National Workers Compensation and Occupational
               Health and Safety Frameworks

                       INTERIM REPORT

The following comments were compiled for INJURIES AUSTRALIA based on the horrendous inhuman treatment within the Government Workcover system experienced by tens of thousands of work injured employees.                                                                                                        The changes put forward as to how work safety and after injury care are conducted in the future are considered to be absolutely necessary.  
They are the result of many years of research and discussion in Australia and in other countries and we trust that they will be given the same level of consideration.      

 

the members of injuries australia congratulate the productivity commission on the general presentation and coverage of the enquiry to date.     having said that we must declare that we believe that                                                                                                                                                                   
this is probably the last chance to get it right.  unless there are drastic alterations as to how safety and injury indemnity are conducted, industry, their employees and the federal government are in for a continued financial, physical and emotional beating.    the state governments will not change a thing.    why should they when the system in place is financially 100% in their favour.

if there is one criticism of the INTERIM report it is the use of what must be questionable figures as to numbers of employees injured and the numbers of employees claimed to be returned to work.  the method of recording casualty numbers and rtw figures varies from state to state thus making comparison EXTREMELY difficult.   we pointed this out by our reference to the adverse comments on work injury figures made by the national medical RESEARCH foundation in its 1999 national injury survey.    however using the figures presented we find that if the actual numbers instead of percentages were used in the chapter on injury management a totally different picture would be presented to the public.                                                         in para 6.4 the actual number of work injured employees who achieved a durable return to work is shown as 73%.   assuming that the other 27% were not returned to employment, and using the data available on the national total number of work injured this would translate to up to 54,000 injured employees who are probably dumped each year on to federal government financial support payments.  a check with facs data as to the actual number of people who are accepted each year and declare work injury as the cause of their situation would expose a more accurate picture but would not show those dumped who had a working partner.  
what ever the total figure is it is large and represents an enormous ongoing cost to the federal government which can be measured in hundreds of millions of dollars each year for something which is not their responsibility.                                                                                                                                   

they are supplying a free loan to the various states work insurance schemes and ensuring the continuation of a most evil result to the unwillingly work injured.  
injuries australia has for years expressed the view to the federal government that while they subsidised the states workcover they, workcover, will not carry out its legislated requirement of rehabilitating injured employees to a swift return to work.
we ask that this point be given closer examination with the view to removing federal MONETARY assistance UNTIL the states have carried out their duties swiftly and fully.  

other points arising from the INTERIM report 
with respect, we wish to remind the members of the commission that no matter how much effort that they put into this enquiry and no matter what they may recommend to the states there is a 100% chance that they, the states will chose to totally ignore those recommendations however well constructed and useful that they may be.   
following the industry commission report on workers compensation(1993),
not one state acted upon any one of the commissions recommendations.  the chose to ignore the entire report.   speaking from a injured employees point of view, injuries australia knows that many of those recommendations were just what was needed to turn around the  unsatisfactory and inhuman situation which workcover had DELIBERATELY developed to rob the work injured employees of their LEGISLATED assistance.   if the changes recommended by the INDUSTRY commission had been adopted it would have changed for the better the lives of tens of thousands of WORK INJURED over the past ten years.    it would most probably have prevented dozens of suicides by those who had been ILL TREATED by workcover and dispaired.    it would have most deffinatly saved the federal government several billion dollars in social security. 

it is important that we comment on one particular statement in the INDUSTRY commission final summary.    senior commissioner scales stated that in the opinion of the commission that 60% of all costs arising from a work caused injury were borne by the injured employee and his/her family.

this startling statement should have been enough to spark a huge debate yet not one of the states nor any of the insurers or employer groups raised a challenge to its accuracy or truth.    injuries australia believes that the figure of 60% was conservative as we had calculated the true figure to be 85% of all costs.  these figures were never challenged by the state workcover, the “health professionals” or the insurers.   the collective silence of the state governments and the profit takers only endorsed the truth of the statement.                                                                                                                                                              
since that time (1994), and allowing for the further downgrading of the quality of safety and care within the workcover system we would be fair in assuming that should this matter be revisited that the official figure 
as to the costs to the work injured would now be deffinatly 85% of the total.     the situation has now so deteriated that many trade unions are urging their members to take out private income maintenance insurance to cover their financial liabilities should they be injured at work.   the insurers are on the receiving end both ways.
injuries australia was disappointed at the original framework question on the setting of premiums.  this only allowed importance to the opinions of insurers, “professional” groups, industry associations spoke-persons and any others who profit from the system.   as we have repeatedly stated, work safety and after injury care is about humans not money.  
money is but one of the tools used to get the job done, yet the discussion on money far overshadows the real problem as to how humans are killed and injured at their work and then mistreated by these profit takers.    
as we have just pointed out, the costs to the unwillingly work injured far exceed that of industry, a fact which remains unchallenged and unchanged.  if this productivity commission enquiry were to bring to question as to why this unjust situation is TOLERATED by the state governments and to publicly expose the situation there is no doubt that the public interest would be such as to bring about change.

allow us to remind the commission that there are only three true stakeholders in work safety and after injury care.  the state government as the responsible legislators, the employers who contribute to part of the costs and the employees who, when work injured are obliged to use 

the system.    every one else is not obliged to PARTICIPATE and when they do become involved they do so solely for money/profit.  what ever they have to contribute to this enquiry is always shaped to express a view which will protect their profits.  we trust that it has been noted that in all of their volumous contributions, both verbal and written, that they off little interest in the ultimate welfare of the work injured.  their argument is always based on self- interest and is therefore suspect.

this brings us to ask, “just how much of the costly INCOMPETENCE and sheer bastardry now rampant within the workcover system would be removed if the profit takers were themselves removed”? 

as already raised, the states, at the urgings of their agents, will again chose to ignore any recommendations from this productivity commission which will effect their power and profits. 
therefore may we suggest that all recommendations be only directed to  situations which effect the federal government, especially financially.
 injuries australia has no doubt that had the federal government denied access to social security payments by work injured people UNTIL the final and full entitlements from workcover had been received that tens of thousands of work injured employees would not have been discriminated against by LOSING their employment and dumped on to the dole.  
workcover took advantage of the federal governments social conscience and forced social security to do their work for them, free of cost to themselves but at great cost to the work injured. 

to highlite this argument may we point out to the productivity commission that not only did the N.S.W government workcover ignore the industry commission’s recommendations on changes to workers compensation but it also DELIBERATELY ignored all of the recommendations in its own costly reports such as; the grelman inquiry (cost; $1mil.) the upper house standing committee on law and justice on workplace safety (1998), the upper house general purpose standing committee no.1. review and monitoring of the nsw workers compensation scheme. (2002).  the university of nsw review of rehabilitation and return to work in the hunter valley (dianna kenny) .  

etc. etc. etc.    now, to add insult to injury the carr government has announced yet another inquiry by the upper house general purpose committee no.1.    this time it is  “inquiry into serious injuries and deaths in the workplace".                                                                                                                                        this will be the third nsw government INQUIRY into work safety/compensation in six years and we can all have no doubt that the recommendations will also be totally ignored.    this is a deliberate cover up for the failure of the workcover system.  what does make it interesting is that minister della bosca announced in the parliament that nsw now has “worlds best practice in oh&s”.   if new south wales has worlds best practice oh&s then why do we need a costly inquiry?   is it a CONTRADICTION, a lie or another cover up?    or is it all three?

safety        the single key to the answer to this whole conundrum is the practice of human safety which works and for which people are accountable.    and this will never happen whilst money is seen as the most important consideration instead of the safety and wellbeing of employees.    UNTIL total accountability is introduced, practiced and policed, money will remain the overriding control factor.      
o.h&s as practiced is mostly a failure because of this enshrined non-accountability for results.
after injury care         regardless of the requirements of legislation, after injury care is as spasmodic and hit and miss as WORK SAFETY and again 
nobody is held accountable for failure to carry out the requirements of the legislation.    

time for opposite thinking.    
we must be totally honest and admit that state governments workcover systems are a failure and that that failure is centered around the use of COMMERCIAL insurers to manage the funds/manage the case which is so wrongly SEPARATED from the importance of safety.
can consideration be given to the urgent adoption of a user pays/user manages system which eliminates the use of COMMERCIAL insurers.  by all means insure your buildings, plant, MACHINERY and stock with the commercial insurers but not the safety of employees.  
where to start ?
do away with the words “worker”- “compensation”- “insurance”-“accident”.
why ?      these are all misleading and put down insurance industry words.             
worker----blue collar, dirty, ignorant, not as valuable as  “MANAGER”.  
compensation-----when your turn comes to be killed or injured at work 
You or your relatives will receive buckets of money AS A REWARD.
Insurance----when you get KILLED OR injured at work don’t worry ABOUT IT BECAUSE Insurance will fix up everything.
accident----WHEN YOU OR YOUR WORKMATES ARE KILLED OR INJURED AT WORK don’t BE TO CONCERNED.     AFTER ALL IT WAS ONLY AN ACCIDENT AND IT WAS NOBODY FAULT, ESPECIALLY ANY OF THE LEGION OF “MANAGERS”.
NEW NAME
LET US HAVE A “WORK SAFETY AND INJURY INDEMNITY SYSTEM” WHICH IS PAID FOR BY THE EMPLOYERS AND THE EMPLOYEES AND MANAGED BY THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TOGETHER WITH THE EMPLOYERS AND THE EMPLOYEES ONLY.    

SAFETY WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL PEOPLE IN THE ORGANISATION STARTING AT THE VERY TOP.   EVERYONE IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHATEVER HAPPENS AND EVERYONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTINUED MAINTENANCE OF A SAFE WORKPLACE.    EVERYONE IS A “SAFETY OFFICER”.  IF YOU SEE SOMETHING WHICH IS A SAFETY RISK YOU FIX IT OR CEASE WORK UNTIL IT IS FIXED.  THAT WAY NOBODY GETS HURT.   ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THIS IS putting MONEY BEFORE PEOPLE. 

MEDICAL COSTS FOR WORK CAUSED INJURIES ARE TO BE COVERED BY using MEDICARE FOR DOCTORS CONSULTATIONS.  THE EXTRA COSTS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BE COVERED BY A PART PERCENTAGE RAISE IN THE MEDICARE LEVY.  SHOULD HOSPITAL TREATMENT BE NEEDED IT WOULD BE COVERED BY PRIVATE MEDICAL insurance.    THE COSTS OF THE HOSPITAL TREATMENT WOULD BE COVERED BY HAVING EVERY EMPLOYER TAKE OUT TOP MEDICAL COVER FOR ALL EMPLOYEES BE THEY CASUAL, PART TIME OR FULL TIME.
INCOME MAINTENANCE.     THE EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEE WILL TOGETHER ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO PAY FOR A SYSTEM OF INCOME PAYMENTS FOR THE INJURED EMPLOYEE FOR WORK CAUSED INJURIES ONLY.    THIS WOULD FOLLOW ALONG THE SAME LINES AS WAGES INDEMNITY NOW COMMONLY USED BY SELF- EMPLOYED PEOPLE.     FOR INCOME UPKEEP FOR OTHER THAN WORK INJURIES THE EMPLOYEE CAN COME TO THEIR OWN ARRANGEMENT WITH THE COMPANY PROVIDING THE INDEMNITY. 
WHAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED HERE IS TO REMOVE THE IMPEDIMENT OF THE insurance COMPANY “CASE MANAGERS”.  THE PEOPLE CONCERNED, THE EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEE MAKE THE DECISIONS ON THE SPOT WITHOUT DELAY.  THERE CANNOT BE ANY DELAY AS ACTION MUST immediately TAKE EFFECT.  SHOULD EITHER PARTY BE UNHAPPY WITH HOW EVENTS WERE HANDLED THEN THEY MAY ASK THE THIRD PARTY, THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY, TO INVESTIGATE AFTER THE EVENT. 
THERE IS NO NEED FOR LEGAL INTERFER