Our dear friend and contributor @grathom has kindly sourced and brought to our attention some enlightening and interesting Hansard transcripts about workcover NSW …
Workcover NSW 23 February 2012
| Speakers | President; Mason-Cox The Hon Matthew; Pearce The Hon Greg |
| Business | Questions Without Notice, QWN |
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister inform the House about the suggestions that have been made to him about changes that could be made to WorkCover?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: That is a very good question from the Parliamentary Secretary, and I thank him for it. Members on this side of the Chamber will remember—on that side I am not sure—that on Tuesday of this week Mr David Shoebridge asked me whether I had a list of suggestions for reform that had been provided by the former Chair of WorkCover, Mr Greg McCarthy, to one of his colleagues on the WorkCover board? I said at the time that I did not have the list, and I did not. But since then my diligent staff have obtained a copy of the list, for which I thank them. The list makes very interesting reading. I commend Mr McCarthy for making a number of suggestions as to how the scheme might be improved. Unlike Mr David Shoebridge, who has been engaged in scaremongering, Mr McCarthy has applied his strong knowledge of insurance to the problems of the scheme. These suggestions are, of course, merely the ideas of Mr McCarthy, who, incidentally, was appointed by Mr Della Bosca, and do not constitute current government policy.
Mr McCarthy has suggested in the short term that WorkCover needs to examine remuneration for agents’ financial drivers to achieve objectives for both the scheme and agents. He has suggested that WorkCover needs to ensure that financial drivers for performance are transparent and that there is an internal WorkCover capability to manage the agents. He has suggested that WorkCover re-establish open and trusting relations with agents. He has suggested that WorkCover review its operating guidelines for claims agents. He suggested also that WorkCover implement a proper scheme-monitoring capability which would involve: identifying poor performing industry sectors and what drives their risk; identifying what is driving their performance, interrogating and segmenting claims data and establishing claims review capability.
Mr McCarthy also suggested that WorkCover consider implementing a commutation window to allow the introduction of legislation that refocuses the scheme towards rehabilitation rather than compensation. He suggested a more active and targeted management strategy of agents with strong internal file review capability from WorkCover. In addition to Mr McCarthy’s suggestions on the workers compensation scheme he also had a number of proposals regarding WorkCover’s structure. They include: combining the workers compensation insurance division back into one unit, adopting a risk management culture, reviewing and implementing new training material, and considering whether enforcement activity should be separate from WorkCover.
The key theme of Mr McCarthy’s proposals centres around a complete review of the WorkCover scheme. He makes numerous suggestions looking at organisational change, a review of benefits and stronger enforceable obligations on the delivery of rehabilitation by employers and on injured workers in order to receive benefits. Without reading the full list of suggestions, a final point of note is the suggestion of privatisation of the scheme or, if not, to have a central information technology system and consider an agent model with two contracts—one for small business and one for large. I reiterate that McCarthy’s list is a collection of his own thoughts, no doubt underpinned by his frustration with the failures of the previous Labor Government and Labor Ministers to take action to reform the scheme over a decade. I commend Mr McCarthy for taking the time to make a constructive contribution to the issues at hand, something that those opposite are incapable of doing.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Under Standing Order 56 (2) I move without notice:
- That the document referred to by the Minister in his answer be tabled.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Under Standing Order 56 a document relating to public affairs quoted by a Minister may be ordered to be laid on the table, unless the Minister states that the document is of a confidential nature or should more properly be obtained by an order. Did the Minister quote from a document?
The Hon. Greg Pearce: No, I was reading from my notes, which have been handed to Hansard.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There are some grey areas in respect of the way in which Standing Order 56 should be interpreted. On a fair reading of Standing Order 56, if a Minister is quoting from a specific document as part of his answer the document can be the subject of a motion under the standing order. However, as is common practice under the current and previous governments, if the Minister is quoting from copious notes in answer to a question I am not sure that falls into the same category. In any case, there are circumstances under which the motion is not able to proceed—for example, if the Minister claimed that the document was confidential. In that case, the document would be more properly obtained by an order for papers. The motion of the Hon. Amanda Fazio is out of order. I ask members to bear that in mind in their use of Standing Order 56 in the future.
[Source: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20120223039]
Workcover NSW Hansard transcripts suggest medical care will be stripped
Workcover NSW 8 March 2012
| Speakers | President; Mason-Cox The Hon Matthew; Pearce The Hon Greg |
| Business | Questions Without Notice, QWN |
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister update the House on the length of current workers compensation claims?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the honourable member for her question. As I have indicated on several occasions, the WorkCover scheme deficit has increased by almost a billion dollars in the six months to June 2011. The scheme deficit is a real problem that requires real solutions. One of the key challenges for the scheme is the long tail of claims stretching over a number of years and the fact that the scheme has a poor record of getting long-term workers compensation claimants back to work. WorkCover has given me some statistics. It is estimated that in excess of 2,600,000 claims have been incurred over the life of the scheme. There are currently more than 36,000 claimants in receipt of weekly payments in the scheme. A total of $796 million was spent by the scheme on weekly payments in the 2011 calendar year and a total of $14,269 million—that is $14 billion—was expended by the scheme on weekly payments between June 1987 and June 2011. That is in 2011 dollar values.
Prior to 2001, a larger proportion of claims accessed common law rather than weekly payments. Restrictions on common law access from late 2001 had the effect of increasing the proportion of claimants who accessed weekly payments. I understand that approximately 17 per cent of these weekly claims are for injuries incurred before 2002. The average duration of a claim in New South Wales now is around eight years, with a wide variation between claims. Return-to-work outcomes have deteriorated since 2008-09, with claimants remaining on weekly benefits for longer. I emphasise the point that, while the number of claims is decreasing, the cost of the claims is increasing steadily because injured workers are not getting back to work. The total cost of weekly payments has increased sharply since 2006-07 and weekly benefits account for around 40 per cent of the scheme’s gross cost. Weekly benefit recipients of course also access other scheme benefits, such as medical benefits, further inflating costs to the scheme over time.
The scheme’s coverage for the most benefits is of course life long. The current scheme commenced in June 1987 and I am advised that the longest claims in the scheme are now 24 years old. As the scheme ages, so will the oldest claims in the scheme. Of the claims that are currently receiving weekly benefits, 38 per cent have been receiving them for three years or more. I am advised that, once workers have reached this point, experience tells us it is highly unlikely that they will return to work and so the scheme ends up with a rump of claims from claimants who—
Mr David Shoebridge [a good man -we think 
]: You are going to cut workers off after three years?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Three years. Those claimants are not likely to leave the scheme. The Government has to think of new ways of incentivising claimants to return to work. We are looking at ways in which rehabilitation practices and return-to-work schemes can be improved. We want our scheme to aspire to best practices and, once again, I appeal to the Opposition to support the Government in its efforts to fix this mess. I again suggest that The Greens embrace a constructive role in the Government’s efforts to build a sustainable workers compensation scheme. I want a scheme that better assists workers in returning to work and rebuilding their lives, and I hope the Opposition and The Greens share that vision. It is vital that action is taken to reform the scheme and bring it back in the black. That is why the Government considers the improved management of the scheme is a matter of the highest priority.
[Source: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20120308024?open&refNavID=undefined]
Workers Compesation Scheme NSW (Proof) 14 March 2012
| Speakers | Mason-Cox The Hon Matthew; Pearce The Hon Greg |
| Business | Questions Without Notice, QWN |
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister update the House on medical costs in the New South Wales workers compensation scheme?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the member for his question. It is interesting that I do not get any questions from the Opposition or The Greens about the workers compensation scheme even though the scheme has become unsustainable. In response to the question I can report that one issue significantly hampering optimal scheme performance is that a significant amount is spent on medical services and benefits that do not contribute to improved health or a return to work. As I have said repeatedly, we need to be returning people to work as soon as possible. We need to strive for a scheme that is driving return to work outcomes and adopting best practices in rehabilitation.
In New South Wales, workers compensation benefits cover the cost of any medical or related treatment that is reasonably necessary for the treatment and rehabilitation of the compensable injury. There are no effective limits on the amount of time that these benefits remain available or to the total cost that can be expended. Medical liabilities have increased over the last five years and now represent a significant proportion of the scheme’s liabilities, placing upward pressure on premium costs. This trend is likely to continue as medical treatments become more sophisticated and expensive. The most recent national data available, the Comparative Performance Monitoring Report for the 2009-10 financial year, shows New South Wales had the highest expenditure on services to workers. These services encompass medical treatment, rehabilitation, legal costs, return to work assistance, transportation, employee advisory services and interpreter costs. Given current return to work results, this demonstrates a relatively poor return on investment in medical services.
Several Australian jurisdictions limit medical cost entitlements more effectively than New South Wales does. For example, in Victoria medical entitlements cease 12 months after the injury occurs or 12 months after incapacity payments cease, whichever is later, with some exceptions, such as a severe injury. The New South Wales Workers Compensation Scheme provides insurance cover to over 267,000 New South Wales employers and their employees in the event of work-related injury. We need to get back to the fundamental aim of the scheme—that of returning injured workers to safe and durable employment. That is why this Government considers the improved management [how nicely worded, folks!) of the scheme is a matter of the highest priority.
[Source: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20120314034?open&refNavID=undefined]
Shortlink: http://aworkcovervictimsdiary.com/?p=5746
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Given that in answer to a question asked in this House on 21 February the Minister stated that the adjournments to prosecutions sought by WorkCover pending a review had to do with legislative changes made last year, yet the barrister representing WorkCover told the Industrial Court on 27 February that all the prosecutions in relation to which adjournments were sought for the purposes of a review were all under the previous legislation, did the Minister mislead this House on 21 February?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: No, and of course I would not mislead the House. I have been advised of the decision made by Justice Bollen regarding a number of applications by WorkCover for adjournments in the Industrial Relations Commission in Court Session. It is interesting that the member referred to the Industrial Relations Commission in Court Session. I will share some thoughts about some of the decisions of the Industrial Court. Members will remember the Kirk decision, a landmark case noted mostly for what it said about the industrial relations court as a jurisdiction and for the way in which prosecutions were pursued. In this case WorkCover prosecuted a man who owned a farm but who had entrusted the management of his farm—
The Hon. Adam Searle: Point of order: The Minister is not being generally relevant. The question was clearly directed to whether the Minister had misled the House given two facts that were laid before this House in the question. The Minister is now addressing a completely separate point. He is canvassing decisions of the court in other matters and not in the matter to which his attention was drawn in the question. Please call the Minister back to relevance.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: To the point of order: The question was in relation to purported reasons given to the Industrial Relations Commission for adjournments. It referred on the one hand to recent changes to the law and on another hand to earlier changes to the law. I am exploring some of those earlier changes to the law.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: As I was saying, in the Kirk case WorkCover prosecuted a man who owned a farm but who had entrusted the management of his farm to a good friend who was far more qualified for that task than he was. In this matter WorkCover actually called the defendant as its own witness despite the provisions of the Evidence Act that state that this cannot be done. Justice Heydon in the High Court believed that this was perhaps a reason why specialist tribunals had difficulties, saying:
… a major difficulty in setting up a particular court, like the Industrial Court, to deal with specific categories of work, one of which is a criminal jurisdiction in relation to a very important matter like industrial safety, is that the separate court tends to lose touch with the traditions, standards and mores of the wider profession and judiciary.
Perhaps the court disregarding the Evidence Act in relation to the calling of particular witnesses was an example of that. But more than that of course was the criticism from Justice Heydon in relation to the proceedings themselves. He said that the proceedings should never have been instituted. The truth of that statement can perhaps be seen more clearly in hindsight than before the proceedings were instituted, but it remains a statement that is and was true at all times. Justice Heydon went on to say:
It is absurd to have prosecuted the owner of a farm and its principal on the ground that the principal had failed properly to ensure the health, safety and welfare of his manager, who was a man of optimum skill and experience – skill and experience much greater than his own – and a man whose conduct in driving straight down the side of a hill instead of on a formed and safe road was inexplicably reckless.
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE:
My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Why was WorkCover, in its application for adjournment of occupational health and safety prosecutions before Justice Boland on Monday 27 February, unable to inform the court whether instructions to seek adjournments had come from the inspectors who had laid the charges?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE:
I do not know. I was not there. However, judging from media reports, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was in the audience. I am not sure if he was briefing someone or he was briefed by anybody, but I am pretty sure he was there.
The Hon. Duncan Gay:
Can he not remember?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE:
He might be able to shed some light on his own question. He should remember. In the context of adjournments of some of those cases I will again refer to the Kirk case before Mr Justice Heydon.
The Hon. Adam Searle:
Point of order: The question I posed to the Minister was why WorkCover, which is the body charged with conducting the prosecutions, was not able to inform the court when it made its own applications for the matters to be adjourned who had given the instructions and whether or not the inspectors who had laid the charges had given the instructions. It is a very important point. The Minister ought to know if he is across his portfolio, and he is not. My point of order is that the Minister is trying to obfuscate by dealing with another matter and has not addressed the question squarely.
The PRESIDENT:
Order! The remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are well beyond the scope of a point of order. A point of order should be confined to a consideration of whether or not the answer complies with standing orders. I presume the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was about to question whether the Minister’s answer was generally relevant. It was a little too early for me to judge that, but I remind the Minister of the requirement for his answer to be generally relevant.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE:
The question asks me about the reasons for the adjournments. The first question asked by the Leader of the Opposition today indicated that one of the possible reasons for the application was a review resulting from recent changes to the law, and that the other possible reason was that there may have been a review because of previous changes to the law. I am enlightening the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on previous changes to the law that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition as a possible reason for the adjournments.
Mr David Shoebridge:
Point of order: The Minister’s referring to an earlier question does not address the relevance of this answer. The Minister is not even pretending to be generally relevant in his answer to this question. He is referring to an earlier question.
Interruption
Despite the eloquent interjection by the Acting Leader of the Government, the Minister is not even pretending to be generally relevant.
The PRESIDENT:
Order! I uphold the point of order. The Minister has indicated that he has nothing further to add.
The Hon. STEVE WHAN:
My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. On what basis or advice was the decision made for WorkCover to seek adjournments to current prosecutions?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE:
I do not know. The Hon. Steve Whan will have to ask WorkCover.
The Hon. MICK VEITCH: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. What roles has the Minister or his office had in the decision of WorkCover to seek adjournments to criminal prosecutions while they are before the court?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I do not want to debate the question, but these questions are increasingly absurd. How many times has the Opposition told us that WorkCover sought the adjournments to get legal advice on the prosecutions? Now it is asking the Government what legal advice it had. I assume that if WorkCover got the adjournment to get the advice, it probably did not have the advice before it got the adjournment to get the advice. The geniuses opposite have used up two-thirds of question time to ask what advice WorkCover had to seek advice. Have Opposition members asked me a question about the State’s triple-A rating and Moody’s report reaffirming the State’s rating last week?
Mr David Shoebridge: Point of order: The Minister is clearly debating the question. He said he would not debate it, but he cannot help himself. It was a simple question. Could the Minister be directed to answer the question?
The PRESIDENT: Order! The member will not make a debating point under the guise of a point of order. The Minister was debating the question. The Minister has concluded his answer.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Who made the decision that WorkCover would seek adjournments in criminal prosecutions that are currently before the courts?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I refer to the many, many previous answers.
I see what’s happening here:
So what we’ll soon see is:
In effect what he’s doing is called “scene setting”. He’s setting the stage for something that’s already been decided.
What a f****** w*****!
I would encourage any injured worker living in NSW to either up the ante NOW (rallies like the nurses did in Vic recently and they won!) or pack up and move! You can’t afford getting even less! How on earth are you/we going to cope?