Margarita Windisch, Melbourne 10th August 2008
The Victorian state government is considering far-reaching changes to
workers’ compensation laws.
Peter Hanks QC was commissioned in December 2007 to conduct an inquiry
into the 1985 Accident Compensation Act (WorkCare), which under the former
Liberal government of premier Jeff Kennett government was transformed
into WorkCover in 1992.
According to the July 18 Age, Hanks has recommended 133 changes to be
incorporated into a new scheme called “WorkSafe Victoria”.
Under the Kennett government, a raft of changes to Victoria’s Accident
Compensation Act were introduced between 1992 and 1999 that severely
reduced injured workers’ access to compensation and massively decreased
their entitlements. Thousands of long-term injured workers were thrown
off compensation altogether.
Workers also lost their right to sue under common law negligent employers,
doctors who treat work injuries and manufacturers of faulty equipment.
New changes introduced to WorkCover by consecutive Labor governments
since 1999 have delivered minimal improvements to injured workers, but the
million dollar handouts to employers have continued unabated.
A Victorian Trades Hall Council (VTHC) briefing paper estimates that over
the last four years employers have benefitted from a 45% cut to average
WorkCover premiums, delivering savings to bosses of close to $2 billion.
Workers netted only a total of $45 million.
WorkCover recorded a net profit of $1.17 billion for the financial year ending
June 2007 and boasts on its website of an almost $2 billion dollar reduction
of long-term claim costs since 2001-02.
Geoff Lewin, a member of the Community and Public Sector Union and
participant in the stakeholder reference group (SRG) around the proposed
changes, has raised serious concern over Hanks’ draft recommendations; the
report will be delivered to the WorkCover minister in late August. “Hanks is
proposing that any worker who has been on the maximum of 130 weeks of
compensation will be thrown off the system if there is a demonstrated five
minute work capacity”, he told Green Left Weekly.
A VTHC document claims that Hanks is planning to maintain the 30%
impairment test threshold for psychiatric injuries and the 10% impairment
threshold for most physical injuries.
Lewin told GLW that Hanks proposes to extend the preclusions for stress injuries
put in place by Kennett in 1992 through scrapping benefits for psychological or
psychiatric injury received from any “reasonable management action”.
“The changes suggested by Hanks are worse then those under Kennett and will
in effect exclude most people suffering from stress-related [injuries]”, Lewin said.
The VTHC opposes proposed changes to the return to work provisions that would
remove legislative obligations for employers to provide workers with suitable
employment; instead, the obligations would be replaced by weaker regulations
and guidelines. The draft report proposes reducing the powers of the already
weak Accident Compensation Conciliation Service, which is the first port of call
if a claim is challenged. A review panel would become the final arbiter of disputes.
Lewin believes that this would draw out the process and prolong the process of
testing in court claims that have been denied. Lewin told GLW that having the
Victorian WorkCover Authority conducting the internal review on arbitration
will be detrimental to workers. Lewin said that Victoria’s Labor government
made a serious mistake by appointing a reviewer whose staff come from the
WorkCover Authority or the treasury and finance departments: “The WorkCover
Authority is basically running the inquiry and is not taking into account the
interests of injured workers.” He added: “In February, Hanks asked the SRG
members for issues to be included in a discussion paper to be released.
VTHC provided 33 major issues of which Hanks only included three minor ones
in his public document.” It is still unclear if the government will release the
Hanks report publically. It is possible the final report will go to the Autumn
parliamentary session in 2009.
The VTHC “FixWorkCover” campaign calls for an increase in weekly payments,
coverage of all stress injuries, improved disputes resolution and better return-to-
work rights, an end to discrimination and the inclusion of outworkers in the
compensations scheme.
For more information visit http://www.fixworkcover.org/.
From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #762 13 August 2008.
Showing posts with label Workplace Minister. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Workplace Minister. Show all posts
Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Sunday, 3 August 2008
The Governments Review of the Accident Compensation Act 1985
In December last year the state government announced that a
review of the 1985 Accident Compensation Act would be
conducted by Mr Peter Hanks QC. In making the announcement,
the Minister for WorkCover, Tim Holding declared:
"Victoria's WorkCover scheme... the best in Australia, offering
generous benefits and good return-to-work outcomes for injured
workers as well as low premiums for employers."
This is not an accurate observation by the Minister. To be
injured at work is bad enough, but to be injured in Victoria
is even worse.
WorkCover in Victoria holds the record for rejecting new claims
by injured workers. It rejects 14.1%, yet in Queensland only
3.8 % are rejected.
Mr Hanks has finished his review (June 2008) and he will give his
report to the Minister in August.
He will make at least 130 recommendations to change WorkCover.
If the government adopts many of his recommendations the WorkCover
scheme will suddenly get a whole lot worse.
WorkCover is the most profitable system of workers compensation in
Australia. It makes a profit of more that $1 billion a year and
pays more than $700 million a year into state government coffers.
Since 2004 it's cut employers' premiums by 45% saving them $2 billion.
Under the Hanks recommendations premiums will be cut by another
6% - reducing even further the funds available to care for injured
workers.
Despite WorkCover's profits and its gifts to employers, it still
fails to provide quality care and financial support for injured
workers.
It's time to do something. Instead of making WorkCover worse for
workers, the government needs to make it better.
We want every Victorian to let the government know that it's time
WorkCover was for workers, not for employers.
Cut and paste this address and to send a message to the government: http://fixworkcover.org/sendletter.php
title='Help fix WorkCover' border='0'>
review of the 1985 Accident Compensation Act would be
conducted by Mr Peter Hanks QC. In making the announcement,
the Minister for WorkCover, Tim Holding declared:
"Victoria's WorkCover scheme... the best in Australia, offering
generous benefits and good return-to-work outcomes for injured
workers as well as low premiums for employers."
This is not an accurate observation by the Minister. To be
injured at work is bad enough, but to be injured in Victoria
is even worse.
WorkCover in Victoria holds the record for rejecting new claims
by injured workers. It rejects 14.1%, yet in Queensland only
3.8 % are rejected.
Mr Hanks has finished his review (June 2008) and he will give his
report to the Minister in August.
He will make at least 130 recommendations to change WorkCover.
If the government adopts many of his recommendations the WorkCover
scheme will suddenly get a whole lot worse.
WorkCover is the most profitable system of workers compensation in
Australia. It makes a profit of more that $1 billion a year and
pays more than $700 million a year into state government coffers.
Since 2004 it's cut employers' premiums by 45% saving them $2 billion.
Under the Hanks recommendations premiums will be cut by another
6% - reducing even further the funds available to care for injured
workers.
Despite WorkCover's profits and its gifts to employers, it still
fails to provide quality care and financial support for injured
workers.
It's time to do something. Instead of making WorkCover worse for
workers, the government needs to make it better.
We want every Victorian to let the government know that it's time
WorkCover was for workers, not for employers.
Cut and paste this address and to send a message to the government: http://fixworkcover.org/sendletter.php
title='Help fix WorkCover' border='0'>
Friday, 1 August 2008
WorkSafe defended over bullying investigation
Victorian WorkCover Minister Tim Holding has defended WorkSafe,
despite an ombudsman's report slamming its handling of claims that Police
Association secretary Paul Mullet bullied other union staff.
The damning ombudsman's report tabled in Parliament found Victoria Police
had bounced the bullying claims to WorkSafe and WorkSafe had failed
to properly investigate.
The allegations arose after two police officers used the Whistleblowers
Protection Act to raise concerns about Mr Mullet's actions and other
complaints followed.
The ombudsman found WorkSafe's handling of the complaint was inadequate
and ignored important evidence.
The ombudsman has recommended police and WorkSafe renew their investigations.
Mr Holding concedes there were some short comings in the handling of the
claims and says WorkSafe will adopt the recommendations.
"The ombudsman clearly found that they hadn't acted improperly, it's just that
they hadn't conducted a full and thorough investigation," Mr Holding said.
"He's made some pretty clear recommendations as to how they can sharpen
up their processes and WorkSafe have indicated that they're willing to take
on board those recommendations." Both WorkSafe and Victoria Police have
agreed to the ombudsman's recommendations.
WCV's: How many times have worksafe not investigated properly Mr Holding?
and how can the ombudsman's office believe that worksafe had not acted improperly?
If you ignore important evidence and not do a full and complete investigation
then, you have acted improperly!
The lack of proper and thorough investigations is putting injured workers at
risk. Worksafe do ignore important information on many cases that they assess
and I for one have had this experience personally.
The fact that you admit to worksafe being incompetent and inadequate speaks
for itself, and this case should make you pay attention to the complaints you
receive about worksafe and not ignore them as you are.
What have you done about this?.
despite an ombudsman's report slamming its handling of claims that Police
Association secretary Paul Mullet bullied other union staff.
The damning ombudsman's report tabled in Parliament found Victoria Police
had bounced the bullying claims to WorkSafe and WorkSafe had failed
to properly investigate.
The allegations arose after two police officers used the Whistleblowers
Protection Act to raise concerns about Mr Mullet's actions and other
complaints followed.
The ombudsman found WorkSafe's handling of the complaint was inadequate
and ignored important evidence.
The ombudsman has recommended police and WorkSafe renew their investigations.
Mr Holding concedes there were some short comings in the handling of the
claims and says WorkSafe will adopt the recommendations.
"The ombudsman clearly found that they hadn't acted improperly, it's just that
they hadn't conducted a full and thorough investigation," Mr Holding said.
"He's made some pretty clear recommendations as to how they can sharpen
up their processes and WorkSafe have indicated that they're willing to take
on board those recommendations." Both WorkSafe and Victoria Police have
agreed to the ombudsman's recommendations.
WCV's: How many times have worksafe not investigated properly Mr Holding?
and how can the ombudsman's office believe that worksafe had not acted improperly?
If you ignore important evidence and not do a full and complete investigation
then, you have acted improperly!
The lack of proper and thorough investigations is putting injured workers at
risk. Worksafe do ignore important information on many cases that they assess
and I for one have had this experience personally.
The fact that you admit to worksafe being incompetent and inadequate speaks
for itself, and this case should make you pay attention to the complaints you
receive about worksafe and not ignore them as you are.
What have you done about this?.
Workcover wont help injured workers, but they will sponsor the footy!
Any injured worker who was unlucky enough to be injured before October
19th 1999, has been left out of the new common law changes.
Mr holdings office has told WCV's that the reason they were left out of the
new changes is because the government couldn't afford to include them as
there wasn't enough funding.
Mr Holdings office also said, that there was nothing they could do about
this either, yet on December 1st 2007, Mr holding announced via a media
release that the government would be sponsoring the football.
How can the government sponsor football to the tune of 1.2 million and then
tell workcover victims that it doesn't have the funds to support the injured
workers from the Kennett era? Is this for real?
Does Mr Holding care more about football than injured workers?
If the government cannot afford to look after the injured workers for Kennett's
stuff ups then it has no right to be sponsoring football either.
That 1.2 million being given o football could make an injured workers life
substancially better by ensuring that injured workers receive their right to
justice for workplace injuries.
Sponsoring the football when workers are suffering physically,financially and
emotionally from their injuries is bad enough, but also having an inability to
claim common law for your injuries is cruel and unreasonable.
If they are going to include one group they should include us all!
This is discriminatory treatment from a government who doesn't give a
bugger about its injured workers!!!!!
But, I bet they all got paid this week?
19th 1999, has been left out of the new common law changes.
Mr holdings office has told WCV's that the reason they were left out of the
new changes is because the government couldn't afford to include them as
there wasn't enough funding.
Mr Holdings office also said, that there was nothing they could do about
this either, yet on December 1st 2007, Mr holding announced via a media
release that the government would be sponsoring the football.
How can the government sponsor football to the tune of 1.2 million and then
tell workcover victims that it doesn't have the funds to support the injured
workers from the Kennett era? Is this for real?
Does Mr Holding care more about football than injured workers?
If the government cannot afford to look after the injured workers for Kennett's
stuff ups then it has no right to be sponsoring football either.
That 1.2 million being given o football could make an injured workers life
substancially better by ensuring that injured workers receive their right to
justice for workplace injuries.
Sponsoring the football when workers are suffering physically,financially and
emotionally from their injuries is bad enough, but also having an inability to
claim common law for your injuries is cruel and unreasonable.
If they are going to include one group they should include us all!
This is discriminatory treatment from a government who doesn't give a
bugger about its injured workers!!!!!
But, I bet they all got paid this week?
Monday, 28 July 2008
Workcover cuts will hurt injured workers
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?
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?
Saturday, 26 July 2008
Has the workplace legislation been ignored?
It seems that Mr Holding is not concerned about injured victorian workers.
The evidence lies in the media releases he has not made in the last two
years. Since December 2006 the ministers office has only released 4
media documents. It's obvious that workplace victims are placed well at
the bottom of the Governments food chain!
The evidence lies in the media releases he has not made in the last two
years. Since December 2006 the ministers office has only released 4
media documents. It's obvious that workplace victims are placed well at
the bottom of the Governments food chain!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)