WorkCover Needs Fixing
The Hanks Review was finally made public on 26 September after being received by the WorkCover Minister,
Tim Holding, a month earlier. The final report of Mr Peter Hanks QC into changes to the 1985 Accident
Compensation Act only confirmed the VTHC's fears.
On releasing the report and reviewing its contents, the Minister for WorkCover stated:
"... we have the best workers compensation system of any jurisdiction in Australia..."
| Page 2 >>
If it's the best, why does WorkCover:
- Have the 2nd lowest return to work rate in Australia?
- Have the 3rd lowest long-term return to work rate in Australia?
- Have the highest percentage (18%) of injured workers that are either sacked or retrenched?
<< Page 1 | Page 3 >>
If it's the best, why does WorkCover:
- Spend less on rehabilitation for individual injured workers that any other state?
- Have agents who rate the lowest in Australia for services to injured workers such as helpfulness, accuracy of information, attitude, communication and advising workers of their rights?
- Have the highest number of disputes over claims?
<< Page 2 | Page 4 >>
If it's the best, why does WorkCover:
- Have a system of weekly payments to injured workers that is so outdated that even Peter Hanks QC says in his report to Minister Holding that it was too big a mess for him to fix? He says it needs its own urgent inquiry to solve its problems such as under-compensating workers.
<< Page 3 | Page 5 >>
Mr Hanks has made 150 recommendations for change. Although some will improve the system many will make it much worse for injured workers.
WorkCover is the wealthiest system of workers compensation in Australia with $10.3 billion in reserves through investments. Since 2004 it's cut employers' premiums by 45% saving them $2 billion. Despite WorkCover's profits and its gifts to employers, it still fails to provide quality care for injured workers.
<< Page 4 | Start >>
We want every Victorian to let the government know that it's time WorkCover was for workers, not for employers.
After you've sent the email, let your family/friends/co-workers know about this campaign so they can do the same!
Tell Me Why
How to Fix WorkCover
- Increase Weekly Payments
- Make Automatic Payments
- Cover All Stress Injuries
- Improve Dispute Resolution Process
- Improve Return to Work Rights for Workers
- Stop Discrimination
- Bring Outworkers In
How long should injured workers receive payments?
Currently, injured workers' weekly benefits are cut after 130 weeks, unless they are able to demonstrate that they have "no work capacity" for any employment and that this incapacity is likely to continue indefinitely.
The VTHC says the period of entitlement to weekly benefits should be increased to 260 weeks, or five years.
How much should injured workers get?
The Victorian system of weekly payments is one of the worst in Australia. The Hanks Review refused to examine the payments regime and made only one slight improvement.
Currently workers get 95% of pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) including overtime for 13 weeks, then 75% up to 26 weeks, then 75% (less overtime) until 130 weeks. The only change that Hanks has recommended is that after 13 weeks the percentage increases to 80%.
The VTHC says that there should be an increase in the level of weekly payments to 100% of PIAWE for the first 12 months, then 80% for the duration of the entitlement period.
How should the payments be calculated?
The current manner, in which PIAWE is calculated whilst including piece work, does not include allowances, commissions, bonuses, salary packaging etc. This means that effective rates of weekly payments often fall well below the current 95% and 75% rates in the Act.
The VTHC says the calculation should be based upon "normal weekly earnings" that incorporates pay structures, including overtime, shift penalties and all other benefits and not based solely on ordinary rates of pay for normal hours worked.
Currently, injured workers' weekly benefits are cut after 130 weeks, unless they are able to demonstrate that they have "no work capacity" for any employment and that this incapacity is likely to continue indefinitely.
The VTHC says the period of entitlement to weekly benefits should be increased to 260 weeks, or five years.
How much should injured workers get?
The Victorian system of weekly payments is one of the worst in Australia. The Hanks Review refused to examine the payments regime and made only one slight improvement.
Currently workers get 95% of pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) including overtime for 13 weeks, then 75% up to 26 weeks, then 75% (less overtime) until 130 weeks. The only change that Hanks has recommended is that after 13 weeks the percentage increases to 80%.
The VTHC says that there should be an increase in the level of weekly payments to 100% of PIAWE for the first 12 months, then 80% for the duration of the entitlement period.
How should the payments be calculated?
The current manner, in which PIAWE is calculated whilst including piece work, does not include allowances, commissions, bonuses, salary packaging etc. This means that effective rates of weekly payments often fall well below the current 95% and 75% rates in the Act.
The VTHC says the calculation should be based upon "normal weekly earnings" that incorporates pay structures, including overtime, shift penalties and all other benefits and not based solely on ordinary rates of pay for normal hours worked.
The delays that exist between a worker being injured and getting their first weekly payment
causes major financial hardship and means that vital medical and rehabilitative services are delayed.
The VTHC says full provisional liability should be introduced to provide weekly benefits and medical and like expenses within 7 days of a claim being made.
The VTHC says full provisional liability should be introduced to provide weekly benefits and medical and like expenses within 7 days of a claim being made.
The WorkCover Authority claims that psychological/psychiatric injuries are a major problem.
It's right, these injuries inflict massive suffering on the workers who have them. Mr Hanks
wants to solve the problem by taking most stress claims out of the system as a work-place
injury that workers receive compensation for from WorkCover. He says a psychological/psychiatric
injury that arises from any "reasonable management action" shouldn't count as a work-place injury.
From WorkCover's point of view this would solve the problem, but a worker would left on the scrap-heap without medical care or financial support.
Every year about 3000 people receive stress injuries at work.
The Review also wants to force these workers to take part in mediation and/or workplace counselling before liability for their claim is considered.
The VTHC says including "any reasonable management action" as a reason to not accept claims discriminates against injured workers with psychological/psychiatric injuries, and will result in the vast majority of stress claims not being accepted.
From WorkCover's point of view this would solve the problem, but a worker would left on the scrap-heap without medical care or financial support.
Every year about 3000 people receive stress injuries at work.
The Review also wants to force these workers to take part in mediation and/or workplace counselling before liability for their claim is considered.
The VTHC says including "any reasonable management action" as a reason to not accept claims discriminates against injured workers with psychological/psychiatric injuries, and will result in the vast majority of stress claims not being accepted.
If your right to be compensated for a work-place injury is challenged, your
first port of call is the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service (ACCS).
But now, the toothless tiger may be stripped of its few remaining powers and
reduced to a mere talking shop.
Although it's been a toothless tiger for years, it is still a place where injured workers can make some progress in claiming their rights.
Mr Hanks wants the have the ACCS's powers reduced so that it's a mere talking shop and have WorkCover dictate most of what it does. This would see at least an extra 6000 claims being forced into the courts for resolution. The VTHC estimates it will cost workers and employers at least an extra $60 million a year. This means $30 million each more than the current system.
It would be a lawyers' picnic. It would blow-out the delays in court resolutions of WorkCover claims by at least two years. And extend the suffering and delay medical treatment for injured workers. It would stop the treatment of injuries that should be treated and fixed quickly. It would turn basic ordinary injuries into a battle ground that would prevent workers from pursuing their claims and create a financial gift to lawyers. For Injuries that could be fixed fast and the worker back to work quickly, it would extend the process into a complex legal battle that would mean that the injuries would become long-term and chronic.
This is an ill-considered and, in practice, a mad plan.
The VTHC says workers' claims must be resolved quickly. Unions want a one-stop shop that has the power to conciliate issues - and - if that fails, arbitrate. The unions' solution is speedy, simple, fair and economically efficient.
It would deliver the best results for workers and employers.
Although it's been a toothless tiger for years, it is still a place where injured workers can make some progress in claiming their rights.
Mr Hanks wants the have the ACCS's powers reduced so that it's a mere talking shop and have WorkCover dictate most of what it does. This would see at least an extra 6000 claims being forced into the courts for resolution. The VTHC estimates it will cost workers and employers at least an extra $60 million a year. This means $30 million each more than the current system.
It would be a lawyers' picnic. It would blow-out the delays in court resolutions of WorkCover claims by at least two years. And extend the suffering and delay medical treatment for injured workers. It would stop the treatment of injuries that should be treated and fixed quickly. It would turn basic ordinary injuries into a battle ground that would prevent workers from pursuing their claims and create a financial gift to lawyers. For Injuries that could be fixed fast and the worker back to work quickly, it would extend the process into a complex legal battle that would mean that the injuries would become long-term and chronic.
This is an ill-considered and, in practice, a mad plan.
The VTHC says workers' claims must be resolved quickly. Unions want a one-stop shop that has the power to conciliate issues - and - if that fails, arbitrate. The unions' solution is speedy, simple, fair and economically efficient.
It would deliver the best results for workers and employers.
Mr Hanks proposes to remove from the law most, if not all, of the employer obligations
in the return to work process and move them to guidance material, regulations and codes
of compliance. He also proposes that OH&S reps be the ONLY people - apart from the
injured worker - who can represent an injured worker in the return to work process.
This is a fundamental attack on an injured worker's right to make their own decision
about who represents them at a critical period in their life.
The VTHC says the obligations must remain in the Act, an injured worker should be able to choose anyone to represent them and the whole process must be reformed to improve the rights of injured workers, increase the obligations on employers to return injured workers to meaningful work.
The VTHC says the obligations must remain in the Act, an injured worker should be able to choose anyone to represent them and the whole process must be reformed to improve the rights of injured workers, increase the obligations on employers to return injured workers to meaningful work.
Injured workers are amongst the most discriminated against groups in the community.
But it doesn't just start after they lodge their WorkCover, it can happen if their
employer thinks they are going to lodge a claim. And it isn't just the injured
worker who faces discrimination, it can include anyone who encourages or helps an injured to lodge a claim.
Mr Hanks merely wants to bring the WorkCover Act's anti-discrimination provisions into line with the OHS Act. This doesn't go far enough.
The VTHC says the Act must be changed to prevent all forms of discrimination against the injured worker or work-mates who may be assisting them in their claim.
Mr Hanks merely wants to bring the WorkCover Act's anti-discrimination provisions into line with the OHS Act. This doesn't go far enough.
The VTHC says the Act must be changed to prevent all forms of discrimination against the injured worker or work-mates who may be assisting them in their claim.
Outworkers are the most vulnerable workers in Victoria. Their hours are long and they are
regularly the victims of unscrupulous employers. Mr Hanks says the Act merely needs to be
clarified to properly cover outworkers. But this does not go far enough. Even if it is
clarified, the law won't address the sham working arrangements forced on outworkers by their employers.
The VTHC says existing provisions need not only to be clarified but also changed to ensure coverage for outworkers. Protection should not be limited to natural persons and sole employee companies but should also extend to all sham arrangements.
The VTHC says existing provisions need not only to be clarified but also changed to ensure coverage for outworkers. Protection should not be limited to natural persons and sole employee companies but should also extend to all sham arrangements.
