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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 9:49 PM, 1/5/2008
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.
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.
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...
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 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."
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?
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."
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.
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 10:50 PM, 4/5/2008
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.
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.
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)
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 !!!
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.
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
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.
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 5:10 PM, 8/5/2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 11:20 AM, 9/5/2008
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
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.
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.
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 10:06 PM, 9/5/2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
[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.
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 10:03 PM, 11/5/2008
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
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 12:39 AM, 12/5/2008
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 12:43 AM, 12/5/2008
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.
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!
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".
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
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.
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!
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!
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 8:35 PM, 15/5/2008
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 8:41 PM, 15/5/2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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."
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Many of the current laws being passed in South Australia are being made by a government that cares little about civil rights. It knows little about the principles of justice.
It will be a brave government to try and challenge many of these new laws in the High Court.
Me thinks the High Court judges have their own ideas about what is right and wrong.
Problem is it might take a few years to turn the train around..
Sounds familiar, he also sat on his hands with WorkCover and looked what happened. Maybe everybody now realises what he is realy like.
Ms Haythorpe said the meeting yesterday also declared Michael Wright was "irrelevant" to the negotiating process because of his refusal to meet with the AEU Branch executive.
WorkCover Gag - Government attempt to force the WorkCover Bill through under the cover of the budget
30/05/2008 by Mark Parnell
The Rann Government has sent a letter to all Upper House MLCs stating they will move next week to ensure debate on their controversial changes to WorkCover laws will pass by 6pm Thursday the 5th June (budget day), even if the debate on the Bill has not finished.
“This is outrageous. Mr Rann and Mr Foley are trying to hide their dirty work under the cover of the budget,” said Greens MLC Mark Parnell.
“Not content with gagging the debate inside their own party, Mr Rann and Mr Foley now want to gag the debate in Parliament.
“We honestly don’t know when the Upper House debate will be finished – it could be Thursday, it could be Tuesday of the following week. This is purely and simply an attempt to stop the pain for Labor while the eyes of the media and the public are focused elsewhere,” he said.
WorkCover insiders have told the Greens that the changes to WorkCover laws will not commence until April next year. Therefore, the unfunded liability will not be affected either way if the Upper House debate finishes this week or next week.
“This is not about fixing up the unfunded liability sooner. Whether we have one or two extra days of debate will not affect when the changes start impacting on injured workers, or WorkCover’s bottom line.
“Stopping short term political pain is not a good enough reason to trample on fundamental parts of our democracy, such as the right of Parliament to thoroughly debate and amend Government Bills.
“And if they think that debating the slashing of injured workers’ benefits is a waste of Parliament’s time, then heaven help the ALP,” he said.
Greens WorkCover campaign
Newsflash: Legislative members needed with Guts, Motivation, determination and Independence
I thought the Legislative Council was suposed to be somewhat indepenent. ie not dictated to by the lower house.
Seems the three stooges in the lower house are dictating the law in South Australia.
Why have none of the other members got any guts to stand up and have their say?
Are they all worried that the gravy train might stop if they stand up and have their say?
Obviously a change is needed to ensure that all members of the Legsilative council:
1) have the guts to stand up and say what they believe in and the views of their electors.
2) Are going to be motivated to speak out for the rights of injured workers in an independent manner and not be gagged by other members.
3) Determination to see policy changes which ensure the rights of all in this State not just the rights of employers to have an endless supply of workers to who they can injure at low cost and expense to themselves.
4) Independence to ensure they are not bullied to tow the party line and not influenced to find that if they speak out they will not find themselves in favour with the rest of the mob..
Seems the two party preferred basis in South Australia is influenced by back room deals and the independents are the only ones who are standing up for the rights of all in this state.
Obviously there will be less votes for the major parties if they do not change their ways.
Seems like the rehabilitation companies have a fair bit of catching up to do. All the injured workers who have been stuck on the system now with these new reforms would now need to be retrained, found "suitable" full time work before they can be kicked off after 130 weeks.
I say push the reforms thru without any amendments and see the whole thing topple over.
What ashame they didnt do their job as stated by the original leglislation.
Article from: AAP
June 02, 2008 06:20pm
A NSW resort has been fined $150,000 over the electrocution of a 13-year-old boy at the hotel's pool in 2002.
The local boy and a friend were playing in the pool of the Salamander Shores Hotel on the NSW central coast without the permission of staff in December 2002 when they threw a tennis ball over the pool fence.
The 13-year-old suffered an electric shock as he tried to climb the pool fence to retrieve the ball and later died of his injuries.
A WorkCover investigation found the boy stood on a corroded section of pipe that became electrified when it collapsed underfoot, cutting through the insulation and exposing the live wires within.
In a judgment handed down in the Industrial Court of NSW late last month, Justice Anna Backman found Salamander Shores Hotel Pty and three of its directors had failed to assess the risk from live electrical circuitry.
Justice Backman said they also had failed to implement a program of maintenance in a situation where the risk of injury "was both obvious and reasonably forseeable''.
She said Salamander Shores Hotel Pty directors Christopher Paul Herbert, Niall Chang and Brian Francis Wadley had placed complete reliance on their management staff, whom they considered possessed the necessary expertise to run the hotel and attend to safety matters.
The three directors were each fined $12,000 after being found guilty of one offence each under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.
WorkCover chief executive officer Jon Blackwell said the case sent a clear message about the responsibilities of company directors.
"Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, directors have a vital role to play in ensuring the health and safety of their employees and of other persons visiting their workplaces,'' he said.
"To its credit, the company has cooperated fully with WorkCover in its investigation and has complied with directions to rectify the safety breaches which led to this tragedy.
Pretty simple reason why NSW and Victoria have a lower average levy than SA. Premiums (levies) are usually expressed as a percentage of employers’ total wages bills.
NSW's is 14%, Victoria's is 11.5% and South Australia is 7.5%. Pretty simple, increase the levy to alligned the other states and you have a lower average levy.
An inquiry has revealed a rise in breast cancer cases among women working in one building at an Adelaide hospital.
The review, commissioned by the South Australian government following staff concerns, revealed 18 cases of breast cancer among the women working in the Queen Victoria building of the Women's and Children's Hospital since 2001.
Under normal circumstances, health authorities would have expected just nine cases over that period.
Hospital acting chief executive Gail Mondy said the investigation had revealed no increase in cancer rates across the whole hospital campus.
But she said it had found an increase in the breast cancer rates in the Queen Victoria building and, at the same time, a decrease in other rates of cancer among those same women.
Ms Mondy said the report suggested the increase might be just a random statistical event.
"However, we're taking it very seriously and ensuring that the environment is safe," she told ABC Radio.
"We're conducting an environmental audit and we'll actually look at the chemicals used, any equipment, we'll take some samples and photos and send that to an independent expert.
"We'll also provide opportunities for staff to come forward and tell us their story about any factors they think may have contributed to the breast cancer incident."
The concerns over cancer rates in the Queen Victoria building were first raised anonymously by staff in November last year.
The state opposition also called for an inquiry.
Health Minister John Hill said the facts were unusual and the rise in breast cancer cases was probably just a statistical anomaly.
"But we obviously need to make sure that is the case," he said.
Nearly 15% of South Australian drivers seriously injured in road crashes are under the influence of sedatives, including Valium, yet police are unable to conduct roadside tests for such drugs. A recent Royal Adelaide Hospital study of 2,000 trauma patients found twice as many tested positive for sedatives than did for methamphetamines. Currently police only test for alcohol, cannabis and methamphetamines. RAH Director of Trauma Services DR William Griggs said the 12 month study there was a need to expand roadside testing to include sedatives. The study also found about a quarter of people seriously injured in workplace accidents were under the influence of at least one drug.
seems like the end is near for the reforms to be pushed thru. I hope they are pushed without any ammendments so it can all fall over then hopefully the workcover CEO and board are stood down.
The applicant contends that this is not good enough. It is settled law that Medical Panels are subject to the Administrative Law Act 1978. They are therefore required, once the relevant preconditions have been met, to furnish reasons for their decisions: s.8(1). Sub-section (4) of that section goes on to provide, so far as presently relevant, that the Court, upon being satisfied “that the only statement furnished is not adequate to enable a court to see whether the decision does or does not involve any error of law”, may order the Panel to furnish, within a time specified in the order, a further statement of its reasons.
Independents are sure to benefit from Labor and Liberals piss weak and gutless stand on Workcover.
Never again a vote for the Major Parties
My Grandfather and Grandmother brought me up to vote Liberal. They were devoted to supporting the Liberal Party.
My Father used to vote Liberal but changed to Labor when I was a kid..There was many an argument between him and his dad over voting.
How times have changed.
My Grandfather (once injured at work) now swears he will never vote Liberal and he will never vote Labor Grandma will support him come rain or shine.
My Father (also once injured at work) swears that is the end of Labor for him. He even told me many of his work colleagues are now questioning who to vote for after Liberal's piss weak show and the backroom deals with Labor..
Well my dad has four brothers also. They are also questioning why they ever voted Liberal. From the talkk around the barbecue last weekend I think that all of them, their wives and families wil probably vote for the indpendents now.
As for me- I was never really pro liberal or pro labor voting for both on different occasions. But I can now make my mind up. Thanks Liberal for showing the way, thanks Labor for showing the way.
You obviously do not care about my safety at work, nor my rights if I am injured, nor for my children and future children. Nor do you care for anyone else except yourselves.
But now I can assure you that if promises are made and kept there will be nobody in my extended family voting for labor or liberal.
Both parties have obviously go tno idea living in the real life. What of the board and its mismanagement?
What has ever been done about it?
I would be interested to hear from any other bloggers what they think of Liberal and Labor railroading the new legislation through to suit themselves.
Posted by NO votes for the major parties at 9:50 PM, 5/6/2008
Corruption within Workcover? Guess the government kept it confidential by posting it on the web.
Peter Reynolds
Aberfoyle Park
To the Secretary
Parliamenrary Committee Inquiry
Parliament House.
Inquiry into Aspects of Worker's Compcnsaiian
Submission'
I have worked as an 'Investigator for approximately 7 years handling Worker's Compensation and Third Party Injury claims. During my work I was aware of matters that I consider pertinent to this Inquiry.
• Collusion between Investigators and/or Company staff occurred with medical practitioners examining injured claimants, information on such claimants being passed on for identification, location an other purposes in other words, these medical practitioners were not acting independently of the Insurer,
• Film evidence was conveniently edited and / or destroyed if it was not of suitable material for
disputation of alleged or claimed injuries.
• Bluff tactics were undenaken to persuade claimants to settle their claim. An example of this was a attending Court with large film spool casings containing small rolls of film evidence.
I also have evidence of:
• Doctors providing grossly misleading medical reports to the Insurer's, such evidence supporting
and / or reinforcing an attitude of working in harmony with the Insurers as opposed to being independent.
• Doctors medical reports and interviews not corresponding, indicative of gross error / corruption /
bias on the part of such medical practitioners.
• Doctors being unwilling to make amendments lo such grossly misleading medical reports when
brought to their attention.
• ignoring of /cover-up/ of facts between Doctors / Lawyers / Investigators.
• Investigators providing written reports to the Insurer that do not correspond with file evidence thereby being misleading in their content, yet ignored by Doctors / Lawyers / Courts when screened for evidence either prior to or at Trial, thereby indicative of what I perceive to be and
evidently tantamount to corruption within the Court/ Legal system, pertinent to Injury damis- An example of this is where a claimant displays restriction of movement and expressions typical of experiencing pain, yet such evidence is ignored.
• selective use of video surveillance by Investigators, in what appears indicative of a cover-up.
• allegations/charges of fraud against the claimant when In essence I believe that the means employed against the claimant were tantamount to fraud.
• claims by a Worker's Compensation agent, based upon confirmation from the Investigation company that certain film evidence taken for identification purposes has been discarded, then in fact the company policy reveals that such evidentiary material is never discarded
• attempts by a Worker's Compensation agent not to reveal what it terms "sensitive information on teh file that potentially couid jeopardise the success of(their) argument which will have ramifications for management of their file and potentially the "scheme."
• film evidence presented to the Court being largely edited. In what was termed "presentable form..... .(and /or) abridged into a version " together with corresponding written notes, indicative of questionable procedure within the Court / Legal system, pertinent to Injury claims.
• factual evidence / exhibits presented to the Court being fabricated for the specific purpose of disputing an injury caim- indicative of questionable procedure within the Court / Legal system, pertinent to Injury claims.
I have compiled cases to this effect for the specific purpose of exposing what I believe to be corruption within the Court / Legal system, pertinent to Injury claims, and for assisting others to be aware of the true state of affairs within the Court / Legal system. My compilation Is continuing.
I rely heavily on the the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993 in doing so.
It is my belief, as a resuit of these experiences, that the alleged high cost of disputing alleged fraudulent claims is unnecessary, if not entirely lacking in honesty /integrity /benevolence /altruism to society in general.
• the methods used are extrsmely questionable, if not fraudulent themselves, as they are based upon
deception of a higher degree by an industry that largely ciaims itself to be a victim of fraud.
• such methods/ aspects require exposing thereof in the public interest.
When one looks at everything in totality its obvious what has happened.
There has been so much misleading information provided by Workcover it has dug itself into a hole.
Now the dummies Labor and Liberal have voted for the changes based on all of the misleading information they have been provided by the desperate Board members and the advice of Clayton wno conducted a "clayton's review of the whole situation".
No need to bother yourselves with why your submissions were never heard nor responded to.
Mr P Reed already had his fingers in the pie to make it all happen just the way the Board wanted it.
Posted by Misleading Doctors at 11:11 AM, 6/6/2008
I too will be voting independant in 2010, you have to make sure where their preferances go though. Both Labor and Liberal have accepted the spin from the WorkCover board and voted by party policy and not what is right.
Problem with many members nowadays is that they are all mates and everything is being done to suit themselves.
I think the day is not too far away when the major parties will either need to shakeup or move out.
I guess now we will not see Liberal or Labor pushing for an ICAC.
Depression- Workcover and depression- Can I sue them because of their mismanagement
Why do things need to change?
The SA Scheme, in its current form, has the poorest return to work performance of all the comparable schemes in Australia, the worst funding position and the highest average levy rate paid by the employers who fund the Scheme.
The social cost of poor return to work can be significant – for injured workers and their families and ultimately the South Australian community. Delayed return to work can result in depression, family breakdown, diminished social networks and poor health outcomes unrelated to the original injury.
The SA Scheme, in its current form, has the poorest return to work performance of all the comparable schemes in Australia, the worst funding position and the highest average levy rate paid by the employers who fund the Scheme.
The social cost of poor return to work can be significant – for injured workers and their families and ultimately the South Australian community. Delayed return to work can result in depression, family breakdown, diminished social networks and poor health outcomes unrelated to the original injury.
South Australia may have the highest "AVERAGE" levy, but does not have the highest "MAXIMUM", NSW has that at 13.94%. Victoria is close behind. Its all spin.
Bruce Carter is the golden boy of South Australian business as far as the government is concerned. They made him chairman of WorkCover four years ago to stop the haemorrhaging; they put him in charge of a group of heavy-duty department heads to negotiate the best deal for the state with BHP Billiton over the Olympic Dam expansion and they’ve just made him chairman of the Economic Development Board.
Injured Workers and employees could never imagine that a government could take away common law rights of people injured at work.
Many people find the new legislative changes in South Australia abhorrent, disrespectful and insensitive to the rights of workers. They are draconian laws simply intended to give the financial edge to the State to ensure that economic development is a high priority. The rights of its workers are of no consequence whatsoever-if they are injured-tough luck. It will be a gain for any employer who can now get cheap labour and the cost of a human life is capped at $30000.
Life is cheap.
The People of South Australia can now only wonder how long it will be before the voting public soon remove Labor from power?
Obviously the backroom dealing liberal Sheep will not be in any fit shape to lead the State at the next election without a major reshuffle.
The Golden Boy doubled the unfunded liability since he was appointed
Unfunded liability reduces by $32 million
Release date: 18/3/2004
WorkCover target average levy rate unchanged
There will be no general increase in workers compensation levy rates for SA employers in 2004-2005.
Following a review of the overall position of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme, as at 31 December 2003, the WorkCover Board has announced it will maintain the target average levy rate at 3.0 per cent (of remuneration) next financial year (2004-2005).
WorkCover Chair Mr Bruce Carter said the scheme unfunded liability fell to $559 million at 31 December 2003, down from $591 million at 30 June 2003. (The unfunded liability is the difference between WorkCover’s assets and the actuary’s estimate of the claims liability of the scheme).
Mr Carter cautioned that the operating surplus of $32 million achieved in the six months to 31 December was due to improved investment returns and increased levy collections in the first half of 2003-2004, not improvement in claim outcomes, which he expects will take several years to emerge.
“However, this is still a small step in the right direction,” Mr Carter said.
“Cash flow was boosted by improvement in investment returns ($49 million for the half year - $28 million above forecast), and a $50 million increase in levy collections in the six months to 31 December,” Mr Carter said.
“On current settings and barring any major unexpected events, the Board still anticipates the scheme will recover to be fully funded within ten years.”
Seems that Bruce did a great job managing Workcover.
$559 million at 31 December 2003.
$722.7 million at 31 December, 2006.
$849 million at February 2008.
Congratulations for a job well done Bruce.
How did you get a promotion to be the director of the Economic Development Board when your track record indicates that under your management Workcover grew its unfunded liability by up to $2 million a week.
Only in South Australia could a Chairman of a Government statutory Authority get a promotion after a track record of 5 years at running the corporation at a loss of nearly $2 million dollars a week.
I would also like to know why this state government appointed Bill Watson to Trans Adelaide after his stint with the Sydney ferries and a corruption inquiry?
The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) says it referred allegations about the sacked head of Sydney Ferries to the New South Wales Department of Transport to investigate but did not conduct its own formal inquiry into them.
Sydney ferries general manager Bill Watson was sacked yesterday afternoon by State Transit chief John Stott.
Fronting a parliamentary inquiry into public transport this morning, Mr Stott indicated the corruption watchdog had played a role in investigating certain management decisions that had been taken by Mr Watson.
Mr Stott said these were of serious concern and on Wednesday he decided Mr Watson should be sacked.
Action needs to be taken where employers are not ensuring the safety of the workplace, and where their conduct demonstrates culpability, by extending the focus from prevention to punishment of contraventions of workplace safety regulations. According to this argument, the criminalisation of employer misconduct would have the effect of bolstering workplace standards by immediately raising those standards. This view is based on the proposition that a comprehensive regulatory scheme aimed at achieving maximum compliance is best designed as a pyramidal structure: that is, encouraging compliance requires a composite approach which includes both outcome-based standards and tough enforcement measures.(13) Haines and Gurney argue that:
Pyramidal approaches to enforcement are encouraged where non-adversarial, non-punitive enforcement measures aimed to build on trust between regulators and regulated are used in the first instance. These must inexorably resort to increased levels of punitive and intrusive measures should persuasion and cooperation fail […].(14)
This ‘heavy tip’ of the pyramid, it was suggested, could be created by introducing industrial manslaughter laws into criminal laws.(15) In addition, proponents of this approach note that increasing the deterrent effect of a punitive measure, requires legislative responses that are able to break open the protective shield of a corporation, by imposing individual liability on managers and senior officers.(16) Overall, this argument is driven by the view that the implementation of tough new criminal laws is a move in the right direction for ensuring the continued safety of workers in the workplace, as it would significantly increase the incentives for employers to comply with workplace standards.
Its easier for Workcover to persecute injured workers than employers.
There are a number of reasons for this.
1) They can stop injured workers wages easily. ("unlawfully or otherwise")
2) Injured workers often have less resources to fight back once they have no income.( especially if they no longer have any income)
3) the medical evidence is easier to manipulate to make an injured worker look as though they are simply bludging.
4) Its easier to harrass an injured worker by not paying them on time, sending them to doctors day after day for the same reports.
And what can happen to negligent employers?
1) Employers have resources to fight back, and if they win they get their money back anyway.
2) if they lose they only get a small fine for being negligent and maiming or killing someone if they are unlucky.
3) Most employers make extra bucks by not complying with safety and proper work practices. So why do they care ??
An injured worker has no hope of gaining employment?
In this matter the applicant Australian Workers’ Union on behalf on its member Rocco Violi seeks from this Review Committee, constituted under s 46 of the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986, clarification of the employer’s conduct and duties under s 19 of the Act.
2 Without, at this stage, going fully into the facts upon which the application is based, it concerns an employee of the respondent, Mr Violi who is seeking to return to work after a period of incapacity. Mr Violi sustained a non work-related cardiac condition which incapacitated him from work from about 5 September 2005. During the following period the employer kept his position open so that he was free to return to work if he was able. He was due to return to work on about 17 July 2007, close to two years after his initial incapacity, and advised the employer on that date that he had decided to take a holiday and had applied for annual leave. Annual leave was approved for him from 9 August 2007 until 5 October 2007.
3 On 3 August 2007 a medical certificate from Mr Violi’s treating general practitioner was provided to the employer stating that Mr Violi was fit to return to work on 9 August 2007.
4 Mr Violi made the employer aware that he would return to work upon the cessation of his annual leave.
5 The employer directed Mr Violi to attend a functional capacity test in relation to his injury to see if he was fit to return to normal duties. Mr Violi attended this test and was given leave to return to normal duties for the employer.
6 The employer then further directed Mr Violi to attend a medical appointment with a cardiologist, Dr Beltrame. Mr Violi agreed to see Dr Beltrame but was absent on holidays at the date of the first medical appointment scheduled by the employer. However Dr Beltrame released a report to the employer based upon a previous consultation three months earlier.
7 The employer then sent Mr Violi to a further appointment with Dr Beltrame which he attended and as a result of which a report was prepared by Dr Beltrame who cleared him for a full return to normal duties.
8 Initially the employer contacted Mr Violi by phone and told him he was cleared to attend for work. However, he was contacted an hour later by the employer and was told that the employer had changed its mind and
Australian Workers’ Union (Violi) v City of Hardy IM
West Torrens [2008] SAIRC 30 Mr M O’Malley
Mr A Gleeson
4
that it would require Mr Violi to attend another, as yet unspecified, medical appointment.
9 Mr Violi attended for regular duties at the employer but was denied access to those duties by the employer.
10 The employer notified Mr Violi’s union that it was purporting to exercise its powers pursuant to s 19 of the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act in relation to its duties to its employees. The employer had therefore requested that Mr Violi attend further medical examinations to satisfy this duty.
11 The employer ceased wage payments to Mr Violi as a result of the failure by Mr Violi to attend further medical appointments. It has since advised the union that continued refusal to attend medical appointments could result in Mr Violi’s termination.
12 The employer maintains that there are several errors in the above worker’s outline of the facts. We repeat the more significant ones for what they are worth but only with a view to more accurately representing the factual basis for the application. We have not heard evidence in relation to these matters
Dear Sir I note the article "Labor rage at work law address" on pg 14 of today's Advertiser and offer the following comment. I too, am a Labor Council Secretary in WA. Like Ms Giles, I address many bodies and forums across the entire political and social spectrum. My electorate, as is Ms Giles', is the working people and unions of our respective states. Our role is not to support decisions of a particular Government simply because they might be of one particular party or another but to advocate on behalf of working people. In the instant case, Ms Giles is advocating for a Workers' Compensation system that does not perpetuate the harm that has already occurred to workers whilst at work. Like Ms Giles, I would carry this message far and wide to create a broad understanding of the deleterious impact that an inadequate Workers' Compensation system can have on workers who are at their most vulnerable through no fault of their own. I would make no apology for doing this and it is an indictment on any party that would seek to close down the right to speak out about bad policy and bad law. We represent the interests of working families and will do this without fear or favour. If the ALP in SA can't handle this then there needs to be some serious internal soul searching within the party that professes to be concerned for the welfare of workers and their families. Good on you Janet - the campaign is obviously having an impact!
In times past Workcover have gone down the path of investing their money instead of paying out and redeeming injured workers in the hope of some short term gains in investments.
Whether any persons in Workcover or the government were gaining directly or indirectly from the investments is not known.
One thing is for certain: The money market is not paying off. The unfunded liability was getting out of hand and the investments stopped looking as though they were ever going to maintain the cash flow to support the massive corporate Workcover monster that the Board tried was trying to create.
There seems to have been but one direction for the Corporation and Government.
Stop the gravy train. Reduce the number of injured workers on the system so that Workcover can no longer create jobs that support its own existence( if the truth be known it is more of a case that they can no longer get employees because the employees do not like doing their managers dirty work, lying to injured workers, or denying them their legislated rights.).
It was easy change the legislation, pay them all out and start with a fresh slate. No unfunded liability, if its done in a ruthless manner workcover will still have a surplus..
Its plain to see that this is what has happened, time has come to start afresh as the investments are not paying off and trouble is looming in this state.
Unfortunately this government has lost sight of why it was ever appointed to govern South Australia.
Really Mr Rann- Your Law and Order stance is simply a hollow sounding gong.
Where is the law in denying injured workers their common law rights?
Where is the order in throwing injured workers out into the streets and focing them to sell their family homes until they sort out their matters in the courts?
It seems that the current parties know little about responsible government.
At least the independents in this State have done the soul searching and know there is something fundamentally flawed with the recent legislation changes ot Workcover.
I would say the first workers to go will be the ones who are working full time and are receiving their top up. Little did they know when they took the dangling carrot into taking any employment without training at a lower remuneration that they will be paid their top up that this will no longer apply.
Hand caught in meat grinder at Greenacres
Article from: The Advertiser
MICHAEL MILNES, ROB MALINAUSKAS
June 12, 2008 01:10pm
A MEAT worker's hand has been caught in a grinder and an electrical contractor has been hurt in a roof explosion in a bad day for work accidents in SA.
Paramedics have rushed to a Mullers Rd, Greenacres, meat plant, where a male butcher has crushed his hand in a grinder.
The 24-year-old was injured just after noon.
A retrieval team from the Royal Adelaide Hospital is treating the man.
His condition in not yet known but it is believed he will be taken to the hospital.
Meanwhile, fire crews are currently on the scene of a fire at a primary school in the Barossa Valley.
They were called to the Nuriootpa Primary School, in Bunna Tce, about noon.
An electrical contractor received injuries from an explosion while he was working on the roof.
He was taken to the Angaston Hospital with minor burns and a female teacher was treated at the local surgery for a hearing problem.
Now that Companies have to employ their own rehabilitation co-ordinators, what happens "consultants" like De-Poi, Peronell Placement etc? Do they now actually go back as job seekers and stop pretending to be rehabilitation consultants?
How ironic this government wanted the WorkCover scheme to be in line with the rest of Australia and now workers are striking and resigning just so their remuneration can also be in line with the rest of Australia. There may well be a Karma.......
Posted by Workers Reform Party at 9:21 AM, 16/6/2008
Backdoor Rehabilitation Deals
For those injured workers on WorkCover, WorkCover & EML had a secret meeting today with 20 chosen "preferred rehabilitation providers" - i.e. rehabilitation providers that work FOR WorkCover NOT the injured WorkCover, several of these companies are:
- CRS Australia
- Effective Australia
- Applied Innovative Services
- Bakas Employment Solutions
- CapSecur Consulting
- De Pois Consultancy Services
- Corporate Health Group
If you are with these companies you are now OWNED by WorkCover. They are betrayer's of injured workers!
Posted by Insider at 2:34 PM, 17/6/2008
Rehab Consultants
These rehabilitation consultants have always worked for WorkCover, you would be a damn fool to think they actually help injured workers. They have fooled so many injured workers by daggling the carrot to take menial jobs and receive the top up but now under the new reforms that is not the case.
Posted by Patrick Murphy at 8:13 PM, 17/6/2008
Rehab
I thought the reforms meant employers had to appoint their own Rehabilitation co-ordinators within their current employees. Why would these rehab companies continue if there will be 1000 workers slashed instantly?
Posted by $15 Million rehab fund at 7:56 AM, 18/6/2008
I see current workers will not be effected from the new reforms until April 2009. I can now see a huge bullying tactic now from case managers to push injured workers into menial employment and workers fighting for their entitlements. Look on the bright side as this should gives workers enough time to be trained into suitable employment.
I wonder how strong the ombudsman is going to be?
The applicant contends that this is not good enough. It is settled law that Medical Panels are subject to the Administrative Law Act 1978. They are therefore required, once the relevant preconditions have been met, to furnish reasons for their decisions: s.8(1). Sub-section (4) of that section goes on to provide, so far as presently relevant, that the Court, upon being satisfied “that the only statement furnished is not adequate to enable a court to see whether the decision does or does not involve any error of law”, may order the Panel to furnish, within a time specified in the order, a further statement of its reasons. Mr Martinez seeks such an order. He contends that the law requires that the Panel tell him how its figure of 18% is calculated. This information is necessary, he argues, “in order to ascertain whether the Panel’s assessment was made in accordance with the relevant medical Guides.”[1] His solicitors assert that in the absence of “the further reasons sought” it is “impossible to advise the applicant whether or not the Medical Panel Opinion was justified or properly made.”
In considering what constitutes "jurisdictional error", it is necessary to distinguish between, on the one hand, the inferior courts which are amenable to certiorari and, on the other, those other tribunals exercising governmental powers which are also amenable to the writ. Putting to one side some anomalous exceptions, the inferior courts of this country are constituted by persons with either formal legal qualifications or practical legal training. They exercise jurisdiction as part of a hierarchical legal system entrusted with the administration of justice under the Commonwealth and State constitutions. In contrast, the tribunals other than courts which are amenable to certiorari are commonly constituted, wholly or partly, by persons without formal legal qualifications or legal training. While normally subject to administrative review procedures and prima facie bound to observe the requirements of procedural fairness, they are not part of the ordinary hierarchical judicial structure. In what follows, the anomalous courts or tribunals which fall outside the above broad descriptions can be ignored.
In Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 the High Court at 179 emphasised, in the context of jurisdictional error, the following “critical distinction” between administrative tribunals and courts of law . In the absence of a contrary intention in the statute which established it, an administrative tribunal (unlike an inferior court) lacks authority either to authoritatively determine questions of law or to make an order or decision otherwise than in accordance with the law12.
How can a medical panel therefore make a decision according to the WorkCover act which is part of law?
BUILDING companies should be charged with manslaughter if breaches of health and safety regulations result in a death, Queensland building unions say.
The use of swing set stages have been banned throughout Queensland following yesterday's double fatality at a Gold Coast construction site.
Workers Chris Gear, 36, and Steve Sayer, 52, died after falling 26 storeys on a high rise where they had been patching concrete.
Their deaths are currently being investigated.
Though it was too early to lay blame over yesterday's accident, Builders' Labourers' Federation official David Hanna said stronger legislation needed to be introduced to hold building companies accountable.
"We want the fines increased so they are more of a deterrent,'' he said.
"We want manslaughter charges for the employers and the directors of these companies that are blatantly at fault.
"We want them charged, we want them locked up, because they are murderers out there.''
He said the men had not been individually harnessed, which may have saved their lives.
CFMEU's Jason Stein a statewide ban on the use of swing set scaffolding imposed after the accident would remain in place indefinitely.
Labor rage at work law address- the Bullying continues
Article from: The Advertiser
NICK HENDERSON, STATE POLITICAL REPORTER
June 11, 2008 12:30am
SENIOR Labor figures are canvassing support for a plan to expel SA Unions secretary Janet Giles from the party.
The controversial move follows a speech Ms Giles gave at a fundraiser held by the Communist Party of Australia held in the city last month.
Ms Giles has infuriated many Labor MPs over her attack of the State Government's WorkCover legislation and her speech at the Communist Party dinner titled "Curry with Comrades" has further angered sections of the party.
"After taking the Government on over WorkCover she is still a member of our party and raising money for a party which campaigns against us," one senior Labor member said.
"The Communist Party is so marginalised, so out of touch with the aspirations of 99.5 per cent of Australians, the idea that leaders of the trade union movement will speak to such an irrelevant group and raise money for them, is embarrassing."
For Ms Giles to be expelled, another party member must first report her.
Party officials would then investigate the matter and make a recommendation to the State Executive which would determine the penalty, if any, imposed.
It is understood the grounds for a complaint against her would be for party disloyalty.
Those responsible for the push to have her kicked out of the party will only pursue the issue if they can secure enough support to ensure the vote succeeds.
"It might go nowhere but it might flare up," a source said. " People are talking about it."
Ms Giles, who has sporadically been a member of the Labor Party since 1982, has also been criticised for affiliating SA Unions with the Communist Party.
"The union movement became very relevant under the Howard years the way he attacked the union movement," a Labor source said.
"For a union leader to be talking to a group like the Communist Party is a step 40 years backwards and to be raising money for them it is stupid."
Ms Giles said she accepts invitations to many events to discuss issues affecting the unions and should not be restricted because of her Labor Party membership.
"I speak to all sorts of community groups, I speak to people involved in all political parties about a number of issues, that is what I do in my job," she said.
A spokesman for the Communist Party said 47 people paid $20 each to attend the event and the topic of Ms Giles' speech was WorkCover.
Posted by Bullied by Workcover at 5:07 PM, 23/6/2008
Most importantly, the change to the WorkCover scheme will help deliver a healthy and viable scheme to support future generations of workers who may be injured. The changes were necessary to address the lowest return-to-work rates in the country, a scheme that was failing workers, an unfunded liability approaching $1 billion, and nationally uncompetitive levies. As a Labor Premier committed to the interests of workers, I was not prepared to stand by and preside over the slow and inevitable demise of WorkCover, which is critical to the protection of injured workers. I was not prepared to stand by and watch the cost of the scheme grow, reducing the state's competitive advantage and risking damage to our employment base.
Mike Mugabe Rann is a dictator. So are all his foley mates.
Look at the figures-90000 speed cameras in the state, all they want to do is control your lives.
What has the new workcover legislation done?
Nothing- raised the levies and ripped off injured workers.
WorkCover- wonder how much power and independence he will really have being ex crown solicitor office employee.
WorkCover gets an acting ombudsman (ABC News)
The South Australian Government has begun implementing its changes to WorkCover by appointing an acting ombudsman.
The office of the WorkCover ombudsman will be set up to investigate complaints about the injury compensation scheme and will report to the Industrial Relations Minister.
Wayne Lines has been appointed to the role for 12 months.
He has been a managing solicitor in the crown solicitor's office for 14 years.
WorkCover's 'culture of entitlement': compo manager
Employers Mutual executives
Cameron McCullogh (R) of Employers Mutual complains of a 'culture of entitlement' among the injured (ABC News)
The company managing compensation claims for WorkCover says its job is harder in South Australia because of culture of entitlement and less focus on getting injured people back to work.
Employers Mutual, which is based in New South Wales, was appointed sole claims manager for WorkCover in 2006.
Chief executive Cameron McCullogh has given evidence to the South Australian Parliament's Statutory Authorities Review Committee.
Mr McCullogh told the committee the approach to workers' compensation in SA must change if WorkCover is to reduce its unfunded liability.
"It's not a return to work scheme - it's a pension scheme and so, yes, I think workers have an inflated sense of entitlement as opposed to mutuality," he said.
"It's a mutual safety net - you have rights and you have obligations - and I think there is an overemphasis on the rights as opposed to the obligations."
WorkCover legislation has just been passed in SA to reduce benefits paid to injured workers, with a view to reducing the scheme's unfunded liability.
Of course this guy from EML will blame injured workers for their mis-management. Workers get treated like criminals, get lied too, lose their right to sue unlike the rest of Australia so they should fight hard for their entitlements.
Memo: Peter Vaughn, If my memory serve me correctly you call it "Impact"
The Opposition has criticised the South Australian Government for rises in WorkCover levies for small businesses.
Liberal leader Martin Hamilton-Smith says the rises were gazetted by the Government late on Friday.
Mr Hamilton-Smith says the Government has misled small business owners about the impact changes to WorkCover would have on their levies.
"The Government aimed to get their levy rates down to range between 2.25 and 2.75 per cent - that's why Mr Rann said we needed this legislation which cut workers' entitlements," he said.
"What happens? The ink is barely dry and some of these businesses have got levy rates of nearly 7.5 per cent."
Mr Hamilton-Smith says the changes take effect in just over a week.
I remember seeing an Advertisement recently where Business SA proudly stated "you asked and we delivered" in relation to the WorkCover reforms. If raising the levy means they delivered well is this state in a mess!
I find it astounding the admission from EML’s Chief executive Cameron McCullogh in that its job is harder in South Australia because of culture of entitlement and less focus on getting injured people back to work?
It is well documented during the tender process EML only applied after receiving instructions from the WorkCover board and in fact after the tender date had closed. It was also well documented that QBE who also applied for the contract, was willing to take responsibility of the unfunded liability and had vast experience with the South Australian scheme was overlooked.
These comments by Cameron McCullogh in the Parliament’s Statutory Authorities Review Committee surely is not only the admission that a wrong decision was made in appointing EML was made but any extension to their contract should be revoked immediately. The board who in fact was responsible should also be set aside until a full investigation is completed.
IAN HENSCHKE: Now to Work Cover, that passed this week. Has this Labor Government treated workers in a fashion the Liberals didn't dare to do?
JANET GILES: I would say the Liberals did dare to do that and there were significant reductions in workers rights during the Liberal years.
What's disappointed us is...
IAN HENSCHKE: The Liberals didn't cut workers rights the way they have been cut.
JANET GILES: Well the Liberals tried to cut workers right in workers comp but were unable to.
IAN HENSCHKE: But they didn't.
JANET GILES: Only because of the intervention of the Democrats because they didn't have the numbers in the Upper House.
IAN HENSCHKE: You were part of the Work Cover board, don't you bear some responsibility for this whole issue?
JANET GILES: My involvement in the Work Cover board is one of a number of people.
And at a time when it looked like workers entitlements were going to be cut, myself and the other union rep put a minority report to the Minister and offered to deal with this in a different way and that's on the record, Ian.
IAN HENSCHKE: Alright, well given that union members fund the Labor Party are workers getting value for their union fees?
JANET GILES: Well, we believe that it is important to actually involve ourselves in a political party that holds same values as us...
IAN HENSCHKE: Do you though?
JANET GILES: I must admit, lately, there has been some questions raised about the value base of some people in the Labor party and the way that they're operating, and how accountable.
IAN HENSCHKE: Who are those people?
JANET GILES: Well I think probably generally people would say that it is the top three that make most of the decisions, and even members of Parliament are not getting their voices heard necessarily.
IAN HENSCHKE: But isn't that why we are seeing the dispute.
You obviously now have got a breakdown in communication between the Labor party and union movement?
JANET GILES: I think it is also a controlling of the money and the purse strings by the Treasury and some ministers can't have the capacity to bargain in a way that allows for some of these things to get through because their bound by that Treasury policy as well.
I wonder if the question was brought up in relation to lack of rehabilitation when Cameron McCullogh blamed the lack of return to work. After all, over $18 million was spent by rehabilitation providers last year. The workcover problem will never get solved if so many fail to take the responsibility.
Well given that the employers levies are set to increase dramatically and the injured workers have had their rights eroded seems everyone that said the new legislation changes were a money grab are right.
This must be the biggest claytons legilstive change there ever was in reducing injured workers rights.
Reduce their income maintenance and increase their employers levies.
Where is the cash going?
Go ask Bruce.
When are you going to realise that is an industry where injured workers are just a product. Lawyers, providers and (some) Doctors this is their income, their mainstream business. Even the government can gain from the assets from business levies. Read the yearly WorkCover reports and it has a direction in its investment portfolios.
Wouldnt it be a disaster if there were no injured workers left on the scheme. Too many business's would go broke. It is a revolving door, everyone gets a certain life span.
Now you know why law firms were so concerned with the new reforms as they will lose untold amount of work. I totally agree with the system being a cash grab for providers.
Can anybody help me as I have just received the information booklet from WorkCover. Under section 43 it states the maximum payment currently for permanent injury is $230,982. In the Workcover site section 43 payments under Schedule of sums is $137,000 (indexed). What am i reading wrong?
I am so impressed this site made it in Hansard (parliamentary speeches). How much do you think this whole WorkCover reforms costss just because "someone" made the wrong decisions? Just look at all the Advertising from Business SA, the Unions, lawyers and of course the money pit in WorkCover itself. Add the costs of members of parliaments time and their staff (one raeding reportedly cost $150K). Then there is the cost of changeover of the act. This is all tax payers money and all the too gooders do is agree with this unaccountable decision maker because this is a money issue, money to be made from unfortunate circumstances.
Could this be the same for an injured worker who has their pay stopped?
Sacking blamed for death
Article from: The Mercury
July 03, 2008 12:00am
A HOBART coroner says the suicide of a former council worker was a direct result of an "unwarranted" sacking.
Murray Leslie Johns, 59, killed himself on September 18, 2006, 12 days after he was dismissed from the Break O'Day Council.
He had been an employee for 37 years.
Coroner Rod Chandler released his findings yesterday.
He said it was a result of allegations Mr Johns used council workers and council plant for his own private purposes and covered his actions by falsifying time sheets.
Mr Chandler found this was not justified and the sacking was unfair.
He said Mr Johns' suicide arose because of a failure on the council's part to properly investigate and understand the circumstances surrounding the work undertaken by Mr Johns.
Due to legal proceedings the council would not comment on the conclusions made by Mr Chandler.
Counselling is available for anyone contemplating suicide. Phone Lifeline on 131 114 or go online at www.reachout.com.au
Does anyone happen to know whether under these new laws if medical panels will assess an injured workers PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPACITY? My understanding is that they will only assess an injured workers physical capacity and not the psychological capacity. Because if medical panels are only taking into account the physical capacity of an injured worker and they say that an injured worker has the physical capacity to do some kind of work but the injured workers psychologist is saying that that kind of work is PSYCHOLOGICALLY inappropriate, then shouldn't the work be classified as completely inappropriate, as in it is totally out of the question for the injured worker to be expected to under take that kind of work? Or is it the case that under these new laws that the psychological capacity of an injured worker doesn't even get factored in anymore? If that is the case then these laws are a classic example of the big boys making the rules to suit themselves...
A psychiatric impairment would have to be classified as a medical question.
Medical Panels determine medical questions as defined in Section 98E of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation (Scheme Review) Amendment Act 2008.
The function of a Medical Panel is to give an opinion on any medical question referred to in Section 98E of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation (Scheme Review) Amendment Act 2008 within 60 days or such longer agreed period: S98F(1) and 98H(1)
The question in which would have to be asked is can a medical panel determine what constitutes suitable employment?
As the opinion of a Medical Panel must be accepted as final and conclusive: S98H(4) and this can only be appealed through supreme court, it could be argued the question of suitablity may not always be classified as a medical issue.
(a) The nature of the worker’s incapacity and previous
employment;
(b) The workers age, education, skills and work experience;
(c) The worker’s place of residence;
(d) Medical information relating to the worker that is
reasonably available, including in any medical certificate or report;
(e) If any rehabilitation programs are being provided to or for the worker;
(f) The worker’s rehabilitation and return to work plan, if any.
�� It will be the role of the medical panel to determine
whether the jobs listed are “suitable”
What happens to injured workers who are currently working full time and receiving top up as this states it should continue until they have found employment that pays average weekly earnings?
Weekly payments after 130 weeks if worker has a current work capacity
�� Worker may make an application for their weekly payments not to cease after the third entitlement period.
�� If worker is in employment and is incapable of undertaking further employment which would increase their current weekly earnings the worker’s
weekly payments do not cease.
�� Must make a determination within 90 days of receiving the application.
�� Role of medical panel
�� refer the question of whether the worker is incapable of undertaking further
employment which would increase their current weekly earnings.
�� Medical panel can make this assessment
�� If you make the determination for worker’s payment not to cease, worker entitled to 80% of difference between NWE and current weekly earnings
Session 1
Introduction
Wayne Lines
What’s all the fuss about?
* Changes to entitlements
* Changes to processes
* Changes to terminology
Feeling Stressed?
*Don’t panic!
*The changes will be phased in over the next 12 months.
*We are all learning together.
*There is help available.
Focus on the Key Changes
*Setting and adjusting Notional Weekly Earnings
*Determining medical questions and assessments
of permanent impairment
*Reducing and discontinuing weekly payments
*Provisional payments of medical expenses and
weekly payments.
Be aware of the Context
*WorkCover driven
*A balance of competing interests
*The tension between the Government’s different responsibilities:
*Economic manager
*Representative of the public interest
*Employer
*Legislative controller
Let the fun begin!
Note: Might be fun for Mr Lines, as he is not injured and is not under the focus due to "Reducing and discontinuing weekly payments"
Medical panels will not be the magic Pill that Workcover want. How are they going to deal with the emotional issues of workers with limbs missing and disfigurment fomr work injuries and tell them they are fit for work full time and there is nothing wrong with them?
Would need to be a heavily influenced panel to be able to stand up to the emotional issues which come about with injured workers.
As Clayton boldly said, THe changes to the legislation are not going to fix the problems..
Article from: The Advertiser
MILES KEMP
July 09, 2008 12:30am
THE police anti-corruption branch has launched a preliminary inquiry into the appointment of Industrial Relations Commissioner Paul McMahon.
Mr McMahon was appointed by Minister for Industrial Relations Michael Wright in March and, because of his new job, could not vote two weeks later in a crucial ALP forum against Mr Wright's WorkCover Bill.
The Advertiser reported the timing of the appointment in May after Opposition Legal Affairs spokeswoman Isobel Redmond questioned a series of appointments to public positions of people connected to the union movement and Labor Party.
Mr McMahon had been Australian Manufacturing Workers Union vehicle division secretary before his appointment.
Police yesterday refused to comment on the preliminary inquiry, which The Advertiser understands is due to report to SA Police Commissioner Mal Hyde on if the matter is worthy of a formal investigation.
The Advertiser understands no connection has been made by the anti-corruption branch between the appointment and Mr McMahon's ineligibility to vote in the April 11 ballot.
The unit also is investigating why an additional commissioner was appointed to the Industrial Relations Commission despite the average workload of commissioners and registrars being halved following changes to Federal Government industrial laws.
Ms Redmond is seeking access through Freedom of Information legislation to a letter between the president of the IRC Peter Hannon and the State Government which reportedly states there was no need for Mr McMahon's appointment because of the decreased workload.
Mr Hannon has refused to comment on the appointment. Ms Redmond was denied access to the only letter about the appointment from the commission to the Government. She said she would appeal in the Magistrates Court.
The ALP ballot, in which opponents of State Government changes to workers' Workcover entitlements sought to have Mr Wright's Bill investigated, was won 12 votes to six by supporters of the changes.
Mr McMahon refused to comment on the inquiries yesterday. Mr Wright previously has ridiculed any link between the vote and the appointment.
Going back to work early, this will become a common issue
Judicial determination - Partially incapacitated worker in employment - Undergoes necessary surgery to relieve symptoms from a compensable disability - Totally incapacitated for work for four weeks post-surgery - Compensating authority contends that the consequences of competent surgery cannot constitute a new disability for the purpose of calculating worker’s average weekly earnings - Compensating authority’s contention rejected - S 30, s 30(3)(e) Worker’s Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986.
On Monday 16 July the worker returned to work. Her statement records the circumstances:
“As a result of the surgery, I was totally unfit for work during my period of convalescence from Monday 17 June 2007 until Monday 16 July 2007. This was as a consequence of the surgery, namely the unbearable pain, the inability to bear any weight on my left leg, the swelling and the overall time needed to heal from the surgery. As soon as I felt I could bear some weight on my leg and could resume working, I returned to work.
Because of the financial hardship that I was placed in as a result of my WorkCover weekly payments being determined at $212.79
Lovatt v WorkCover/Employers Mutual Ltd 5 McCouaig DP
(Virginia Nursery Pty Ltd) [2008] SAWCT 31
gross I was unable to have the full period of convalescence prescribed by my treating doctor, Dr Duncan.
As a result I returned to work four weeks after the surgery rather than eight weeks as initially indicated by Dr Duncan.
I returned to work at Celtic Care on 16 July 2007, even though I was certified totally incapacitated for work up until 2 August 2007 by PMC dated 18 June 2007 provided by Dr Duncan.”
In my opinion, the worker’s post-surgery symptoms comprise a secondary disability, being a disability that “is, or results from, the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, deterioration or recurrence of a prior disability”
Where to now Mr Vaughan now that you influenced taking away workers rights
Business SA chief executive Peter Vaughan said while the economy was still growing, the increase in material and labour costs, high petrol prices, and interest rates, were dampening confidence.
"While the mining and defence booms provide a positive outlook in the state, increasing business costs are clearly affecting business confidence in the local economy," Mr Vaughan said.
Readers' Comments
Police inquiry on job row
Article from: The Advertiser
MILES KEMP
July 09, 2008 12:30am
THE police anti-corruption branch has launched a preliminary inquiry into the appointment of Industrial Relations Commissioner Paul McMahon.
Mr McMahon was appointed by Minister for Industrial Relations Michael Wright in March and, because of his new job, could not vote two weeks later in a crucial ALP forum against Mr Wright's WorkCover Bill.
The Advertiser reported the timing of the appointment in May after Opposition Legal Affairs spokeswoman Isobel Redmond questioned a series of appointments to public positions of people connected to the union movement and Labor Party.
Mr McMahon had been Australian Manufacturing Workers Union vehicle division secretary before his appointment.
Read full story
Comments
Plenty of rats could come out of the cupboard if anyone were to look hard enough into many deals in SA. Problem is that there is little indpendence when it comes to investigating Workcover and appointments and financial transactions. South Australia needs an ICAC and without it the corruption will never be found or unearthed.
Posted by: Steve Christos of AdelaIide 10:57am July 09, 2008
Comment 3 of 3
The Wright thing to do Mr Rann would be to send the incompetent IR Minister on a short walk to the back bench
Posted by: Travis of Hawthorndene 9:42am July 09, 2008
Comment 2 of 3
This is a case where a independant commision against crime comittee should be appointed.
Posted by: wayne mattner of plympton 8:45am July 09, 2008
Comment 1 of 3
Posted by They call me Bruce at 7:48 PM, 10/7/2008
This is not the first appointment made by this government that should be questioned.
Bill Watson was appointed as General Manager of TransAdelaide after his stint with Sydney Ferries.
Sydney ferries general manager Bill Watson was sacked yesterday afternoon by State Transit chief John Stott.
Fronting a parliamentary inquiry into public transport this morning, Mr Stott indicated the corruption watchdog had played a role in investigating certain management decisions that had been taken by Mr Watson.
I see the Independent weekly recently printed an article about lawyers in South Australia not being appointed the contract for the Marj and that the contract went overseas. The article made comment of one of Johnson Winter and Slattery's directors.
" “I think it is extremely disappointing,” JWS managing partner Peter Slattery said. “I cannot understand what rationale in the world there would be for not taking the trouble of asking a small number of SA firms whether they have the experience for a project such as this.”
Mr Slattery, a director of SA companies (including Solstice Media, publisher of The Independent Weekly), said he was concerned that revenue would leave the state economy without a very clear justification.
“I think this sort of approach indicates a type of professional cringe that can only undermine confidence within and outside SA and SA-based enterprises,” he said. Law Society members are furious. "
It can now be no wonder why the Independent weekly do not publish articles about Workcover. Johnson Winter and Slattery do plenty of work for Workcover and the dollars certainly flow freely from Workcover to Johnson Winter and Slattery.
The SA Business Journal-Synovate annual survey has found.
WORKCOVER:
MORE than 40 per cent think WorkCover changes will help get the injured back to work within six months compared to 27 per cent who think the changes won’t help. On whether fair support would be given to injured workers after the changes, 38 per cent said ‘‘yes’’ and 40 per cent said ‘‘no’’. There was also a split on the overall question of support for the reforms, with 44 per cent on each side and 12 per cent undecided.
MICHAEL OWEN
POLITICAL REPORTER
SERIOUS conflict of interest allegations levelled at a WorkCover board member during a parliamentary inquiry should be fully investigated, a State MP says.
Parliament's Statutory Authorities Review Committee, inquiring this week into the WorkCover Corporation, heard evidence that board member Sandra De Poi "has a conflict of interest".
Ms De Poi is managing director of De Poi Consultancy Services, an Adelaide-based workplace injury management and occupational re-habilitation provider.
Government records show that since the 2004-05 financial year, her company has received more than $6.2 million in contracts through WorkCover.
Ms De Poi, who last year was romantically linked with Labor backbencher Leon Bignell, yesterday was in meetings and unavailable for comment.
But Liberal Upper House MP Rob Lucas yesterday said claims made about Ms De Poi by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union officer Les Birch had to be "thoroughly" investigated.
Mr Birch told a parliamentary committee hearing that Ms De Poi should be removed from the Work-Cover board.
"How is it not a conflict of interest to have on the board a person who obtains around 12 per cent of all rehabilitation provider services in this state?" Mr Birch asked.
He said Ms De Poi's company had been "shown favouritism for many years".
"The reality is ... that the proprietor of that organisation has a very good relationship with politicians in the Labor Party," Mr Birch said. "I suggest that that is probably one of the main reasons she gets such a huge amount of work."
Mr Birch indicated to the committee he had copies of correspondence with WorkCover and Ms De Poi outlining concerns about the issues.
"He (Mr Birch) has agreed to provide copies of all such corre¬spondence to the committee," Mr Lucas said.
"While reserving a final view on the accuracy of these serious claims, it is my view that they must be investigated by the Statutory Authorities Review Committee and WorkCover management and the Rann Government must also respond to these claims."
Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright yesterday said Ms DC Poi was appointed to the board because of her experience in rehabilitation.
"The management of the transactions (between WorkCover and De Poi Consultancy Services) is a matter for the WorkCover board."
Well Mr Wright hit the nail on the head when he said it is WorkCover's problem.
Obviously many have been questioning the behind the scenes deals that go on through the labor camp and Workcover. Perhaps now some of the truth may come to light.
Evidence to a Parliamentary Inquiry alleging conflict of interest and favouritism in contracts being awarded by WorkCover had to be investigated thoroughly, Liberal Member of the Legislative Council Rob Lucas said today.
“A number of very serious claims had been made by witnesses at recent hearings of the Legislative Council Statutory Authorities Review Committee,” Mr Lucas said.
Mr L Birch: “…for many years it has been well known that De Poi Consultancy Services, which provides rehabilitation services, has not been the best organisation; in actual fact, I would not touch that company with a barge pole, to be quite frank. The reality is that she [Sandra De Poi] sits on the board and, as I said before, I believe she has a conflict of interest. She has a very good relationship with Ruth Mitchell from Employers Mutual (EML), and she has relationships with people in the Labor Party. I suggest to you that that is probably one of the main reasons she gets such a huge amount of work… …
Hon RI Lucas: “…Is it your evidence to this Committee that case managers of EML have said to you directly that they have been directed by Ruth Mitchell to use Sandra De Poi for certain –
Mr L Birch: “That’s right.”
(Hansard, 7 July 2008, Les Birch, Workers Compensation Advocate, CFMEU (SA Division)
Ms R Mckenzie-Ferguson: “Yes, certain providers are favoured by WorkCover and EML. They seem to be very well represented on the WorkCover Board.
Hon RI Lucas: “Are you referring to Sandy De Poi’s company?
Ms R Mckenzie-Ferguson: “Yes.”
(Hansard, 14 July 2008, Rosemary Mckenzie-Ferguson, Founder, Work Injured Resource Connection)
Ms A Costa: “…we have an industry that, despite a number of reviews of rehabilitation, still functions on favouritism and there is no independence in selection of providers, despite what we hear.”
(Hansard, 7 July 2008, Andrea Costa, Rehabilitation Provider, Costa Pericles Consultancy)
“It should be noted that the last three Annual Reports of WorkCover report that Ms De Poi’s company received a total $6,237,809 in contracts through WorkCover,” he said.
“In his evidence to the meeting of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, Mr Les Birch indicated he had copies of correspondence with WorkCover and Ms De Poi outlining his concerns about these issues.
“Mr Birch has agreed to provide copies of all such correspondence to the Committee.
“Whilst reserving a final view on the accuracy of these serious claims, it is my view that they must be investigated by the Statutory Authorities Review Committee and WorkCover management and the Rann Government must also respond to these claims.
“In particular, have these concerns ever been raised with Premier Rann or Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright and, if so, what action did they take?”
A full independent investigation should be conducted to discover just how much money corrupt board member Sandra De Poi has made from these contracts, and if found her and her company has indeed profited from the rehabilitation of injured workers while she was a board member her company should be made to pay every cent of it back to WorkCover and she should be removed from the board immediately. It has been very well known that De Poi has been favoured by WorkCover's claims agent EML for quite some time and the truth is only just starting to come out to the public.
De Poi did a section 38 reveiw and i did not find them to be all that reasonable. Little did I know the owner of that company was on the WorkCover board.
my experence with de pois was horrible. they were trying to force me to do work I wasnt even suited for and didnt seem interest at all in my injury even teling me ignor my doctors advise now I see why they just wanted to make $. all gloss and no substance. cant belive workcover have alowed this to happen!!!
I had De Poi as a rehab consultant for about 12 months, they were not really concerned about my well being, in fact they made my condition worse. I hated going into their offices. Having said that, other companies like Applied and IQ were just as bad......
With all the committees and boards Sandra De Poi is on, looks she isn't just brown-nosing with Labor party politicians such as her lovvy Bignell. No wonder her rehab company is known as one of the worst in the industry, she doesn't have anytime to run it - with all her board and commitee duties, not to mention hanging out with her mates such as EML's Ruth Mitchell and wineing and dining Adelaide's business community... No wonder the recent WorkCover changes are pro-employers. She would have got alot of kickbacks from them. Ah gotta love WorkCover corruption.
I have noticed Ruth Mitchell's name here a few times. I had dealings with her some time ago when I was injured and i found the experience as very unpleasant. Actually I would say my claim went further than it did because of it. I could not understand the motive behind it because it would have caused more costs to WorkCover and I was on the system longer. Thank god i received a redemption and got off the system!
Posted by she knows you (maybe) at 9:12 AM, 18/7/2008
ive had dealings with ruth mitchell too. totally arrogant and a nasty piece of work. i have a friend who works at an interstate EML and they said here in south australia they basically just employed the case mangers and management from the other insurance agents, hence the same people who stuffed up workers comp here and let it get where it is are still in control of it. also the new case managers they employ here havent even got the qualifications to deal with workers injurys, if you have a look at the advertiser careers section etc they are always advertising for case managers, no experience or qualifications necessary and they put them through inhouse training for a few weeks, hence they learn the same crap from people like ruth mitchell. workcover will probably end up blaming EML for everything and take away their contract, but the real problem is how corrupted the workcover board is and their "friendships" with EML management it seems - it is totally impeding on injured workers and their right to a fair and successfully rehabilitation, not to mention the workcover liability because these "friendships" are causing cases to be sent to companies like de pois who obviously dont have a good stance when it comes to getting people back to work, if they did the liability wouldnt be so high - after all workcover have paid de poi consultancy over 6 million dollars in contracts for the past 3 years - and what have they gotten from it? if they were doing their work and getting people off the system or back to work the liability wouldn't have increased in those 3 years.
The scheme will never improve unless the dead wood is removed. Here is an extract of WorkCovers StrategicPlan:
We conduct ourselves
with integrity by:
• Being open, honest and consistent
• Delivering sustainable solutions
• Being fair and respectful
• Having the courage to make difficult decisions
• Doing what we say we will do
Just a load of crap if nothing is done to remove the previous practises. And leaving it the way it is will only make it worse. Its the boards decision to make it right.
It's hard to get rid of dead wood (aka Sandra and Co.) when they donate alot of money to the Labor party. I think we all know too well how Mike Rann like's to help out his "mates", especially when they help fund his campaigns and sleep with his ministers.
My husband has a very good rehabilitation consultant with one of the rehab companies. After he went through a section 58 and involvement with the employer was terminated the consultant immediately found out what type of work he was interested in and began looking for work for him. His case manager at eml (hes had 4 different case managers in the last 3 months) denied all requests for retraining and also tried to make my husband change rehab consultants telling my husband they didnt think the current one was any good, but he insisted we stay. Anyway the rehab consultant has found my husband full time employment in a field he loves and we are very grateful for all she's done. We had a meeting with her yesterday and she made it clear she is steering away from workcover work, indirectly saying its too corrupted with eml and that it all goes against the injured worker now. Its a real shame as the system obviously needs more people like her. I just wanted to share a positive rehab story with you all and let you know there are people who do good work, i also suggest people do some research on rehab companies and find one that wont treat you like a number. I certainly wouldnt go to the de poi one mentione above, sounds very shady.
I have to agree with the above comment. There are good rehabilitation consultants who just want to do the right thing by helping injured workers back to work. Some of the larger companies unfortunately have other agendas and all this does is reflect on the mis trust from the worker. It is very unproductive.
The case manager's way of thinking has to change just as the rehab consultants in question even more now that injured workers only have a limited time to get it right.
Posted by dont pick a company that does sec38's at 3:02 PM, 19/7/2008
How the hell can you defend a board member who's rehab company has made 6.5 million dollars off the misery of injured workers. Any worker who has or is with De Poi should seek legal advice and sue workcover for allowing this major conflict of interest.
Posted by Elaine Soloman former EML manager now working for De Poi at 6:00 PM, 19/7/2008
WorkCover board members:
Bruce Carter
Barbara Rajkowska
Jim Wright (Board observer)
Jim Watson
Philip Bentley
Janet Giles
Sandra De Poi
Peter Vaughan
Jane Tongs
Tom Phillips
Q.How many profit from "personal" interest?
A.One, Sandra De Poi
i saw an workcover doctor this week and questioned some of the questions eml had asked him, he replied in saying he used to brief case managers on his specialised area and writing reports. He said that things would be ok for a few months and then the case managers would go back to their old habits. all this would do is create a dog fight between doctors.
A friend gave me the link to this blog and the comments ive read here are so spot on. I'm a Claims Assistant at Employers Mutual and have been for a few months though im currently looking for other work outside of workers comp because to be honest its just all bullshit. Firstly case managers arent generally to blame for decisions relating to the worker, all case managers follow the orders of middle management and they are a major problem in all this. Im talking about your Ruth Mitchells and Mark Mckies. They order case managers what to do, as do senior case managers who are remnants from the other claims agents before Employers Mutual. The term case manager is just a label, most arent managers at all just lackies for middle management. Secondly, Employers Mutual is extremely antiworker. Its pretty much drilled into us by management that we are there to please the employer and get people off the system as soon as possible to make Employers Mutual and Workcover's stats look good. A case manager I assist was told by Ruth Mitchell that we are there to assist the employer and Workcover and get rid of "bludgers" as soon as possibly. Thirdly Employers Mutual recently set up a system to stop injured workers from choosing their rehabilitation provider. It was all done very secretly and 20 and of 40-so providers were chosen as Employers Mutuals key rehabilitation providers. These providers were chosen because they work FOR Employers Mutual with no independence. One of the providers is De Poi and Sandra De Poi is well known around Employers Mutual as the "queen bee". A majority of injured workers are sent to her company. Case managers have been specifically told by Ruth Mitchell that they are not to direct cases to any rehabilitation provider NOT part of their favoured group, and to even go as far as badmouth providers to employers and workers to sway requests. This has all been set up to ensure injured workers get as less rights and no say in their rehabilitation process. I suggest if you have any complaints with Employers Mutual or wish to send your comments or views directly to them to email: r.mitchell@employersmutualsa.com.au, r.hilton@employersmutualsa.com.au (hes in charge of the rehabilation provider aspect and is the manager in charge of Employers Mutuals 20 key rehabilitation providers). I wont be working a Employers Mutual by the end of the month. I just cant stand working for such a company anymore, its vile and full of management that lies and decieves.
Someone stated that Workcover conduct themselves
with integrity by:
• Being open, honest and consistent.
• Delivering sustainable solutions
• Being fair and respectful
• Having the courage to make difficult decisions
• Doing what we say we will do.
These statements are obviously intended to give injured workers and employers a warm fuzzy feeling that Workcover are really honest and trying to help them.
This is the biggest corporate lie there ever was.
Just ask any injured worker about the dishonesty, the false or misleading statements made to doctors, the unfairness in dealing with their claims, the lack of decisions made, and the failure to do anything they say they will do.
The incompetence of Workcover in its track history with its unfunded liability and the thousands of disgruntled workers is testimony in itself.
While Sandra De Poi is a problem with her conflicts of interest, the fact that she has the support of Bruce Carter shows it's the ENTIRE board that has been corrupted. The only way to fix our workers comp is to get rid of the entire board and anyone with personal links to them including EML management. What needs to be brought in is people with experience but without conflicts, with regular independent reviews with reports made public. The major issue creating mistrust in Workcover is all the secret backdoor deals it does that goes against injured workers and the fact nothing is transparent.
im a rehab consultant and let me tell you we arent evil henchman. im under alot of stress at the moment and am close to a nervous breakdown because of employers mutual ltd. every monday morning i wake up and i dont want to go into work anymore, it sickens me that i have to. i used to enjoy my job too. now i pretty much have to do what my employer tells me too and because they are one of eml's key rehab providers we do everything eml wants. its hell. it has taken its toll on my health too. we arent all bad please dont paint us such. eml are the bad guys and if you want to get any work from them you have to do what they say.
Workcover and empployers mutual limited r crooked as!! I had a back njury and after months of eml stuffing me around and being lied to by case managers and the rehab consultanct (appilied innovative!) i came out with a psychological injury too so depressed and feeling worthless. i hate them, all!
Barbara, my experience with Applied wasnt very good. I actually made a complaint and my case manager at the time transferred me to another company. Speaking of senior case managers, does anybody know if Wayne Hodshon works for EML?
Now that the Nominations for the Recovery and Return to Work Awards has finally closed, I am wondering how long WorkCover willl run the advertisements for. Last year they ran for months after the nominations closed. Lots of money spent that could go to rehabilitation or even more important training case managers to be more professional.
Do not trust Workcover or EML they are LIARS!!! Get a lawyer if you ever go on WorkCover! And Sandra De Poi is nothing but a selfish greedy old hag! She has her greedy hands in EVERYTHING. She even has to steal people's husbands to be happy, the sad TART.
I just wonder if staff from De Poi give any information to private investigators or not? I used to see another rehab who had a mouse pad with a well known PI agency on it. I lost all confidence that day, I tell you.
Seems like employers will have to carry the burden of injured workers.
Conclusions
89 The worker is entitled to top up payments for two hours per day from 18 July 2005 to 9 September 2005, and top up payments for one hour per day from that date until 9 October 2005 in accordance with Dr Brown’s relevant prescribed medical certificates.
90 The worker has been fit to work eight hours per day five days per week from 9 October 2005 to the present time and she continues to be fit for such hours of work as long as her current physical restrictions remain in place and as long as she is self paced with no production target, can have a break of five minutes every hour and is free to move from her bench to change her position as required during the shift.
How come the pay slips are sent weekly instead of fortnightly now? If Ms Davisons figures are correct in that there are 36,000 injured workers receiving benefits, then this would equate to $18,000 of postal charges extra per fortnight.
Section 8, Point 2b of the WorkCover Corporation Act 1994 clearly states that a WorkCover Board member cannot profit from any WorkCover contracts: http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/WORKCOVER%20CORPORATION%20ACT%201994/CURRENT/1994.51.UN.PDF
So why does WorkCover's own documents (the last 3 Annual Reports) show that a board member's own rehabilitation company has profited over $6.3 million in WorkCover contracts?
It is exactly these kind of revelations that prove that we need a viable and truly independent authority in this state to stop persons such as Sandra De Poi who have close government contacts from corrupting government organisations such as WorkCover.
Posted by Independant Enquiry Needed at 3:23 PM, 23/7/2008
Workcover must have spent close to if not more than a Million dollars prosecuting Thompson. Its obviously been bungled with their witnesses being found to have committed perjury.
Well done Bruce. Certainly takes talent to spend that much in a witch hunt on one injured worker.
Its obvious that Workcover were only taregting him because he spoke out in the media about Workcover blowing money on surveillance and investigations.
I have just read the Thompson case on austLii. I cant believe they used the reason that Thompson was caught reading a road map which identified him as a fraud. Come on can reading a road map cause $$$$$ of legal fees. WorkCover have allowed me to do a WEA course for my rehab, I hope they dont press charges.
Thats just crap..the Judge said also about the map reading and Dr Lunn "While I have concerns about the manner and timing of this witness’ evidence,"
Manner and timing means he could have been put up to saying that or that he was somewhat influenced.
Not unlikely the way the Workcover investigators go about their business. One could hardly call them Honest and as for integrity-they are severely lacking same as their lawyers who did not provide his evidence until a year after the prosecution case closed.
There are other telling paragraphs.
101 On the hearing of this appeal much attention was focussed on the minutiae of the many and varied complaints of the appellant. Some of the more serious complaints are:
· the failure by the magistrate to grant adjournment applications made between 17 March 2005 up to and including 3 January 2006;
· the failure to produce documents relevant to the cross examination of a number of prosecution witnesses including Faggoter, Daniel, Hazell, N and L Pope, Briscoe, Gadd, Denson and Wong;
· the refusal of the magistrate to give leave to the appellant to issue subpoenas for the production of documents and for the calling of witnesses; and
· the failure, in all of the circumstances of the magistrate to give the appellant sufficient time in order to prepare for cross examination, especially in relation to the expert witnesses.
102 In addition, the appellant complained that at the time, he was unaware of his right to challenge the expert opinion expressed by Dr Lunn, and that he was required to cross examine other experts such as Dr Acott at times when he was suffering from headaches and was not in a fit state to concentrate. The appellant also says that he was unaware that he was able to cross examine his own psychiatrist Dr Griffin on the totality of his appointments with him. It was not just confined as he thought during the cross examination, to the attendances out of which charges had arisen.
103 One example the appellant proffered in relation to the effect of the failure of the respondent to give timely discovery, is contained in the affidavit of Mr Cronshaw dated 7 February 2008. In that affidavit the appellant’s solicitor attests to his attempts to communicate with the Adelaide Magistrates Court during the period of adjournment between 11 December 2006 and 10 January 2007 about the provision of documents which had been obtained as a result of subpoenas issued earlier that year. That affidavit attests to the receipt of a number of documents supplied well after the prosecution closed its case in January 2006 but before the resumption of the trial in April 2007. The affidavit is replete with examples of documents which, had they been supplied prior to the commencement of the trial in October 2005, would have been of assistance in cross examination of a number of witnesses including Dr Lunn, Dr Wong, Dr Acott and Dr Williamson.
and who is Ms Hazell-
130 It was open in any event to the magistrate to accept or reject the whole or any part of this witness’ evidence. There is no basis to conclude that he inappropriately relied on any aspect of this witness’ evidence, even taking into account that she admitted perjury during the course of the evidence. This ground of appeal has not been made out.
And what of the $30000 spent on surveillance overseas?
Well we now know there is three seconds of video showing him reading a map. How probative..
199 In the course of reviewing the evidence I viewed the video surveillance of the appellant in Europe in 2002 (C11). Even with the benefit of Mr Cowling’s evidence of the observations of the appellant whilst he was in Europe, I note that the evidence of this video surveillance as to the appellant’s reading of maps appears to have been very brief, occupying perhaps less than three seconds of the video. It is not surprising that the various expert witnesses shown the video had different views as to its significance.
The judgement of Thompson is a classic case of what Workcover does best.
If the injury does not ruin the injured workers life-workcover certainly will.
I note he suffers from depression from the viscisstudes fo life.
Perhaps its from being on Workcover for so long.. nothing dishonest about getting depressed from being stuck on workcover and being stalked and placed under surveillance for years on end and prosecuted in an unfair manner.
I can only say I feel sympathy for the guy.
Its mind boggling that they spend that much only to reveal he was reading a map. God WorkCover is an expensive joke. Is Bruce Carter going to write a letter to The Advertiser justifying this also?
How can WorkCover justify using so much funds collected from Business to use in this witch hunt? I hope Mr Vaughn is able to explain this to his members.
They spent in excess of $1 million to investigate someone who had depression and bends and the investigations were completely flawed! OMG no wonder the comp system here in SA is so royally screwed up! Surely that money would have been better spent on training and getting injured people back to work? Why is the board never accountable for these idiotic decisions costing employers and the workers comp scheme so much money?
Posted by $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ at 11:19 AM, 24/7/2008
I am shocked that they can spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$ on this case when the money could have gone to more return to work award advertisements. ha ha ha ha..........
$1 million to recover $11522 from an injured worker?
He was found guilty in the Adelaide Magistrate's Court on Thursday of 16 counts of dishonestly obtaining $11,522 in payments between October 2002 and July 2004.
They spent a million dollars- have hounded him and his family for years withheld all of his evdiecne and their witnesses comitted perjury during the trial.
Then it seems he still suffers depression -most likely from his injury and the way workcover are treating him..
Thats rehab the Workcover way...If he was injured in 1994 why is he still on Workcover and why do Workcover not let him get on with his life??.
As an injured worker who has a serious injury cannot understand why so much money was spent on this guys case. I have asked help for my home duties and rejected, I have asked for extra rehabilitation and that too was rejected.
I can understand if an injured worker was receiving remuneration plus working for cash, or faking reciepts should be jailed but to say someone is faking because they dont look or act injured is totally wrong.
One wonders the real reason WorkCover are in debt.
Workcover loves wasting money, if not millions of dollars being handed to board members rehab companies then millions being wasted on investigations when workcover's own statistics show worker fraud is actually quite low. Not to mention the amount of money workcover has spent on 1) slightly changing its logo 2) misleading media advertisements and 3) the laughable "return to work awards". If they spent all that money on retraining and effective rehabilitation the SA workers comp system wouldnt be down the shit creek it is. But is anyone accountable?
If Workcover spent the same resources headhubting its unjured wrkers suspected of fraud as its own investigation team it woudl probably be more sauccessful.
With False or misleading statementsa by its investigators or solicitors to experts, destruction of records, breaches of confidentiality just to name a few. Problem is that injured workers get placed under so much pressure with vast amounts of resources on witchhunts against them that they have little opportunity of kicking back.
Perhaps what goes around will come around for some one day..
The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:15): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Mineral Resources Development, representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, a question in relation to WorkCover rehabilitation providers.
Leave granted.
The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: On 16 July 2000, the Advertiser published an article regarding Ms Sandra De Poi, and allegations of a conflict of interest. Ms De Poi, a member of the WorkCover Board, is also the managing director of De Poi Consultancy Services, which is an Adelaide-based workplace injury management and occupational rehabilitation provider.
The article states that De Poi Consultancy Services has received over $6.2 million in contracts from WorkCover referrals since the 2004-05 financial year. Last financial year, all rehabilitation providers were allocated work on a rotational basis. I am advised that case managers were able to override this process at their discretion and allocate work to any rehabilitation provider. I am further advised that De Poi Consultancy Services was exempt from this rotational referral process.
This financial year, work has been allocated to rehabilitation providers, based on their performance which is determined by the CAPO system. This system uses certain variables such as cost and return-to-work statistics to establish the performance of each registered rehabilitation provider against other registered rehabilitation providers. I am advised that the only rehabilitation providers who are excluded from this referral process are those smaller rehabilitation providers who did not receive enough referrals in the past to have a large enough sample size. My questions are:
1.Can the minister confirm whether De Poi Consultancy Services was exempt from the rotational referral system used in previous years?
2.If so, can the minister provide an explanation as to why this was the case?
3.Are De Poi Consultancy Services current referrals from WorkCover based on the CAPO system?
4.Does De Poi Consultancy Services meet or exceed industry benchmarks standards in its return-to-work outcomes?
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:17): I will refer that question to my colleague in another place and bring back a reply.
Above comment. I now have every reason to doubt the integrity of rehabilitation companies.
Seems that the WorkCover problem(s) are not going to go away. It is interesting to read that rehabilitation consultants are rewarded by pushing injured workers off the system and now I know why I have had 6 rehabilitation consultants in the last two years. If only they would listen to the Doctors and understand my incapacity. Having said that, I am yet to be assigned to De Poi as deep down they know I am not easy to be pushed away.
I work for a rehab provider and i can tell you ONLY EML's chosen providers are recieving referrals based on return to work (and the fact they are EML chosen) and that the above mentioned "referral rotational system" NEVER EXISTED.
The rehab provider I work for has gotten many injured workers back to work and has an exceptional return to work rate, we dont just push people into jobs they dont want to do. Unfortunately because we arent a chosen provider we rarely recieve work from EML and are discriminated against. So please dont put all rehab providers in a "bad egg" basket.
De Poi also does S38 reviews to push injured workers off the system.
Wonder what transparency and accountability is in place if a Board Member has an interest in De Poi.
Well of course a few heads might be turned if some things are not all above board and nobody will say anything about it..
How can Janet Giles now claim she is so passionate about helping injured workers?
How can Janet Giles now claim she is so passionate about helping injured workers?
I am amazed at how she has turned around and now wants to help injured workers, Was she not on the board that was crucyfing injured workers ?
As many may not know. The Board regularly intervenes and gives directions to Workcover employees about injured workers personal claims and recommends different actions, ie prosecutions and progressing their claims.
While many may think the Board should stick to the job of managing workcover instead of managing claims which is the job of EML the real issue is how can a person who has been a part of that ever be excused from the pain and agony inflcited on so many injured workers and their families through their targeting of innocent workers.
It does not surprise me that De Poi have been found out. I have had some very unpleasant experience with this company who had no interest in my health whats so ever.
ICA4SA Janet Giles has never been for workers, in fact she's from a faction of unionism that just sits backs and allows workers to be trampled over. Janet Giles ONLY resigned from the WorkCover Board because she knew she would be extremely criticised and howled out of the unions if she stayed on the Board under this legislation. If Janet Giles was so FOR workers then why did she 1) Only resign just weeks before the new amendments went through, even though she knew full well months beforehand what was recommended, and why has she not 2) Criticised the Board for allowing conflicts of interests that a detrimental to a fair rehabilitation for injured workers? Why have we heard not ANYTHING from her in the last few weeks voicing her disgust that a Board member has obvious conflicts of interests?
I'll tell you why because good old Janet Giles sat on the WorkCover Board for several years with her great friend Sandra De Poi while WorkCover and EML treated the workers she claims to hold so dear like complete scum, making their lives living hell and adding some psychological injuries along the way.
Janet Giles is a traitor to all workers, injuries or not, and nothing but a rightwing union show pony working for union factions that ARE NOT in the best interest of the worker, and you'll find that several unions have nothing but contempt for her.
The above comment made a good point. She should have put her foot down years ago as the problem with the WorkCover culture has been there for the whole time she was on the board. It is the workers who had been suffering and she was there to represent the workers.
There should be a royal commission into the entire workcover corporation, lets find out just how deep the corruption runs, and then lets weed out the rot. Unfortunately people like Sandra De Poi donate alot of money to the state Labor party, hence why the board has never been sacked and why her rehab company has recieved $6.3 million in contracts in the last 3 years. There will never be any royal commissions into workcover while Labor is in power, Rann wants to protect his friends.
What a witch hunt of a depressed and injured worker.
I read the case of Thompson. I did not appreciate how he is suffering from depression which the magistrate did not even bother to isolate as caused by his injury or not- but seems on reading it that his injury caused depression.
What the hell are they going after him for?
They have spent a million dollars on prosecuting him and it has to go back to the start again, I guess second time around a few witnesses will be missing like the ex wife hazell who committed perjury, although he might be able to get basey back into the box to ask about the use of section 110 of the act.
There were lots of issues raised by this guy with parliament. Obviously bruce and his mates on the board got a bee in their bonnets and went after him.
I note also they are still advertising the fact he was convicted on their website and they even published an article about him in their ohs newsletter that went to employers I wonder if they will ever put in an article which spells out the truth that they wasted a million dollars prosecuting him. At least the workcover lawyers had a picnic...making an injured worker represnt himself, why did'nt they back down? Perhaps they were simply after the media attention of a conviction-seems much like a david v goliath battle. A depressed injured worker against a large law firm and workcover with unlimited funding and unlimited lawyers.
Its obvious that they messed up, did not give him a fair trial and that they promised to call witnesses but did not and then that some of their witnesses committed perjury.
And on top of all of that he is suffering from depression caused by his injury. Just goes to show they do not care about injured workers one bit..othersie they would have given him a redemption years ago insetad of putting him and his family through hell.
I wonder if they will ever replace his Family Home that he had to sell because they cut his pay off illegally.( see Thompson vs Workcover in the Industrial court site).
This highlights what the changes are going to do..
Perhaps a royal commission into his case and easlings would not go astray..
To G Sawley, this case sounds very similar to the Tom Easling case. Mr Easling was very fortunate to have financial backing from his brother to fight his innocence. If this isnt corruption at its best then what is?
There would never be a royal commission into workcover. Both Labor and Liberal have accepted the legislative changes which take away the rights of injured workers.
Besides both sides are happy to effectively tax employers in an indirect way and create an economic monster like Workcover. The public surely must wonder where all the money really goes. Its certainly not going to the injured workers. Thompson is a classic case-lost his home, no income for years and the lawyers and investigators have made a million dollars. Not to mention that all of the employees at Workcover and EML have had their income also.
Now really is that what Workcover was really set up for?
Posted by Peter Davis. Mawson Lakes at 1:08 PM, 27/7/2008
I have to agree with P Davis. There will be no inquiry because a lot of people have made money from the Thompson case, first we have the lawyers and the investigators. Money that was paid to these are directly from business pocket. WorkCover was not intended to use Business levies for a witch hunt. Some of the comments on here confirm board members also knew about this witch hunt as well which would have to question if Business SA knew where the funds were going.
Isnt someone from Business SA on the board? I believe so. And we have someone who is director of their own rehab company on the board. Looks like lots of money is to be made from the misery of injured workers.
Isnt someone from Business SA on the board? I believe so. And we have someone who is director of their own rehab company on the board. Looks like lots of money is to be made from the misery of injured workers.
Thompson targetted because of complaint against Workcoveronly
Its obvious in reading some of the earlier posts on this blog and in Hansard that Thompson was targetted by Workcover for complaining about them in the first place to members of parliament Iain Evans and Angus Redford.
Why else would they pursue someone who suffers depression and why would they pursue him if they knew that their witnesses committed perjury?
Just shows how the Whistleblowers protection Act does not work in South Australia because he surely has been targeted for speaking out against the system.
Its a sorry day when an injured worker has to sell his family home because Workcover goes on a witchhunt because someone has complained to their MP about how Workcover is wasting their money.
Surely Thompson cant be tried again with the evidence that was used in the earlier hearings, it proved to be wrong?
Surely not WorkCover could be so stubborn in throwing away more money in a witch hunt in a year that it has complained they are in debt and made 5000 injured workers suffer in the reforms?
"I am advised that the only rehabilitation providers who are excluded from this referral process are those smaller rehabilitation providers who did not receive enough referrals in the past to have a large enough sample size."
- Why are smaller rehabilitation providers not recieving enough referrals? I know of at least 2 smaller rehabilitation providers with excellent return to work rates who have ample enough room for more referrals, but because they are being excluded by Employers Mutual Limited they are not receiving any. Why is this? I though referrals were based on return to work outcomes?
"Can the minister confirm whether De Poi Consultancy Services was exempt from the rotational referral system used in previous years?"
"If so, can the minister provide an explanation as to why this was the case?"
- Yes why was De Poi Consultancy Services exempt from a referral rotational system? Is it because 1) The rotational system never actually existed? (If you ask any provider, they will tell you that they have never recieved any evidence or any explanation as to the existence of a rotational system), or is it 2) Because De Poi Consultancy Services automatically recieves regular referrals from Employers Mutual Limited because it's director is a WorkCover Board member?
"Are De Poi Consultancy Services current referrals from WorkCover based on the CAPO system?"
- This is doubtful as it is well known around rehabilitation circles that De Poi Consultancy Services has a VERY POOR return to work rate, and is more interested in cutting injured workers benefits. De Poi should provide Hansard and parliamentary members with all of it's monthly statistics for the past 2 years which will show just how low it's return to work rate really is.
"Does De Poi Consultancy Services meet or exceed industry benchmarks standards in its return-to-work outcomes?"
- Again, doubtful. As said De Poit Consultancy services is only known in rehabilitation circles for getting referrals from Employers Mutual Limited because it's director is a WorkCover Board member and good friend of Ruth Mitchell.
"The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:17): I will refer that question to my colleague in another place and bring back a reply."
- Who is your colleague in another place Mr. Holloway? Could this be a senior manager in Employers Mutual Limited or is your "colleague" a member of Business SA, thus a good friend of Ms. Sandra De Poi? We would certainly like to know who this "colleague" is.
To Insider, as an injured worker myself you seem to have genuine knowledge of the rehabilitation industry and respect your comments. I would like to thank you for your input as it does seem there are genuine consultants whose main agenda is getting the worker back to life and return them to the work force. Something I would think the system should be all about.
for those in the government who think that they have beaten injured workers overlooked a loophole, or a get out of jail free card...the so-called medical panels at 130 weeks will just say that yes the injured worker has capacity to work, but sec 26 of the legislation then requires the boffins who are truly responsible for the blow out - WorkCover, EML and all the so called rehab providers to actually provide them with the work that their own system says that they can do. if the system refuses to comply, then the injured worker can and will lodge a notice of dispute for failure to comply with the legislation. don't take my word for it, ask your lawyer. I am looking forward to a very short term in office for the new Minister Caica as he takes the fall for Michael Wright. Bye Bye Mike and the Muddlers.
Posted by: Still Injured of 4:58pm today
Comment 56 of 56
Injured Worker, there are a number of us who work in workers compensation who are disgusted with what's happening with the system, especially with the unfairness and bias against injured workers which is happening specifically because Workcover board members are thoroughly corrupted in favour of employers or are working for their own conflicts of interests, we have seen a system get worse and worse under the current board which is not transparent as it claims. The Workcover board has been confronted with many concerns which they have chosen to ignore, and EML is just the same shit wrapped in a different packadge with the strings being pulled by specific board members who only wish to further their own interests. My advice to any injured worker is to pair up with a lawyer or an advocate, because of EML and Workcovers negligence which is widespread (such as EML constantly misplacing documents and case managers having no qualifications and little hands on knowledge in dealing with compensation issues), many injured workers can easily fight and win cases. In the next year or so you watch Workcover cases flood the tribunal and win due to EML'S incompetence. And if your rehab provider tries to section38 you tell them to piss off get a lawyer and also seek advice as to the FAIR rehab providers, no matter what EML tells you, you have the right to choose who rehabilitates you and you have the right to have a fair go in getting rehabilitated and succesfully return to work and get on with your life. Dont let Workcover or EML tell you what to do. Know your rights.
I was sec 38ed 2 and guess who by, yes thats right de poi consultancy services! I was told the system didnt owe me anything and i had to do whatever job they found me. Luckily i had a friend who had a business and they offered me work within my capacity and i was able 2 get off the system. De poi were ruthless and nasty and it all makes sense now they worked directly 4 workcover!
As an injured worker i would like to thank the persons who made the two above comments. I would like to add that this is not about staying on the system, or the fear of getting kicked off. This is about fairness in rehabilitation and placed in a suitable job environement. I think I can speak for 99.9% of injured workers that if these two requirements were adhered too as stipulated in the former and reformed acts would have been more of a positive result for the injured worker and WorkCover as a whole.
I read the recent thomson decision and it says he was doing a tafe course. how can workcover boast about its rehab when its trying to convict injured workers of fraud for doing courses at tafe. Seems that they need to separate out what it is they actually do.
1- rehab or bully injured workers
or restore injured workers as much as possible to their pre condition state of health and employment.
seems that there are too many investigators and lawyers and not enough people actually restoring injured workers back to pre injury status.
typical of a gov t department with poor management and no accountability.
I pushed to be retrained some time ago as the job matching was not paying the same remuneration. I finally got my case manger to accept a TAFE course as part of my rehabilitation. i was told it was special and i was very lucky. When I started I actually met 6 other students on workcover. This was the worst experience i ever had as my rehab at the time treated me like I was a criminal. Not only did i have to endure the pressure of studying after 25 years, the amount of pressure from the rehab was too much to handle it made me pull out of the course. Even the lecturers could not believe the bullying i was receiving.
The problem with rehabilitation is that Workcover have made it so that the only rehab providers that get work are the ones that do EML's bidding and do whatever the case managers tell them to do. Thus rehabilitation itself has been corrupted because these rehab providers sell out their ethics just so they can survive and make money. Meanwhile the rehab providers who do real rehabilitation are excluded and are now turning their backs on Workcover work and moving into the exempt workers comp system. This is what happens when the Workcover board is given a free ride to corrupt the system with conflicts of interests and puppeteering its sole claims agent, and in the end its not just the workers who suffer althought they are far worse off, honest employers and the state suffers due to the increasing financial liabilities created by Workcover's corruption.
I answered one of employers mutual limited's adverts for a case manager in The Advertiser a few months ago and went for a few interviews before they began training me. I was a trainee case manager. Let me tell you not only did not they not care that I no experience in claims agents at all or any knowledge of the workers compensation system, but as soon as I started it was drilled into me by employers mutual limited's management and the senior case manager I was assisting that injured workers are all moochers who treat it as a pension. I was only there for 2 months but I came out feeling very sorry for injured workers and the way they are treated by workcover and the system. A someone mentioned here, like criminals and that's exactly how eml tells it's case managers to treat injured workers. I notice Ruth Mitchell was mentioned above too, she should change her first name to Ruthless, because she is a total monster who seems to have it in for injured workers. Found this site via google.
Long Term Claims
We do not have any long term claims that involve
workers who are happy to be on the scheme
The complications unrelated to the injury are significant
Depression
Breakdown in family and social networks
Unrelated poor health outcomes
Common Causes
Poor case management
Breakdown in the employment relationship (industrial
relations issues)
Poor medical management
Culture of ‘entitlement’ rather than ‘return to work’
Disputation
Very few Long Term Claims are a result of catastrophic
injuries
Posted by Poor case management at 10:10 AM, 30/7/2008
Who in ther right mind would stay on a system that gaurentees.
The complications unrelated to the injury are significant
Depression
Breakdown in family and social networks
Unrelated poor health outcomes
Just proves that it is not the worker that is to blame but the system.
UNION BOSS BETRAYS WORKERS FOR A MEASLEY $50 GRAND A YEAR
THE state's most powerful union boss, from a Labor faction that offered crucial support for the Government's WorkCover laws, has been given a $50,000-a-year post on the WorkCover board.
The Advertiser understands Peter Malinauskas, who replaced Right factional heavyweight Senator Don Farrell as secretary of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, will be appointed within weeks.
The deal to get Mr Malinauskas on the board was secured this month by former industrial relations minister Michael Wright, a member of the Right, before he lost responsibility for WorkCover to Paul Caica, of the Left, in last week's Cabinet reshuffle.
The new WorkCover laws caused a deep factional split in the Labor Party but Premier Mike Rann won the day with the help of key Right figures in convincing ALP members the laws were necessary.
Deep divisions over WorkCover still exist.
The Government faces a censure motion, moved by the Australian Workers' Union, at the ALP state convention on August 16.
Mr Malinauskas would replace SA Unions secretary Janet Giles. She quit the board in February in protest at the new laws.
By law, the board must consist of nine members. Among requirements are that "two members must be appointed in consultation with worker interests".
Mr Caica is understood to have met the board yesterday but he would make no comment.
Mr Malinauskas yesterday said: "I have not had any discussions with the Government about this for the past fortnight. I'm still waiting and I haven't heard anything official, so I'm just not in a position to be able to provide any comment."
Opposition Upper House MP Rob Lucas said the appointment was "typical of the Rann Government's arrogance when WorkCover is facing a $1 billion unfunded liability crisis".
I disagree, I think we need people appointed to the board who understand the needs of injured workers. This union boss has clearly stated he supports the legislative amendments, he is also a Labor "choice".. and look at the people Labor have already chosen to be on the board - members with conflicts of interests who have done nothing but line their pockets with money while the workers comp system goes into even deeper unfunded liability. The appointment of board members should be open to tender, with an independant tribunal set up to make appointments - not the Labor party who have chosen to only appoint "mates" to the WorkCover board.
In regards to the current WorkCover board, they should all be sacked. Immediately. Not re-appointed which Michael Wright did a few months ago.
I gather these reforms will bring out how much current injured workers have been denied rehabilitation as this would be an issue to remove current workers off the system. The fact is there has been $18 million spent on rehab with minimum result.
I have posted 2 comments on the above article on the Adelaide Now website and they have not been published (as I'm sure many havent especially when they mention specifics). Perhaps they don't like Sandra De Poi and her conflicts of interest being mentioned.
Maybe someone pulls the strings between the Advertiser and the Government? You will notice that a Advertiser reporter has the same surname as Mr Malinauskas. Not a common name
I got correspondence today from EML stating that I can not have rehabilitation with the provider of my choice because they are not "experienced enough" and I am to go to THEIR chosen provider, which happens to be a large company. Funny enough the rehab provider has been doing rehabilitation for over 20 years. Since when can't I choose who rehabilitates me? The previous providers ive been with have all been useless and the one I want is highly recommended by a family member. My lawyer will be having a field day with this.
THE State Government's "Mr Fix-it" - Bruce Carter - will step down as chairman of the WorkCover board.
The State Government will later today announce a new chairman – Philip Bentley, who also is chairman of the Thoroughbred Racing SA Board.
He also produced the Bentley Report, released last year and commissioned by the Government's Racing Minister Michael Wright, which was a review into the state of racing in South Australia.
Mr Carter will concentrate on his role as head of the Economic Development Board.
Chairman of WorkCover board Bruce Carter stepping down
Article from: The Advertiser
MICHAEL OWEN, POLITICAL REPORTER
July 31, 2008 04:00pm
THE State Government's "Mr Fix-it" - Bruce Carter - will step down as chairman of the WorkCover board.
The State Government will later today announce a new chairman – Philip Bentley, who also is chairman of the Thoroughbred Racing SA Board.
He also produced the Bentley Report, released last year and commissioned by the Government's Racing Minister Michael Wright, which was a review into the state of racing in South Australia.
Mr Carter will concentrate on his role as head of the Economic Development Board.
Bruce has displayed an exceptional ability in managing the Workcover corporation during his time as Chairman.
Including amongst other achievements.
A billion dollar unfunded liability.
Bruce is jumping ship before WorkCover crumbles. You didnt hear it from me but there is alot of tension between WorkCover and EML at the moment. WorkCover management created a monster in EML and they arent happy at all with EML's management of claims, but EML have told WorkCover to butt out and let them handle the claims independently - if you can call it that with Sandr De Poi being "queen bee" and all. Management are now looking at ways to terminate their contract with EML but know full well doing so will reveal their own incompentence, and the right wing union leader theyve brought in to replace Janet Giles is well known for doing deals with employers. So basically the WorkCover Board now comprises of pro-employer and anti-worker individuals, thus nothing has really changes. Injured workers, I would lawyer up and bring to light EML WorkCover's incompetence in the courtrooms, and believe me there's plenty of it, I see it everyday, especially the smirks on management's faces as they treat workers like fools.
I love it that within 2 hours that bruce carter quits article is moved to just 1 line down the bottom of page. Similar to the union member article where only 13 comments were allowed many others rejected. Shockingly bad journalism for such an important local issue.
Hows this for spin, they used in describing the "new" board from 2003 as the saviour of the WorkCover system when Bruce Carter was then appointed, now they are following with the new "new" board with:
Mr Caica said he was confident the new board would "ensure the sustainability of South Australia's Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme".
"This was a task begun by the board in 2003 and it will continue through the implementation of the new legislation, and into the future," he said.
Posted by flogging a dead horse at 7:37 AM, 1/8/2008
"This was a task begun by the board in 2003 and it will continue through the implementation of the new legislation, and into the future," he said.
This is a complete and utter joke. If anything the WorkCover unfunded liability was extremely better off back then than what it is now. It's only started going downhill since Mike Rann came into power and has let all his "mates" in on the action, since then we have seen a WorkCover system entirely corrupted with board members profiting from injured workers, a rehabilitation system that is based on how much you suck up to WorkCover and EML, and a bias towads employers who couldn't give a shit if workers are injured at their workplaces.
I'd say the task has failed, and no amount of shovelling right wing union leaders in WorkCover positions is going to change anything.
Posted by Not One Of Mike Rann's Mates at 8:01 AM, 1/8/2008
the bruce carter story has completely disappeared from adelaide now, even in the south australia section, it has about the uniuon boss becoming a board member, but no story on bruce carter quitting, guess mike rann made a late night call to the editor to shush it all up
Mr Vaughn keeping the industry going by spending Business's money.
You will find the story is hanging by a thread under "Major public service shake-up", but just incase here is the link.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24107192-5006301,00.html
To say the injured workers have been hard dealt with is an understatement but Business's have still been paying a high levy out of their profits which was supposed to rehabilitate the injured workers. If I was a business owner I would be asking Mr Vaughn how my money has been spent. Maybe on the Return to Work award campaign, where has the $18 million spent last year on rehab, The legal costs on the Thompson case or every claim that automatically gets rejected by EML or the huge amount of "The Facts" advertising from the reforms. Yes the workers have a right to be up in arms on not receiving adequate service but Business owners would like to have a few questions answered.
Captain Edward John Smith of the titanic ignored telegrams warning him of the ice field the Titanic approached that night. He stayed on that sinking ship. Bruce James Carter also ignored warning signs of WorkCover in 2003, slained the injured workers and then jumped ship.
It appears Bruce Carter has had a sneak preview of last year’s WorkCover financial results and rather than do the honourable thing and present them, he takes the easy way out and resigns.
Undoubtedly Bruce will have seen the enormous share market and investment losses WorkCover will be forced to admit due to the recent plunge in the share market and property trusts.
Bruce has probably also been briefed on the poor results his hand-picked Medical Board are achieving being unable the terminate the benefits of that 1/3 of one percent of workers that found themselves permanently injured at work through no fault of their own. This of course means the entire Legislative change foisted on South Australia by WorkCover’s two hundred thousand dollar media campaign will fail to deliver even a fraction of the savings Michael Wright and Bruce Carter promised ad the WorkCover debt will continue unabated to the Two Billion Dollar mark.
With Bruce realising he sold each and every member of the Labour Party and their complicit opposition a complete dud, he simply resigns “for personal reasons” leaving South Australia to carry the billion dollar burden he managed to create.
I hope each and every member of the Labour Party enjoy the ride this out of control gravy train will take them on as they head towards the next election and God help South Australia with Bruce also heading up the Economic Development Board.
I read in one of the above comments that WorkCover and EML are not agreeing with operational procedures and there is thought that WorkCover wants to cancel the contract. Go back a month or two when Bruce Carter appeared before the SARC and told them that the board head hunted EML after the close of date to apply for the contract even though another insurance company made a better proposal. Like i said, just an observation but a pretty good reason to resign.
I hope the new chairman of the WorkCover board is right in stating that his main goal is reinstating injured workers back to work. To do this he has to remove the current rehabilitation culture which is mainly scareing the injured worker into rightfully protecting their entitlements. To do this would have even improved the system in the old format.
I agree with the above comment, althought to do this i think the claims agent needs to be removed completely, and claims need to be handled in-house in Workcover. Rehabilitation needs to be independent and seperate. The way it is at the moment EML is meddling in the rehabilitation of workers, especially in its provider choices and this needs to stop. Also case managers are useless and a waste of money to employ, they cause more problems than they are worth.
Thankyou for agreeing with my comment as 99.8% of the injured workers do want to return to the workforce. yes, EML would have to go and everything should be done inhouse. Can you imagine how much money can be saved plus the effeciency rate. Whatever happened to "RISE"? Rise was a good concept but there was no money to be made by De Poi.
The problem is the employees of EML who are responsible for the incompetences will just move on to other claims agents and make other injured worker's lives hell, or worse still WorkCover will employ the same management inhouse and once again injured workers will deal with the same shit if they are on WorkCover. And your Ruth Mitchells will get plum cushy jobs at corrupt rehabilitation companies such as De Poi, much like former EML management Elaine Solomon has. How are genuine honest rehabilitation providers suppost to get any business when large rehab companies owned by WorkCover board members are employing EML staff and management who had considerable power in EML? This isnt only a threat against fair rehabilitation for genuine injured workers, its a threat against smaller and and EML's unliked providers who dont follow their dictatorship-like ways of trampling all over workers for the sake of positive statistics.
The system is like flogging a dead horse, but like the hansard system we need to keep the new chairman accountable and informed. One would have to say Bruce Carter would not have resigned if he knew his reputation was at risk. After all the board got a 3 year extension only months ago so why didnt he resign then?
Remember, flogging a dead horse will attract the scavengers and scavengers are desperate!
RELEASE DATE 06/07/2007
UPDATE: 22 July 2008
On the 22 July 2008, Mr Thompson's appeal to the Supreme Court was upheld on findings that the Magistrate failed to accord procedural fairness to Mr Thompson and failed to provide adequate reasons for his decision.
In relation to the charges brought by WorkCover, the Honourable Justice Kelly found that WorkCover's complaint was valid, there was no abuse of process by WorkCover, that WorkCover's video surveillance evidence and key medical expert's testimony were properly admissible and that Mr Thompson did have a case to answer.
Justice Kelly has remitted the case to the Adelaide Magistrates Court for re-hearing and determination before another magistrate.
182.The magistrate’s comments in paragraph 154 of the judgment do not assist in resolving this ambiguity. In my view the magistrate needed to identify at least one or more of the statements which he found to be dishonest and misleading or other conduct which he found to constitute the dishonest means, by causally linking them to the payments made in each of the counts which he found proved.
183. Furthermore, it was necessary to deal with the issue of depression as a sequela of decompression illness and its relevance, or not, as the case may be, before concluding that the appellant had acted dishonestly.
184. It appears from the reasons that the magistrate accepted that the appellant’s statements relating to the issue of depression were not made dishonestly and with intent to mislead. Apart from announcing the conclusion that the “vicissitudes of the appellant’s life may have contributed to intervention of clinical depression” it is not clear why he concluded that depression as a sequela of decompression illness, had been excluded as a reasonable possibility.
I just dont get it, the workcover site says you have to be active and staying at home is not the best thing but if tyou get injured and cant do your work and you stay active like workcover says it seems they try and treat you like a criminal. cant thompson tell the judge keeping active is what workcover encourage???
I am injured and cant do my work and i am warned all the time to be careful what i do as they will try and stop my wage. there are things i can do sometimes that seems like i can work but it doesnt happen naturaly and it hurts.
http://www.workcover.com/Home/Aboutus/News/Latestnews/Diverfoundguiltyofdishonesty.aspx
Media enquiries: Danielle Martin, WorkCover SA – (08) 8233 2381 or 0418 295 324
how can they distort the truth. the whole case should be about facts and not hiersay. did the judge kelly tell ms martin something that is not on the findings? and if she did, is martin allowed to publish it on the workcover site?
If the trial started in October 2005 how come in 2006 there were still records not supplied to Thompson?
"By 10 July 2006 the appellant had issued subpoenas. Some of the documents sought to be obtained by those subpoenas were produced by the respondent at court on 10 July 2006, however, there was a substantial list of other documents requested, but still not supplied. "
and then this comment:
101. On the hearing of this appeal much attention was focussed on the minutiae of the many and varied complaints of the appellant. Some of the more serious complaints are:
* the failure by the magistrate to grant adjournment applications made between 17 March 2005 up to and including 3 January 2006;
* the failure to produce documents relevant to the cross examination of a number of prosecution witnesses including Faggoter, Daniel, Hazell, N and L Pope, Briscoe, Gadd, Denson and Wong;
* the refusal of the magistrate to give leave to the appellant to issue subpoenas for the production of documents and for the calling of witnesses; and
* the failure, in all of the circumstances of the magistrate to give the appellant sufficient time in order to prepare for cross examination, especially in relation to the expert witnesses.
Obviously it was not just the Magistrate who ran an unfair trial- it was also encumbent on Workcover to ensure that it provided adequate discovery.
I and many other colleagues will be watching this case closely for further developments.
Thompson had been originally sentenced on 5 July 2007.THE SUPREME Court has upheld an appeal by a diver who was ordered to pay a total of $150,000 after being found guilty of 16 counts of dishonestly obtaining WorkCover SA income maintenance payments.
The court found Jeffery Ian Thompson had not been accorded procedural fairness and the sentencing magistrate had not provided adequate reasons for his decision.
However, it also found WorkCover’s case and evidence was valid and Thompson had a case to answer to.
Thompson had been originally sentenced on 5 July 2007. He was found guilty of 16 counts of dishonestly obtaining workers compensation payments, and was ordered to repay $90,000 in compensation and $60,000 in investigation and legal costs.
He was also sentenced to two years and four months’ jail.
The case stemmed from Thompson’s decompression illness claim which began in 1994. WorkCover’s investigation unit found although initially the claim was true, he had recovered by October 2002.
The heavy sentence at the time considered the loss incurred by WorkCover, other genuinely injured workers and the lack of remorse on the part of Thompson.
The case will be re-heard at Adelaide Magistrate Court
Diver wins appeal- Workcover media grab and cover up at its best
So if there is a case to answer why did the Magistrate not give sufficient reasons?
What of all the adjournments that were refused.
Is everyone simply assuming the Magistrate acted of his own on this account?
Surely this was Workcover wanting the trial to go this way otherwise they would have ensured Thompson had a fair trial.
Seems there is more than what can be read in to here..
Cover up at its best- what is more I read that the matter is subject to an appeal in the Supreme Court?
How can it go to the Magsitrates court if it is being appealed in the supreme court?
I would love to hear Thompsons version of events as to what happened, only then would we know the truth..
instead of concentrating on one case, perhaps people should look at the entire system. someone above said workcover shouldnt be on trial.. it should be
You may have worked out that the system has been changed thru these reforms because WorkCover and or its agents have had a free rein on its operations. The Thompson case is an example on how it became a witch hunt which is far from over. As the above comment refers, its back to the magistrates court, then someone will appeal back to the supreme court and it may well go to the high court reading the lack of evidance Thompson was not allowed to produce or was with held from WorkCover.
I am surprised this case can still be heard due to its stuff ups by WorkCover lawyers, surely Thompson can not get a fair trial from a new magistrate????
This is a huge mess and it wouldnt also surprise me if Bruce Carter instigated this and now as has resigned directly after the appeal was won by Thompson.
This may well be a case similar to Easlings
Workcover and it's agents have always had a free reign over it's operations, that's what happens when you have total morons with conflicts of interests who donate a hell of alot of money to a labor party, a party that to date refuses to implement and independant authority in this state because they know full well it reveal it's own corruptions. Nothing has really changed that much to be honest, workcover hated injured workers before and they hate injured workers now.. all injured workers need is a good lawyer and an advocate, and they can eaisly workcover at it's own game... i know ive worked for workcover and know a hell of alot about EML's operations, they are extremely negligent with files that are full of errors that show their incompetence. what injured workers need to do is start getting smart and lawyering themselves up, stop playing victims and play hard with workcover and youll come out of it as a winner.
There is a big push on redemptions at the moment to lower the amount of injured workers on the system which will in turn lower the new unfunded liability figure which is soon to be released and you will see Mike Rann congratulate himself for pushing thru the reforms. Little does the public know the reforms would have no effect until next year!
How ironic in 2003 Michael Wright made a decision to stop redemptions which caused this blowout in the first place and now they are using redemptions to lower the liability
Yep. And now watch the unemployment figures increase. The amounts being paid out in redemptions is pennies, and once its all spent without rehabilitation these people will end up on the dole, and when they explain to potential employers why they left the other job you watch the no callbacks happen. Vocational rehab does have its purpose.
I agree with the above comment as the reforms actually state that injured workers are still entitled to their top up, they have to have some successfull vocational rehabilitation before they can be kicked off (where current rehab companies have failed). So why are they accepting redemptions, because they have been told they will be kicked off without nothing. As one of the above comments mentioned, injured workers who still have an injury and not rehabilitated have the rights to the entitlements.
All respondents were asked, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is extremely
effective and 1 is not at all effective, how effective was the rehabilitation
service in assisting them with their return to work.
An average overall satisfaction rating of 5.90 was recorded.
Posted by McGREGOR MARKETING PTY. LTD. at 7:29 PM, 7/8/2008
Approximately on third (30%) of respondents indicated that they had
received vocational rehabilitation services in the last two years, although
almost one in ten (8%) could not remember the name or were not sure. Very
few respondents named TAFE SA (2%), De Poi Consultant Services (1%)
and Beckman and Associates (1%).
Posted by McGREGOR MARKETING PTY. LTD. at 7:30 PM, 7/8/2008
In most educational systems this would be a very low pass mark. If one was to achieve a low pass mark like this, there would be a fair chance they would fail in life.
All respondents were asked how satisfied they were, on a scale of 1 to 10,
where 10 is extremely satisfied and 1 is not at all satisfied, with the way they
were treated by Employers Mutual handling their case, and the
effectiveness in resolving their case.
The overall average satisfaction rating was 6.20 (down from 6.56 in May 2007
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.
I note that there is an editor who makes same spelling mistakes as many posts here.
Just wondering why woudl is always spelt wrongly whether its an editor making comments here and who set up the site or whether its a mistake everyone makes.
If its an editor then this blog has been set up just to find out more for the media to attack Work-cover
Preppy Killer' Robert chambers jailed on drug charges
Article from: Reuters
From correspondents in New York
August 12, 2008 09:28am
THE so-called "Preppy Killer", who served 15 years behind bars for strangling a woman in New York's Central Park in 1986, has pleaded guilty to selling drugs and assault.
In a plea deal with prosecutors, Robert Chambers, 41, agreed to a sentence of 19 years and four months in prison, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office said.
Chambers also pleaded guilty to assaulting a police officer during his arrest in October, and he woudl be officially sentenced on September 2, prosecutors said.
Why woudl the media set up this site to seek information when Chris Ranns influenced Advertiser failed to headline the departure of Bruce Carter from the continual alleged corrupt workcover board?.
^
Not to mention the whole Sandra De Poi /WorkCover Corruption issue disappeared from view rather quickly.
I know for a fact that The Advertiser have been given plenty of information to embarras the hell out of WorkCover and its Claims Agent - but havent acted at all.
And it's also curious how whenever a WorkCover article is on the website, comments take a long time to show up - with many comments not being posted at all and then the articles tend to disappear within a few hours.
The Victorian government will consider ripping up WorkCover laws and rewriting the legislation under a proposal that could cost employers up to $146 million a year.
A leaked review of the Accident Compensation Act, obtained by the state opposition, recommends replacing the legislation with a new act.
WorkCover Minister Tim Holding commissioned the independent review by Peter Hanks QC last December and his report is due to be delivered later this year.
The leaked document recommends the WorkCover legislation "in its entirety be recast".
It recommends expanding the role of the Victorian WorkCover Authority bureaucracy and other bodies, as well as funding another six reviews.
The proposal would cost between $85 million and $146 million a year - an expense the opposition says employers will shoulder in higher premiums.
"Labor crowed about its WorkCover premium deductions when the budget was handed down, boasting that it was cutting the cost of doing business in Victoria," Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu said.
"Yet the proposals in this leaked review would not only wipe out these claimed gains but they would add millions to costs for employers who would also have to fund a WorkCover bureaucracy that is already ballooning."
The WorkCover authority has grown from 611 staff to 974 in eight years.
"The size of the task of moving to a new act is daunting," the report says.
"Breaking the transition from the current legislation to a new act into several legislative stages has particular advantages and should result in a better product."
A spokesman for Mr Holding said the government had yet to receive a copy of the report and could not comment on its recommendations.
"We have turned around a system that was financially unsustainable, improved rights for injured workers and reduced premiums to the lowest level in Victoria's history," spokesman Matt Nurse said.
"By the end of this financial year Victorian employers will have saved over $2 billion through our five successive cuts to WorkCover premiums."
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:
'Bizarre sex practices' in Public Trustee office, inquiry told
Article from: The Advertiser
MICHAEL OWEN
February 09, 2009 03:30pm
EMPLOYEES in the troubled Office of the Public Trustee engaged in "bizarre sexual behaviour", a parliamentary inquiry has heard.
A former employee of the office today detailed to the inquiry his eight-year battle with the public service after he was "victimised" for making complaints about entrenched workplace bullying, sexual impropriety and financial mismanagement.
Robert McKibbin, who was contracted by the office to provide IT services in 1999 and accepted a full-time position in 2001, told the committee he was once interviewed by the Government Investigation Unit.
This came after dozens of trustee officers submitted statements to investigating officer Pam Forbes.
"Many of those statements contain detailed allegations of financial mismanagement, other workplace bullying issues and, more importantly, allegations of sexual impropriety by a Public Trustee account manager against a mentally impaired male client," Mr McKibbin said.
"Some of these allegations were deemed serious by their nature as the SA Police anti-corruption branch was forwarded a brief for investigation. I know this because I was interviewed."
An inquiry into allegations of financial mismanagement and workplace bullying in the Public Trustee's office was approved by State Parliament's Upper House in March last year.
The office already has been investigated by the Crown Solicitor's Office, with a disciplinary hearing completed late last year over a senior public servant accused of leading years of bullying.
The ongoing parliamentary inquiry includes public hearings taking evidence from clients and employees, and came about because of the high number of complaints MPs were receiving from the public.
The Public Trustee administers more than $1 billion annually.
Mr McKibbin told Parliament's Statutory Authorities Review Committee, which is inquiring into the office, that he made his first complaint in March 2000, against the then newly appointed IT manager, Paul Hendrijanto.
"I and the staff I managed had issues not only with his style of management, but with what we call his bizarre sexual proclivities," Mr McKibbin said.
"Some of these proclivities are detailed in a determination handed down by Judge Rice in 2004 as part of an Equal Opportunity Tribunal determination."
He said on one occasion, in October 2004, he entered an office where two senior officers were discussing a file that contained details about a complaint lodged against a male officer responsible for managing the estate of a mentally impaired male client.
"The mother had made a complaint ... they were discussing how the officer was telephoning the client outside of business hours and asking him questions of a sexual nature," Mr McKibbin said.
"It was also mentioned that another complaint from another client included description of the decor of the male officer's residence in North Adelaide.
"Staff from the Attorney-General's Department interviewed me when I reported what I had heard.
"A few days later I was called into the Public Trustee's office and was told I can be sued for libel and that her (then Public Trustee Catherine O'Loughlin) investigation had drawn a blank."
He said between 2000 and 2004 he complained about the management of the Public Trustee, but his "cries for help to various arms of the public service" fell on deaf ears.
He said after making complaints he was "victimised" by senior management at the Public Trustee.
"The manager of corporate services, Des O'Neill, dished out this victimisation," Mr McKibbin said.
"My constant stream of complaint to the then Public Trustee, Catherine O'Loughlin, was ignored."
Since late 2005, Mr McKibbon said he had been forbidden to return to work at the Public Trustee.
He said that during a lengthy investigation by the Government Investigation Unit, from December 2005 until his resignation in September last year, he either was at home, on WorkCover or placed in positions where there was no work for him to do.
"Despite my constant complaining about this situation, nothing was done," he said.
"I still get emails and telephone calls from staff - from what they say, workplace bullying in all its nefarious forms continues to rage at Public Trustee, but these people are too frightened to speak up after observing my treatment,"
"I am unemployed and that is why your regular person will tolerate workplace bullying."
Posted by Its obvious with an SA gov. at 4:45 PM, 9/2/2009
