User:Workedover/Workcover

In 1986 the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 came into force in South Australia. The objects of the Act were to establish a workers rehabilitation and compensation scheme that achieved a resonable balance between the interests of employers and the interests of workers. The objects on the one hand for injured workers is stated as providing for their effective rehabilitation and providing fair compensation for employment-related disabilities, reducing the overall social and economic cost to the commuity of employment related disabilities.Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986. In the interests of employers the objects are to ensure that employers costs are contained within reaosnable limits so that the impact of employment-related disabilities on South Australian businesses is minimised, whilst providing for the efficient and effective administration of the scheme,establish incentives to encourage efficiency and discourage abuses, ensuring that the scheme is fully funded on a fair basis, reducing the incidence of employment-related accidents and disabilities and to reduce litigation and adversarial contests to the greatest possible extent. Any persons exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative powers must interpret this Act in the light of its objects without bias towards the interests of employers on the one hand, or workers on the other.

Since the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 commenced there has been great difficulty in balancing the interests of the Injured employees, the rights of employers and the sustainability and viability of the WorkCover Corporation which manages the Scheme. On 19th February 2004 Iain Evans MP raised issues in relation to Parliamentary Privilege being breached by investigators contracted by WorkCover.Hansard 19th February 2004 The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport): Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. On 24 July 2003, Chubb Corporate Risk Services, on behalf of WorkCover, interviewed a Dr Gadd regarding a claimant, Mr Thompson, a former diver of Port Lincoln. I believe the transcript of that interview may reveal a breach of privilege. It is clear from the transcript that the WorkCover investigators are trying to establish whether the doctor will reconsider the claimant's capacity to work given certain activities the claimant has undertaken. The transcript indicates: WorkCover say: `All right. What about as far as writing letters, formulating letters, those types of things, did he ever discuss anything like that with you?' The doctor says: `On occasion yes but I wouldn't expect him not to be able to do that, because I would assume he would do that in his time and therefore may be able to do it in several bites rather than all in one hit.' The transcript continues: WorkCover say: What about letters of complaint to members of parliament, to managers of insurance companies to WorkCover themselves? Ongoing issues in relation to, as I say, freedom of information requests and the fact that he identifies certain documents that haven't been provided to him from the volume of information that he's received. Quick look at those if you will. The transcript continues: WorkCover say: Some letters of complaints, some letters to ministers, to shadow ministers, the relevant bodies within Work­Cover and a freedom of information application. Again does that concern you, is that how he presented to you? Further, if the members of parliament themselves know that, by approaching WorkCover or the minister with the letter from a constituent, it may be used against the constitu­ent, we ourselves will be restrained in approaching Work­Cover or the minister on that issue or, indeed, in using that information within the parliament. Mr Speaker, I will give you a copy of the transcript and ask that you consider whether there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege. The SPEAKER: I look forward to getting that informa­tion and, whilst I am tempted to remark upon it at this point, I think it might be wiser for me to consider the matter over the ensuing three days of the weekend, along with the other matter on which I have yet to report to the house. I will do that on Monday.
 * 1) 34I believe that the transcript indicates that WorkCover and/or its agents are using letters written to members of parliament in an attempt to persuade doctors to reassess the capacity of the complainant's ability to work. My concern is that this may breach a privilege of members of parliament. If a member of the public knows that by writing to an MP the letter may be used against them by WorkCover, they will not approach members of parliament because of fear of being victimised by WorkCover. It will restrict us in our capacity to carry out our roles as members of parliament within the parliament.

By May 2008 The South Australian workers compensation scheme known as WorkCover had been suffering an underfunded liability blowout nearing $1 billion. Legislation created to rectify the situation meant that injured workers payments would be cut by 10 percent after 13 weeks, 20 percent after 26 weeks, and end workers compensation payments all together after two and a half years, regardless of job prospects. Both major parties, the South Australian divisions of the incumbent centre-left Australian Labor Party led by Mike Rann and the opposition centre-right Liberal Party of Australia led by Martin Hamilton-Smith were supportive of the changes, and with eight members each in the 22-member upper house, numbers were not an issue. [Parnell - Bressington fillibuster]