Page 214 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
there are rogues out there on both sides of the equation. But my contention today is that the current lack of balance in the system means that we are wide open to claims of abuse.
WorkCover authorities claim that they investigate fraud. In practice, however, the system is often rorted. It is seen by many as a supplement to social welfare. Endemically, workers who may have suffered an injury out of work will claim the injury is work-related. The system assumes that when a claimant alleges the injury was work-related the worker is correct. The onus to prove the injury was not work-related falls on the employer—an almost impossible task.
Some sections of the medical profession are complicit in fraudulent claims. Most medical professionals charge more for a workers compensation consultation than for other consultations. I have no sympathy for that sort of conduct. Some years ago I drew to the attention of the national media the rorting that was going on. I referred to statements coming from medicos to justify a range of ailments which people were more than happy to shift back onto their employer, when often the facts showed that their employment had no bearing on their injuries. It behoves the Australian Medical Association at some point to lift its game in providing some leadership to its members to bring an end to some of these extraordinary practices.
Non-declaration to employers by employees of prior injuries is standard. If re-injury occurs, the employer is required to bear the cost. Workers compensation authorities claim that non-declaration of prior injury can void a claim but this rarely, if ever, applies. Privacy, discrimination and other laws effectively prevent employers from investigating if a prospective employee has prior injuries. This stops employers having proper control over their work risk, yet they must bear the cost of claims.
In summary, the existing workers compensation and occupational health and safety schemes directly and unnecessarily increase operating costs. They dampen productivity and constrain business success. Further, the key national priority—targeting safe working arrangements and compensation for genuine injuries across Australia—is clearly compromised, for reasons I have outlined. The culture and the laws need to be changed to ensure that every individual involved in work is held responsible and liable for the things they control. Only through this process can Australia drive towards truly safe work environments.
The minister is in a special position to correct the unreasonable and costly bias in the present arrangements. She has the challenge before her to reverse the trend of seeing Canberra as not a good environment in which to do business. Investment is being forgone and jobs do evaporate because of the OH&S and workers compensation rorting that has occurred. The opposition will listen with enthusiasm to hear what the minister is going to do to address some of the issues I have presented.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.12): I will be supporting this bill, which introduces a number of amendments proposed by the Occupational Health and Safety Council, a tripartite body that plays a crucial role in the management of the ACT’s private workers compensation scheme. After a lot of groundwork with employer and employee representatives and people from social services, the insurance industry and medical professionals, the scheme was passed by the Assembly, somewhat contentiously, in 2001.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .