WorkCover - The true welfare of the people of this State?

Return to WorkCover Corporation

Almighty God, We humbly beseech thee to vouchsafe thy blessing upon this parliament. We pray thee to direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of thy glory and the true welfare of the people of this State.

This is the prayer that is said at the opening of each day of sitting. I consider this to be an oath or the setting of our intention as elected members of the South Australian Parliament. This is a responsibility that I personally take very seriously and although there may be other issues that people will disagree with, there would be few indeed who would believe it is acceptable to slash the entitlements of injured workers rather than expecting business to meet their responsibilities. Queensland has a well functioning system of workers compensation and one of the strong points is the requirements of business to meet Occupational Health and Safety standards. This is not the case in South Australia. Queensland takes a three pronged approach working cooperatively with employers, employees and the unions and as a result their incidence of workplace injury has been reduced significantly in a very short period of time. The legislation being debated in the parliament has no expectations of business, of the WorkCover Corporation or EML to improve performance. The full responsibility of reducing the "unfunded liability" rests on the backs of the injured workers who receive little to no assistance and who state time and time again that they are harassed, intimidated, bullied and broken financially, emotionally and psychologically. This is not how or why workers compensation schemes were originally implemented.

There was much debate about the amended Workers Compensation Act. The proposed "reforms" hit injured workers hard and it has been touted by the government that these measures are necessary to "reign in the unfunded liability". Some politicians and political analysts have even gone as far as to compare this "unfunded liability" with the state bank disaster. This is misleading and a fallacy.

The "unfunded liability" is not a real debt and it is estimated by "actuaries" who follow a formula to determine what the debt "might be" in 40 - 50 years. The main determination is of course the number of people on the scheme and how much it will cost to continue to pay their entitlements until the age of 65 years. In any given year people move onto the scheme and move off the scheme and it is unlikely that all those on the scheme now will be there until the age of 65. The figure that is the unfunded liability is not a debt that can be called on for full payment at any given time, and in fact, the major contributing factor to the unfunded liability is the ability of the WorkCover Corporation (WCC) and them EML to manage claims efficiently and effectively. Poor performance and poor governance has seen both the WCC and EML develop a culture where they conduct their business "above the law", and this has been validated by members of the Self Insured of South Australia (SISA) who operate their workers compensation scheme under the same legislation, and at a profit.

The government appears to have taken the extreme measures of punishing injured workers to avoid going to the next election with the "unfunded liability" that could be used by the Opposition to show poor financial management. In other words this is a face saving exercise rather than a financial necessity.

Both myself and Mark Parnell from the Greens joined forces to delay the passage of the Bill for as long as possible to give the unions time to organize their protests and try to negotiate a better deal for injured workers. Mark and I were criticized by the media for costing the state some $154,000 for the exercise, a figure that has absolutely no foundation. It was even suggested that the exercise showed the need for reforms of the Legislative Council or even abolition, when in actual fact, the role of the Legislative Council is to review and amend flawed legislation. This is not the first time that the Council has sat late and had extensive debate, because that is our job. The purpose of the exercise was not to waste time, but to ensure that the full ramifications of this Bill would be put on the public record and to also give injured workers a voice in our parliament. Neither myself nor Mark Parnell will apologise for doing the job we were elected to do i.e. to represent the people of this state.

The "Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation (Scheme Review) Amendment Bill" is in my mind one of the most important Bills we will debate because of the financial, social, psychological and emotional impact it will have on so many who are unable to fight for themselves - those injured in the workplace.

When we hear the Premier Mike Rann state that this scheme will still be the most generous in the country we should take him to task, because this scheme is the most draconian of all. It will see injured workers entitlements cut after 13 weeks, it will see a medical panel making legislative determinations and if an injured worker disputes the determination their entitlements will be cut off until the dispute is resolved.

The Law Society of South Australia opposes these amendments, just as they did in the 1990's when many of these amendments were used back then to "reign in the unfunded liability" under the Olsen and Brown governments. It is obvious that band aid measures fail to address the long-term issues that surround our workers compensation scheme in South Australia, because the unfunded liability has returned bigger than ever.

Mr. Foley has stated that we must adjust our scheme to make it as competitive as other states. He fails to mention that those "other states" give injured workers access to Common Law. This allows injured workers to sue for damages when they have been injured through breaches in Occupational Health and Safety guidelines. In other words negligent employers are held responsible and workers are compensated accordingly. Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania all have a Common Law component to their schemes, but not South Australia. The government would only need to agree to one amendment (to allow unrestricted access to Common Law) and this would at last ensure that injured workers had some recourse. So what does our government here in South Australia do? There is absolutely no negotiation in regards to Common Law but this labor government takes it one step further,  no entitlements if you dispute any determination in the legal arena. So it has a "suck it and see" attitude.

The legislation will have a serious impact on the long-term injured. After 2 years they will be reviewed and if they are assessed as being able to "return to work" then they will be thrown off the scheme and will have seek out employment. So what happens to a man who has a serious back injury and he is able to work for 3 hours a day?

He will return to work for 3 hours a day and that will be the income he is destined to live on for the rest of his working days. There will be no subsidy to bring the average weekly income up to the "basic wage" and if that person again incurs another injury then he is no longer able to return to the scheme. If he is able to claim a disabled pension through CentreLink then he will be destined to live on that paltry amount. This is a cost shifting exercise. The employer should be required to take responsibility for the continued well being of his employees, but instead Australian taxpayers will be paying for the injured worker instead of the WCC and the employer.

This legislation is also "retrospective", which means that any injured workers who have been on the scheme for 36+ months will automatically be reassessed and many will be required to "return to work". By international standards this is the group of people who have a less than 6% chance of returning to meaningful employment. So this legislation will literally "starve them back to work" at the risk of them incurring further injuries, without any further support being offered.

Is this what we pay our government do to?

We seem to have forgotten that governments are elected to care for and about those who elect them, the people of South Australia and governments should be judged by how they look after the most vulnerable in our community.

Why did the Opposition support the Bill?

They will have you believe that they do not support the Bill and that if they win government they will change it. In actual fact, it is their duty to "loyally oppose" any flawed legislation that passes through either house. They have chosen to take a passive approach and hope that this legislation will be enough to do the government harm at the next election in 2010.

I wonder how many injured workers will be comforted knowing that they are forced to live below the bread line, because of a "political manoeuvre", based on the hopes, wishes and dreams of the Liberal party to be a viable option for government. This one inaction should prove beyond doubt that both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party have little concern for the stress and duress they have caused the sick and injured.

As an Independent I find it distressing to see just how cold blooded political animals function. It is about "political survival" and "point scoring". Both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party have chosen the interests of business over the interests of injured workers and they show no remorse.

"A professional politician is a professionally dishonest person. In his efforts to reach high office he has had to endure numerous humiliations and compromises so that he is no longer distinguishable from a streetwalker". (H.L. Mencken American Literary.)

Every working man and woman in South Australia has been sold out by this legislation because every man and woman has the potential to be injured on the job.