Injured Workers have rights too we need to look deeper into this legislation.

Welcome to the Save Australia website

THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW

How to Express Your Will
Know and understand what your true Constitutional powers are, and how you can
lawfully use those powers to obtain the results you want your elected
parliamentarians to produce.

This site is dedicated to those Australians who wish to conserve the freedoms
provided to us by our founders and the authors of the Australian Constitution.

As individuals we are created by God and are under God, not under the government,
which is the creation of people. Government has limits on it, and those limits
are placed on it by the people (who have the ultimate authority over government)
and not the other way around. In Australia, it is the Constitution that sets out
the limits on government that the people consider appropriate.

Australia to a large extent has lost the purity and clarity of the freedoms
originally provided by the framers of our Constitution, and indeed
our pond has become very muddy.

The site is maintained by a loose association of Sovereign men and women
united in a common cause with the aid of the seven natural laws they were born with
to live, uphold and protect the rights provided by this country's founders, to
ensure that their fellow Sovereign men, women and children will retain those
rights and to become educated themselves about those rights.

"Quote". A Sovereign man/woman asks questions and gives direction.
A Slave answers questions and takes direction.

What you will find here
There are many who perceive that something is not right, but are unable
to source the correct information, or don't know how to initiate a response.
This site seeks to rectify that problem and to become a repository of
information for the benefit of all Australians.

You will find here material to assist you to educate yourself on your
responsibilities and equip yourself to uphold your rights and freedoms.

Please feel free to browse and use the material on this web site.

Finally, we thank you for your patience, parts of this site are still under
construction.

Quote:"To teach a man how he may learn to grow independently, and for himself,
is perhaps the greatest service that one man can do another".
Benjamin Jowett

Retrieved from "http://www.saveaus.info/index.php?title=Home"

Solicitors Required

We are searching for solicitors who are interested in representing
"WorkcoverVictims" clients and have a genuine interest in legislations changes.
Please email mailto:workcovervictims@westnet.com.au for more information.

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'>

"Lindberg's" Rocky Rogue of WorkCover

Was he in charge when you put in your claim?

No wonder so many of us were denied benefits and common law rights when you
have the head of worksafe spending money like there was no tomorrow!!!!

What recourse was taken against him after he resigned?

Should he be held responsible for his budget blowouts and spending?

Many injured workers were having claims rejected during this time and were
also denied the no fault insurance benefits worksafe were supposed to provide,
was this happening because of the following story?


Story:

AWB supremo Andrew Lindberg quit as WorkCover chief when Steve Bracks
was elected 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.

By Mathew Murphy, January 20, 2006

WorkCover must direct its budget surplus to injured workers

If the following article was published in 2006 and the Government are
aware of this possibility and have a large surplus then why havent they trialed
it?

This size surplus for instance, could help those injured workers hurt during
Kennetts Law in Victoria to be able to access some form of compensation?
but it seems that injured workers are the last things on the minds of Government
and worksafe in all states.

Greens MP and industrial relations spokesperson, Lee Rhiannon today
challenged the Industrial Relations Minister, John Della Bosca in parliamentary
question time to direct part of a $2 billion WorkCover budget windfall towards
injured workers.

“The Greens have challenged the government to direct an $85 million budget
surplus from its $2 billion WorkCover windfall towards fairer compensation for
injured workers,” said Ms Rhiannon.

“The $2 billion budget windfall was revealed in a secret WorkCover report
obtained under freedom of information by the NSW Law Society.
“The contentious WorkCover report, dated July 2005, showed the WorkCover
Authority expected to pay off its $2 billion deficit by 2012.
Instead, it had an unexpected $85 million surplus only one year later.

“Labor used most of the $2 billion surplus to pay off WorkCover’s budget deficit,
and Minister Della Bosca refused to say how they will spend the remaining
$85 million.

“It’s a disgrace that while 9 out of 10 workers in NSW are being denied fair
compensation, WorkCover has reaped almost $2 billion in surplus revenue.

“The $2 billion WorkCover surplus has come at the expense of fair compensation
for NSW workers following Labor’s cuts to worker’s entitlements in 2001.
“This revelation proves that Labor’s harsh worker’s compensation laws
introduced in 2001 are depriving injured workers of their entitlements.

“How can Minister Della Bosca take pride in the NSW worker’s compensation
scheme which is not indexed to inflation and is so restrictive?“I was a member
of the NSW Upper House committee that recommended unanimously last
year to bring WorkCover in line with the public liability scheme * advice that was
rejected by Minister Della Bosca.

“The $2 billion budget windfall clearly shows that WorkCover can afford to pay
fairer compensation to injured workers in NSW.

“The Greens will continue to push for a better deal for injured workers,”
Ms Rhiannon said. 12/12/2006

Solicitors Required

We are searching for solicitors who are interested in representing "Workcover
Victims" clients and have a genuine interest in legislations changes.
Please email mailto:workcovervictims@westnet.com.au
for more information.

Discrimination is still against the law - Campaign

The Discrimination. It’s Still against the Law campaign
has been developed by the Workplace Rights Advocate and the
Equal Opportunity Commission Victoria to ensure that people
are aware of their equal opportunity rights at work.

Postcard campaign
The Workplace Rights Advocate and the Equal Opportunity
Commission Victoria have launched a postcard campaign to
ensure people are aware of their equal opportunity rights at work.

Recent federal changes to industrial relations have caused
confusion, and the Advocate and Commission are both concerned
that some people may believe that they can be sacked for no good
reason.

Victorian equal opportunity laws apply to all Victorian businesses,
regardless of their size. They prohibit employers from sacking
workers because of their sex, age, pregnancy, disability, parental
or carer status, just to name a few of the protected personal
characteristics.

Employers must treat their workers fairly and provide a
workplace that is free from discrimination and sexual
harassment.

The Discrimination. It’s Still against the Law campaign compromises
three postcards, each aimed at a different life stage. The cards,
which can be downloaded from this page, highlight whom a person
can contact if they believe their rights have been breached.

One of the key tasks of the Equal Opportunity Commission
Victoria Commission’s is to educate people about their equal
opportunity rights and responsibilities.

Part of charter of the Workplace Rights Advocate is to promote
fairness in the workplace.

Pregnancy and Work - Postcard (PDF 138Kb)
Information on Victoria's equal opportunity laws regarding
pregnancy and maternity leave.

Parents and Work - Postcard (PDF 157Kb)
Information on Victoria's equal opportunity laws regarding
parents and work.

Carers and Work - Postcard (PDF 134Kb)
Information on Victoria's equal opportunity laws regarding
working as a carer.

Torts 101 - Infliction of Emotional Distress -

An option to think about?

I dont know if this law has been tried in Australia yet but I am sure it will be .The fact is that some of us (injured pre October 20th 1999)have lost our common law rights to sue and now have to have a 30% injury to be classed as severe enough to be entiltled to the ICRP.

Many of us need another avenue to take and I am thinking this could be an option, if a lawyer out there is willing to take a chance!

I am sure that who ever it was would be extremely busy as there is thousands of us that have been left out in the cold by the VWA and are being ignored!

We need a legal advocate to have this system changed and be made accountable for
their actions and the actions of many employers.

The Latest from Craig Smith's Blog

California has long recognized the right to recover damages for the intentional and unreasonable infliction of mental or emotional distress which results in foreseeable physical injury to plaintiff. California courts have also acknowledged the right to recover damages for emotional distress alone, without consequent physical injuries, in cases involving extreme and outrageous intentional invasions of one's mental and emotional tranquility.

(State Rubbish etc. Assn. v. Siliznoff (1952) 38 Cal.2d 330, 336-337)

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS- ie; (Workplacebullying,discrimination)

The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are:
(1) outrageous conduct by the defendant;
(2) the defendant's intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress;
(3) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and
(4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct. (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 497-498

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS-DEFINED (the family suffers this as well as the claimant)

The term "emotional distress" means mental distress, mental suffering or mental anguish. It includes all highly unpleasant mental reactions, such as fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation and indignity, as well as physical pain.

SEVERE-DEFINED

The word "severe," in the phrase "severe emotional distress," means substantial or enduring as distinguished from trivial or transitory. Severe emotional distress is emotional distress of such substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to endure it. In determining the severity of emotional distress consideration is given to its intensity and duration.

The Restatement view is that liability "does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities," but only to conduct so extreme and outrageous "as to go beyond all possible bonds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." (Rest. 2d Torts, § 46, com. d; see Prosser, Law of Torts, supra, at pp. 46-47.) "The emotional distress must in fact exist, and it must be severe." (Prosser, Law of Torts, supra, p. 51; Rest.2d Torts, supra, § 46, Com. j.)

EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT-DEFINED

Extreme and outrageous conduct is conduct which goes beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
Extreme and outrageous conduct is not mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions or other trivialities. All persons must necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind.
Extreme and outrageous conduct, however, is conduct which would cause an average member of the community to immediately react in outrage.

EFFECT OF RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES

The extreme and outrageous character of the conduct of a defendant may arise from an abuse of a position, or relationship to a plaintiff, which gives such a defendant actual or apparent authority over a plaintiff, or power to affect a plaintiff's interests.

SUSCEPTIBILITY OF PLAINTIFF

The extreme and outrageous character of a defendant's conduct may arise from defendant's knowledge that a plaintiff is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress by reason of some physical or mental condition or peculiarity. Conduct may become extreme and outrageous when a defendant proceeds in the face of such knowledge, where it would not be so if defendant did not know.

INTENTIONAL AND RECKLESS -- DEFINED

A defendant intended to inflict emotional distress if it is established that he or she desired to cause such distress or knew that such distress was substantially certain to result from his or her conduct.

A defendant's conduct is in reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress if he or she has knowledge of a high degree of probability that emotional distress will result and acts with deliberate disregard of that probability or with a conscious disregard of the probable results.

PRIVILEGE

Conduct, which under other conditions would be extreme and outrageous, may be privileged and a defendant is not liable:
When a defendant has done no more than to insist upon his or her legal rights in a permissible way, even though he or she is well aware that such insistence is certain to cause emotional distress. If you find that defendant in good faith believed that he or she was acting under a legal right, he or she shall be considered as having been acting under such right even though, in fact, he or she had no such right.
When a defendant makes statements in the course of an official proceeding.

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

The elements of a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress are:
1. The defendant engaged in negligent conduct or a willful violation of a statutory standard;
2. The plaintiff suffered serious emotional distress;
3. The defendant's negligent conduct or willful violation of statutory standards was a cause of the serious emotional distress.
Serious emotional distress is an emotional reaction which is not an abnormal response to the circumstances. It is found where a reasonable person would be unable to cope with the mental distress caused by the circumstances.

CAUSES OF NERVOUS SHOCK

A shock to the nervous system may be caused either by some physical impact or by fright caused by exposure to imminent peril.

BYSTANDER RECOVERY OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Bystanders may recover for emotional distress damage only under very limited circumstances. The emotional disturbance suffered must be "serious and verifiable," and must be tied as a matter of proximate causation to the observation of the serious injury or death of an immediate family member. Finally, the plaintiff himself must have been in the "zone of danger" i.e, must have been exposed to a risk of bodily harm by the conduct of the defendant.
The essential elements of a claim of wrongful infliction of emotional distress upon a bystander are:
1. The defendant was negligent; or the defendant manufactured or supplied a defective product;
2. Defendant's negligence or defective product was a cause of injury or death to the victim;
3. Plaintiff was the spouse, parent, or child, of the victim;
4. Plaintiff was present at the scene of the injury-producing event or accident at the time it occurred;
5. Plaintiff was then aware that such event or accident caused the injury to the victim;
6. As a result, plaintiff suffered serious emotional distress.
Serious emotional distress is an emotional reaction beyond that which would be anticipated in a witness not related to the injured person and which is not an abnormal response to the circumstances. It is found when a reasonable person would be unable to cope with the mental distress caused by the circumstances of the accident and injury to the near relative.

© 2006 by lawschoolhelp.com and Craig A. Smith