shop. |
Posted by Anonymous at 7:21 AM, 16/5/2008 |
Link |
|
The Advertiser
| there is a story in The Advertiser about workcover, it simply blamed workcover and mis-mangement. Bruce Carter and Julia Davison has this on there resume for good now. |
Posted by just google it at 9:09 AM, 16/5/2008 |
Link |
|
rehabilitation
| there are a few rehabilitation consultants that probaly go under the mis-management umbrella. is it mis-management or bullying? i once had them try talk my doctor in changing my pmc without my knowledge. i am still wondering what they would have achieved by doing that. |
Posted by prospect rd at 12:00 PM, 16/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Heresay
BHP Billiton’s plans to spend at least $20 billion upgrading Olympic Dam to become the biggest open cut mine in the world may not go ahead.
Government circles describe an atmosphere of uncertainty regarding the Olympic Dam expansion, with suspicion growing that the economics of the capital spending program are not adding up to enough profits.
This is regarded as heresy by the Labor Government, just as questions were discouraged about the imminent collapse of the State Bank in the 1990s and the declining WorkCover scheme due to mis-management.
|
Posted by reader at 7:49 AM, 17/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Time to rethink - Double rethink WorkCover
More than 49, 000 South Australians reported a work-related injury or illness in 2005-06.
• Injured workers are among society's most vulnerable citizens and easy targets for opportunist politicians.
•This is why the Government has decided to cut workers' entitlements but dress it up as a "hard" decision that had to be taken.
• If the Government was serious about reforming WorkCover, it would start by tackling the scheme's chronic mismanagement.
RECENT contributions to the WorkCover debate by the state Labor Government, Business SA, WorkCover itself and assorted WorkCover consultants inevitably bring to mind comparisons with the George Orwell novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.
In this classic political satire, the Ministry of Truth presides over an endless stream of propaganda and disinformation designed to obliterate the truth.
The Ministry's specialty is "doublethink", a much valued skill that enables practitioners to simultaneously say one thing while meaning the opposite, and do so without any apparent sense of contradiction.
As in Nineteen Eighty-Four, doublethink in the WorkCover debate started at the top. Labor's proposed changes, announced by Premier Mike Rann in February, are intended to cut weekly payments by 10 per cent after 13 weeks and 20 per cent after 26 weeks. And in cases where seriously injured workers are unable to return to work after 130 weeks, most will have their payments cut off altogether.
The Premier insists this is fair, although in the 1990s when the Liberals unsuccessfully introduced similar legislation, he said exactly the opposite. On this occasion, he even told Parliament that South Australia would still have the "fairest workers' compensation scheme" in the land, a claim that has been repeatedly echoed by WorkCover management and Business SA.
The reality, of course, will be quite different. Other than those who are catastrophically injured, workers who are off work beyond 13 weeks will be seriously disadvantaged. In many cases, they will also be worse off than their counterparts in other Australian workers' compensation schemes.
In addition, despite some restrictions, all Australian states other than SA provide injured workers with access to common law damages in cases of employer negligence. Disinformation also underpins the claim by Work-Cover and the Government that cuts in weekly payments are essential "incentives" to improve the scheme's return-to-work
rates. This claim fails to explain why, for example, the Comcare and the Tasmanian schemes have higher return-to-work rates than the Victorian scheme where weekly payments are much lower.
It also overlooks the economic evidence which suggests reductions in payments are unlikely to have more than a minor impact on return-to-work outcomes.
Other factors, such as a supportive workplace culture, are much more important but these, too, are conveniently ignored. Certainly improvements in assisting injured workers get back to work are essential but these can be achieved by good management and policies, especially if retraining was taken seriously.
However, the overwhelming emphasis in the current Bill is on removing injured workers from the scheme after 130 weeks.
Both the Government and WorkCover are more concerned with discontinuing payments than with improving return-to-work rates. The truth also takes a back seat when it comes to WorkCover's unfunded liability. Part of Mr Rann's rationale for cuts in weekly payments is that
'they are needed to get rid of the unfunded liability.
But the real agenda is more about lowering workers' compensation premiums for employers from July, 2009. If the Government was genuinely concerned about the unfunded liability, it would not be proposing to reduce employer premiums until Work-Cover is fully funded.
The first prize for doublespeak though must go to Business SA, which recently accused the unions of somehow trying to turn the WorkCover crisis into a "cash grab". The only thing the unions are guilty of is defending the rights of injured workers.
By contrast. Business SA with this legislation appears to have persuaded the Labor Government to shift between $43 million and $143 million a year in workers' entitlements into the pockets of employers.
As the inimitable Paul Hogan might have put it: "Now that' what I call a cash grab."
LJ Dr Kevin Purse Is with the Hawke Research Institute at the University of South Australia and is a former WorkCover director.
|
Posted by Reader at 9:05 AM, 17/5/2008 |
Link |
|
QBE vs EML
| Nice to know Bruce Carter can now admit they can work outside the law by announcing the way they appointed EML as the sole case manager. |
Posted by reader at 11:33 AM, 17/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Actuaries do get it wrong.
South Australian Treasury officials have made frantic adjustments to state budget forecasts since this time last year.
Back then, state Treasurer Kevin Foley strode into parliament’s green-leathered House of Assembly to forecast a buoyant economy with four per cent growth in the coming year.
As Kevin Foley’s state budget will reveal on June 5, SA will not achieve the four per cent he boldly predicted last year. SA is historically behind the national average.
" And the workcover reforms are based on these same actuaries"
|
Posted by Actually not at 4:27 PM, 17/5/2008 |
Link |
|
WorkCover operations under spotlight
Posted Fri May 16, 2008 6:13pm AEST
Article form the ABC.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/16/2247488.htm
A South Australian parliamentary inquiry has examined the operations of WorkCover. (ABC News)
A South Australian parliamentary inquiry has heard that the insurer QBE offered to take on some of WorkCover's $911 million unfunded liability.
QBE was one of the tenderers in 2006 for the contract to become the compensation scheme's injury claims agent.
WorkCover chairman Bruce Carter told the inquiry that privatising the unfunded liability was not permitted by law.
But Liberal MP Rob Lucas says the proposal should have been looked at more thoroughly.
"I think WorkCover and the Government have to explain why they didn't go down that particular path," he said.
"It's not sufficient just to say it wasn't possible under the legislation, because you can always change the legislation as the Government is indeed seeking to do at the moment."
The committee also heard that the successful tenderer EML expressed an interest in the contract more than a month after the official cut-off date.
Mr Carter says the company may have been encouraged to apply.
"It was contemplated from the board's perspective that we would get the widest selection from the best people in the country to do it," he said.
"If for whatever reason EML wasn't there and someone called them and says 'You should put in an expression of interest because we know you're very good', then that would have been an action that I would have expected to occur." |
Posted by Reader at 5:52 PM, 17/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Inappropriate to accept tenders a month late
Yes Bruce..but in relation to the above article it would not be appropriate for someone from the Board for example to ring EML and tell them what figures have been proposed in the other tenders.
The tender date is usually set to ensure accountability and transparency. Seems all too apparent that the board do not have the slightest understanding of the word corruption and accountability.
No wonder they have such a massive unfunded liability and so many disgruntled employees and employers..
|
Posted by Blind Freddy at 5:57 PM, 17/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Hindsight vs cost effective
This follows a tender process in which
WorkCover assessed the offerings of a large
number of respondents. WorkCover has not
provided feedback to QBE on our tender
response at this point, however it has provided
details about its decision to the market (see
http://www.workcover.com/). This appears to
have been a cost-driven decision in a
jurisdiction that already has the lowest fee
structure for claims agents in Australia.
Naturally, we are disappointed by the news.
Our South Australian Workers’ Compensation
team has always delivered excellent results for
employers, injured workers, WorkCover and
our organisation, and I am very proud of our
efforts. We have contributed by reducing
scheme liabilities and, in fact, WorkCover
rates QBE first among its agents in South
Australia in its current performance measures. |
Posted by money pit at 8:13 PM, 17/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Lindberg's rocky road at WorkCover
By Mathew Murphy
January 20, 2006
AWB supremo Andrew Lindberg quit as WorkCover chief when Steve Bracks was elected Premier.
AWB supremo Andrew Lindberg quit as WorkCover chief when Steve Bracks was elected Premier.
Photo: Andrew Meares
AWB managing director Andrew Lindberg was a controversial head of the Victorian WorkCover Authority during the 1990s.
In 1999 the then Labor state opposition accused Mr Lindberg in Parliament of spending large amounts of the authority's money on entertainment and travel.
Rob Hulls, then shadow WorkCover minister and now Attorney-General, produced documents showing Mr Lindberg spent $34,646 on entertainment, transport and accommodation, locally and overseas, while heading WorkCover from 1992 until 1998.
It was also reported at the time that Mr Lindberg had spent more than $100,000 on overseas and interstate trips over five years while with the authority.
Mr Hulls told The Age at the time that Mr Lindberg lived "a lifestyle that would make Australia's richest 200 people blush."
The besieged WorkCover chief resigned in November 1999, a month after Steve Bracks was sworn in as Premier, citing an inability to work with the new Government. That was not surprising: as opposition leader, Mr Bracks had gone after Mr Lindberg, calling for his head in July that year.
Mr Bracks attacked Mr Lindberg for "arrogantly and quickly" dismissing a key recommendation by a royal commission into the 1998 Longford gas blast that a major hazards unit should be established separate to WorkCover.
Trade union leaders also condemned Mr Lindberg, saying WorkCover had fallen apart while he was at the helm.
Leigh Hubbard, who was Victorian Trades Hall secretary at the time, was among the chorus who welcomed his resignation.
Yesterday, Mr Hubbard described Mr Lindberg as a "divisive and dogmatic" WorkCover leader who had failed to consult others. "Andrew was quite schizophrenic in the way that he was quite personable on one hand then was wanting to drive through an agenda without talking to anyone," he said. "Granted, that that was under (Jeff) Kennett."
"He appears to have inherited this new problem with AWB and run with it," Mr Hubbard said.
Mr Lindberg's 1999 resignation from WorkCover came a week after the authority announced a budget blow-out of $176 million for the previous year.
Mr Lindberg joined AWB in 2000, taking with him a number of his WorkCover colleagues, including director of public affairs Eileen McMahon. |
Posted by Corrupt Freddy at 9:30 PM, 17/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Above Comment
| Gee, a fair few simularities...... |
Posted by Anonymous at 10:40 AM, 18/5/2008 |
Link |
|
The Advertiser OPINION (19/5/08)
In response to Polly Vickers (The Advertiser, 15/5/08) Ann Bressington and to a lesser extent, the other minor legislative parties have also to be congratulated with Mark Parnell on using their right in the Upper House to speak on the downfall of WorkCover.
If an inquiry is not commissioned, 11 hours of a talkfest will never be long enough, but at least it is now all on parliamentary record and the minorities are doing exactly what this state should be proud of and that is representing its people without other agendas or party policies.
ANDREW PASCOE,
Blackwood
|
Posted by reader at 10:06 AM, 19/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Why have a tendering process?
EML had every intention to tender for the South Australian WorkCover scheme as stated in its annual report for the year ended 30 June 2005
Our focus in the coming year will be:
• the WorkCover NSW tender and transition to
new requirements;
• establishment of our new Treasury Managed
Fund operations;
• continuing to evaluate opportunities to expand our
public liability insurance operation; and
• tendering under the WorkCover South Australia request
for proposal. |
Posted by Anonymous at 4:42 PM, 20/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Untitled Comment
Good on you Bruce (ankles) Carter
Thanks mate you knew that the organisation was stuffed when you arrived and you asked what needed to be done about it.
You were told back in 2004 (or have you forgotten) that you could screw around the edges with it and play the political line or go straight to the hard legislative stuff
So you chose the soft stuff and four four years:
Saved a mill or so on the contracts with the legals and the debt collectors
Invest a couple of dollars in rehab
Write a contract with EML using the same people the other agents had
etc etc
AND yes the liability increased
DOH .........You know the accouting equation. A private underwriter would never take on this system. Theres too much money going out and not enough going in!! You know also the biggest two dangers to scheme liability... inflation and poor return on investments.... ouch thats gotta hurt this year.
So after four years finally the changes are proposed and if adopted the liability will be fixed.
So the State has to make a choice either:
They continue to subsidize a workers compensation pension system with its current level of benefits and affect liability on the margins by continuing to do what Workcover has done
OR
Do what you have proposed.
MY problem is you didnt have the will to do it years ago.
|
Posted by Anonymous at 5:33 PM, 21/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Medicare
| I have just received a statement I sought from medicare in relation to my workplace injury. As the claim was not originally accepted these charges still have not been reimbursed. It would be close to $65,000. The reason why I am saying this is because when these new reforms come in and a whole lot of injured workers are thrown off the scheme, they should each do their own medicare search and have WorkCover pay every dollar back. Thier unfunded liability will soon become "REAL" liability. |
Posted by payback at 3:37 PM, 22/5/2008 |
Link |
|
medical panel
| Whats to stop a member of an injured workers family taking action against any member of a medical panel that doesnt get it right? |
Posted by Anonymous at 6:36 PM, 22/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Medicare
MEDICARE
We have given this section a special mention because it has become painfully aware in the ....... office that many many SA Workers Compensation Claims are NOT being paid by the Insurance Industry and the cost of the Injured Workers Injury is being forced onto MEDICARE. Everyone in Australia is screaming about the Medicare System yet there is total silence from both Federal and State Governments about what is being booked up to Medicare when the Insurance Industry fails to meet its obligations under Workers Compensation, Public Liability and even Traffic Accidents. We do point out that for those lucky enough to get a settlement for an injury all the associated costs booked up to Medicare must be repaid, but why should Medicare be subsidising the very wealthy Insurance Industry UNTIL claims are settled, if a injured person has a claim then the Insurer should be paying all the medical costs IMMEDIATELY and as they occur. Medicare should NOT have to wait for years to recover their money. As for the Injured Workers that never get their claims accepted - and here in SA there are many, again failure by SA WorkCover to recognise claims and then throw them out again cost shifts from the Insurance Industry to MEDICARE, so the rest of Australia pick up what should be an Insurance Cost.
|
Posted by reader at 6:50 PM, 22/5/2008 |
Link |
|
medicare vs employers
| shouldnt the above comment be "employers" instead of a wealthy insurance industry. i wonder how many emergency operations were performed in the public system over the years which workcover have never paid back? |
Posted by Anonymous at 7:58 AM, 23/5/2008 |
Link |
|
De Poi, PPC etc.......
SA Unions Secretary, Janet Giles will tell the influential Industrial Relations Society that the real problem with WorkCover is the rehabilitation industry.
Ms Giles has been invited to address IR Society members, including leading lawyers, judges and Industrial Relations Commissioners, at a breakfast symposium on 31 March. It comes on the eve of a CFMEU rally at Parliament House on Tuesday 1 April, the first in a series of actions leading up to a community rally on 3 May.
Ms Giles will use her speech to outline the union-driven campaign to fix WorkCover without sacrificing fairness for injured workers, and will call for an inquiry into the core of WorkCover's problems, the rehabilitation industry.
"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."
"Honest workers face financial hardship for what? As it stands at present, they'll be paying a hefty price for a government that wants to look like its taking action, is delivering benefits to bug business, but failing to fix the fundamental problems."
"The failure to address rehabilitation practices is inextricably linked to one of the worst aspects of the government's Bill - the intention to completely cut off support to workers with serious injury if they have not recovered within 2 and a half years."
"This is a recipe for rorting. |
Posted by Anonymous at 9:14 PM, 26/5/2008 |
Link |
|
WorkCover Bill - the fight goes on
A big thankyou to all those who contacted me with stories, advice or encouragement in our campaign against these awful WorkCover changes.
I'm sorry I couldn't refer to all the material I was sent, however after 8 hours, I think I'd made my point and handed over to Anne Bressington. Anne finished at 4am.
The media made much of my "record breaking" speech, however some of the reports were just plain wrong. For starters, I didn't "read the entire WorkCover Bill" as one report said. In fact, I didn't read a single sentence from the Bill. My speech was designed to show up the hypocracy of the Government and to counter the misinformation around the unfunded liability and the comparitive performance of schemes in different states.
The Government’s claim that a thorough Parliamentary debate on WorkCover cost the State $150,000 is also laughable. You probably saw the areticle in the Advertiser: Gasbag MPs cost the state $150,000. First, it ignores the fact that the unfunded liability is not a debt, but an estimate of potential future liability. The evidence is overwhelming that this liability can be reduced without resorting to the Government’s vicious attack on the entitlements of injured workers.
Secondly, applying the Government’s farcical logic means that Rann’s delay in holding back this legislation until after the last Federal election has “cost” the State some $40 million. Using dodgy economics cuts both ways.
On behalf of the Greens, I make no apology for doing my job and supporting the rights of injured workers.
The "second reading" stage of the Workcover Bill debate in the Legislative Council concluded at 5am on Friday 9th May and the next stage - "Committee stage" - will commence at 3.15pm on Tuesday 3rd June. I have a lot more material to put on the record as well as dozens of questions and over 100 amendments.
The unions have vowed to keep up the pressure. I would urge all readers of this blog to do likewise.
Yours in solidarity,
Mark Parnell MLC
Australian Greens
|
Posted by Mark Parnell MLC at 1:05 PM, 27/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Mr Parnell.
Here is a case that should be told in parliament.
All respect to the family of both deceased, but how can workcover think someone could drive a hearse with a body as not being employed?
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/sa/SAWCT/2007/22.html?query=title(phillips)
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 |
Posted by Anonymous at 1:03 PM, 28/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Medicare
| Any chance medicare could do an audit just to see how much recovery they can make from workcover, workers have to pay any outstanding monies so why doesnt the Business levy should also pay? |
Posted by citizen at 8:10 AM, 29/5/2008 |
Link |
|
income protection
| employees should be urged to take out an income protection (tax benefit) and an employment contract to state employer to provide safe work environment then if an injury shall occur sue the employer for super, loss of earnings, economic and non economic loss. All these benefits that you wouldnt get if you went on WorkCover. |
Posted by Anonymous at 11:46 AM, 29/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Mike Rann full of shit and a bloody liar
See the video of this classic bullshit artist..
When will the Liberal Party "Rise to a point of order" and tell Mr Rann that he has deceived the injured Workers and the people of South Australia.
http://publish.vx.roo.com/adelaidenow/anflashvidplayer/index-popup.html?vxChannel=frontPagePicks&vxClipId=1383_293705&bitrate=300&Format= |
Posted by Reader at 1:18 PM, 29/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Rann should be dropkicked out of office.
Dropkick rann.
How could he ever say that "Labour will vote this bill out"??
How times change when they come into power. |
Posted by Anonymous at 1:23 PM, 29/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Sold out
| Rann has sold out the workers of SA. Business has threatened him for short term gain which will be long term pain for injured workers. It his his fault as premier that he let Michael Wright sit on his hands to allow this to happen. Bruce "Mr Fixit" Carter also sat on his hands for three years. He has really fixed it! |
Posted by insolvent at 1:46 PM, 29/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Video of WorkCover promise to haunt Rann
Article from: The Advertiser
NICK HENDERSON, STATE POLITICAL REPORTER
May 29, 2008 10:45am
VIDEO of Premier Mike Rann condemning cuts to the WorkCover system 13 years ago will be distributed today to embarrass the Government.
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union assistant secretary Aaron Cartledge will release the DVD, titled Mike Rann – Yesterday's Hero, showing him arguing against changes to the WorkCover system in 1995 on the steps of Parliament House. A Bill now before Parliament aims to change the WorkCover system.
In February 1995, Mr Rann addressed one of the biggest protests ever seen on the steps on Parliament House against the then-Liberal Government's plan to cut workers entitlements.
See the video
Despite the promises not to support changes to WorkCover back then, the Labor State Government has introduced a Bill, currently before Parliament, which workers claim will strip them of entitlements.
The Bill will be supported by every Labor MP and is set to pass the Parliament this month.
"Mr Rann argued passionately against cuts to workers compensation, claiming the proposed changes by the Dean Brown government would add insult to injury," Mr Cartledge said.
"He told thousands of South Australians gathered at the steps of Parliament House for the 1995 rally that the Brown government plan deserved to be voted against because it was an assault on workers and their families and that every single Labor MP would vote against every single clause of the Bill.
"This is the same man who now proposes a WorkCover law that goes far beyond the Liberal Bill he argued so strongly against."
The footage shows Mr Rann telling the crowd that the Bill was an "assault on workers".
Mr Cartledge said the footage was "surreal".
"It's time Mike Rann ended the hypocrisy and recaptured the principles he once so passionately espoused to act in the best interests of working South Australians," Mr Cartledge said.
Rallies will be held outside the electoral offices of Mr Rann, Treasurer Kevin Foley and Transport Minister Patrick Conlon today. |
Posted by Deceived again. at 9:09 PM, 29/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Power corrupts Mikey..or did you just set out to deceive the people of South Australia?
Power corrupts Mikey..Just remember that..
Seems you forgot the past and your promises once you were elected.
Where are you now Mikey??
Oh..mikey will not come out to face the music..he is off overseas promoting the mess he has made of this state.
Talk about backroom deals.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=wIdheGpaWqQ |
Posted by Reform SA at 3:28 PM, 30/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Memo Peter Vaugn: stop blaming workers
Prosecution - Guilty plea - Sentencing - Failure to ensure employee’s safety - Apprentice aged 18 fell three metres from unprotected edge of decking of elevated house under construction by defendant - Spine injury - Temporary handrail had been removed to allow construction of balustrade but no alternate form of protection provided - First offence - Held: conviction and fine of $16,000 after 20% reduction for plea, cooperation and contrition - S 19 Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act - Reg 2.13.1 Occupational Health Safety Welfare Regulations 1995 - S 13 Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act.
Fonteyn v Ace Panel Systems.
Paparella v Shields [2008] SAIRC 32
|
Posted by Anonymous at 5:52 PM, 30/5/2008 |
Link |
|
memo Peter Vaugn: you have blood on your hands.
| Prosecution - One count - Guilty Plea - Failure to ensure safety of employee - Mobile crane toppled on an uneven surface in a confined area whilst carrying a load of unknown weight - Multiple failures including faulty load gauge, employee not certified to operate the crane, failure to provide safe operating procedure, operators handbook or manual, or maintenance manual - No evidence of a hazard identification or risk assessment - Lifting apparatus not inspected or tagged - Complete inability to assess weight of load and capacity of crane to carry it - Defendant aware of lack of certificate of competency - Contrition and substantial effort after the incident to ensure competency and appropriate training - Conviction recorded - Penalty of $32,500 reduced to $26,000 plus costs - S 19(1) Occupational Health, Safety & Welfare Act 1986. |
Posted by Anonymous at 5:53 PM, 30/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Sounds like the new WorkCover laws
The High Court sitting in Canberra is soon to decide whether some SA laws are unconstitutional – and therefore illegal.
The enormous implications mean SA’s new Serious and Organised Crime Act – the notorious Bikies Bill – could be heading for a shredding. The High Court will rule whether it’s possible to deny ‘procedural fairness’ and still maintain the impartiality of state and federal courts. Several SA laws now prevent a person in court from being able to hear, see, or read evidence against them. The test case involves a company called K-Generation Pty Ltd and its director, Genargy Krasnov, who applied for a liquor licence.
SA’s liquor licensing Act says an applicant for a new licence must be a ‘fit and proper person’. When the Liquor Licensing Commission refused Mr Krasnov’s application, he went to court. There the application was again knocked back on the use of what the Police Commissioner called ‘criminal intelligence’. But the ‘criminal intelligence’ was withheld from the applicant, meaning that
Mr Krasnov did not know what allegations had been made against him, nor could he respond to adverse material it presumably contained.
“The proceedings at the court hearing amounted to a serious denial of natural justice,” argues Mr Krasnov’s submission to the High Court. The issue has already been tested once before the full court of the SA Supreme Court, when Mr Krasnov sought leave to appeal the Licensing Court’s decision. That appeal was refused by majority decision, with Justice Gray dissenting.
Mr Krasnov has now been granted leave to appeal in the High Court, despite the SA Government arguing against him. The crucial issue is whether parliament’s laws, such as the Licensing Act or the Serious Crime Act, can cause a court to act in a manner contrary to natural justice by denying people the right to know allegations made against them. If state laws contravene the Constitution by imposing a non-judicial requirement inconsistent with the exercise of judicial power, the state laws would be illegal. In plain terms, the argument centres on whether the Executive – the Premier and Cabinet – can ask a court to break the law. The case is being discussed in barristers’ chambers around the country. It may even have an impact on state and federal anti-terrorism legislation, which prevents those accused of knowing and being able to test allegations against them, even if they go to jail for the alleged crimes.
SA’s punitive Serious Crime Act also forces courts to try people who don’t know what evidence is real or has been fabricated against them. Innocent people can be subject to draconian control orders enforced by the court and organisations effectively outlawed on spurious grounds. Mr Krasnov’s application to the High Court quoted the senior English judge, Lord Brown, who said in a recent judgement: “I cannot accept that a subject’s entitlement to an essentially fair hearing is merely a qualified right capable of being outweighed by the public interest… Closed material must be rejected if reliance on it would necessarily result in a fundamentally unfair hearing.”
The application also quoted from another case in the US Supreme Court, where Justice Jackson observed: “The plea that evidence of guilt must be secret is abhorrent to free men because it provides a cloak for the malevolent, the misinformed, the meddlesome and the corrupt to play the role of informer undetected and uncorrected.”
The Independent Weekly has learnt of two cases in SA where formerly licensed security guards have recently been denied licence renewal, meaning they were sacked by their employers. But the security officers were not told why their licences were withheld, nor what evidence was resented or invented against them. Section 5B (1) of the Security and Investigation Agents Act says verbatim: “No information provided by the Commissioner of Police to the Commissioner may be disclosed to any person (except the Minister, a court or a person to whom the Commissioner of Police authorises its disclosure) if the information is classified by the Commissioner of Police as criminal intelligence”.
Subsection 5 emphasises the point. It says the Police Commissioner or the court MUST take steps to maintain the confidentiality of information classified by the Commissioner as criminal intelligence.
Such is justice in SA.
Counsel for the applicant K-Generation Pty Ltd: Dr SC Churches instructed by Starke lawyers.
Counsel for the respondent Liquor Licensing Court and SAPOL: Mr CJ Kourakis QC SG and Mr JP McIntyre instructed by the Crown Solicitor’s Office.
|
Posted by Anonymous at 7:48 PM, 30/5/2008 |
Link |
|
Victoria Work Cover
As some of you know, my weekly payments were stopped due to a Medical Panel decision, my entitlements to medical and like expenses were restored (doesnt pay the bills).
I wrote to the VWA about the panels decision being wrong,they told me to take it up with the Medical Panel or go to the Supreme Court (LOL, i dont have any money to try that option).
So i wrote to the medical panel some 4 weeks ago asking them to review their decision based on what i claimed was in error, no response as yet, and i don't think i will get one,they are answerable to no one.
On another matter:
(I am deaf and have always communicated with my claims manager of the day, by emails over the last 8 yrs)
I lodged a claim for travel expenses for the paltry sum of $60.00, it was ignored, i emailed the claims manager several times without any success,i also contacted the VWA to contact the manager on my behalf,they had no success either.
I consider the claims manager to be discriminating against my choice of communication and have sought legal advice.
I know i can make a conciliation request to have the matter resolved, but now i am so damn tired of their high and mighty attitudes, i hope my discrimination claim bears fruit. |
Posted by Anonymous at 11:59 AM, 31/5/2008 |
Link |
|
retrospective
Who is telling porkies?
Is this legislation retrospective?
R3: The legislation proposed by the Government is not retrospective. However, after a transition period, the new work capacity tests at 130 weeks will apply to claims lodged both before and after the date that the new laws are passed.
|
Posted by Anonymous at 2:15 PM, 31/5/2008 |
Link |
|
medical panels
What about legal questions, For example: can a worker be protected if he/she is under prescription medication whilst in a workplace? Seems like the supreme court would need to iron out a few regulations for the first few years. hmmm unfunded will take a little bit longer to clear.
Q1: Make up of medical panels – where are the medical specialists going to come from? Will they be injury relevant?
R1: Doctors active in clinical practice and registered in South Australia will be eligible for appointment to the pool of doctors from which medical panels will be convened. Doctors from general practice and a range of specialties will be appointed to the pool. The constitution of the medical panel to hear a particular medical question will be convened by the registrar and convenor. The panels will be multi-disciplinary and relevant to the worker’s medical condition, for example a panel may have a general practitioner, and two practitioners from different specialties.
|
Posted by Anonymous at 2:20 PM, 31/5/2008 |
Link |
|
| |