Media Release , March 19 2008
Changes to Workcover set for debate in Parliament in April will have harsh
consequences for injured workers in South Australia.
Research Fellow at Uni SA’s Hawke Research Institute, Dr Kevin Purse,
says the proposed changes under the Workers Rehabilitation and
Compensation (Scheme Review) Amendment Bill 2008 are a
huge step backwards and would shift the cost burden for injuries
at work from industry to injured workers, their families and the
taxpayer.
Dr Purse says the most disturbing aspects of the Bill for injured workers
are a proposed step-down that will cut workers compensation
payments from 100 per cent of their salaries to just 80 per cent
after only 13 weeks and a proposal to throw all but the
catastrophically injured off the system after two and a half years.
“It’s pretty clear that the management of Workcover has not been
up to scratch,” Dr Purse says.
“Despite recommendations for improvement from the 2002 Stanley
Review, Workcover seems to have a chronic inability to manage
critical return-to-work processes effectively.
“If carried, this new Bill will see vulnerable workers and their families
bear the burden of Workcover’s ineffectual management by reducing
their income support at a time when they are most in need.”
He says the changes would not only slash entitlements to injured
workers but also dramatically undermine their right to challenge
Workcover claims decisions.“The Bill contains a proposal that would
allow for all weekly payments to be discontinued in the event of a
claims dispute,” he says.“This really does leave workers in a very
disadvantaged position with no income at all where a dispute with
Workcover arises.”
Dr Purse says a whole range of factors included in the Bill will
undermine the integrity of the Workcover system including
proposals in relation to medical panels, payments for non-economic
loss and the dispute resolution system.“If we’re not careful we could
end up with a Clayton’s scheme.”
“When you look at why Workcover’s not working well for injured
workers, it’s clear that the whole culture of the organisation needs
to change, starting from the top,” Dr Purse says.
“There are many ways to improve the system. A serious reconsideration of
the outsourcing of the claims management system is long overdue, and there
is a pressing need for action on the retraining front.“There is no doubt that
reform is needed but the government’s Bill does nothing to address
the real problems within Workcover – it will only add to the pain and
disenchantment with Labor.”
“Injured workers overwhelmingly want to return to work but in the case of
serious injury they do need support to find their way back into the workforce.
More than ever Workcover needs innovative policies to assist injured workers
and their employers to achieve the best outcomes.
“An improved bottom line for Workcover should not come at the
expense of workers, nor does it require wholesale legislative change.
The starting point should be better administration of the scheme
and this is where the government should be focusing its attention.”
Contacts for interview
Dr Kevin Purse (08) 8443 9946 email kevin.purse@unisa.edu.au
WCV's thoughts : The only reason for workcover to be changing the legislation
like this, is so that Centrelink can pick up the catastrophically injured workers
via DSP pensions and workcover doesn't have to pay for them indefinitely.
It also makes their budgets look alot better, if centrelink is picking up the tab!
No wonder workcover can claim such a large profit margin!
Workcover in Victoria already uses the non payment/denial of benefits
in disputes until settlement and it does effect the injured worker financially
and as Dr Price has stated: It happens when we need the support the most.
WCV's recent poll of injured workers showed that 100% of those that voted
all said that they have been personally financially effected from their
workplace injury and now the government wants to reduce payments again!
Why?
Why have workcover if you are not prepared to run it fairly and justly.
Workers would be better off if they insured themselves privately for workplace
injuries and the government paid a rebate. At least this way injured workers
with insurance could be back at work with their injuries fixed sooner, rather
than years later as it is with workcover.
Dr Price has hit the nail on the head with his criticisms of the managements
of workcover be it Victorian or south Australian. Its obvious to victims of
workplace injuries that until the managements in each state are cleaned
up and the dead wood disposed of, these discriminatory practices will
continue.
Why are legislation changes always at the expense of the injured workers?
No comments:
Post a Comment