Paul Goldsbrough – Senior Director Policy and Business Engagement Workplace Health and Safety Queensland Injury Management 2013 Review of Queensland’s Workers’ Compensation Scheme – Issues and analysis

The Queensland Workers’ Compensation scheme Workplace Health and Safety Queensland Q-COMP Insurers (WorkCover and Self Insurers) 150,000 businesses are employers 2.3 million workers Highest proportion of total expenditure directed to claimants Lowest proportion expended on insurance operations

WorkCover Financial Performance WorkCover in the black and fully solvent equity position $541 million 30 June 2012 Only scheme with positive funding ratio: –Queensland 119%; –Victoria 96%; –NSW 78%; –SA 59.2%

Rehabilitation and RTW Performance highest injured worker participation rate at 78% highest rate of worker involvement in return to work plans at 85% WorkCover achieved 97.6% return to work rate last year Q-COMP’s Return to work assist program lifted whole scheme rate to 98.5%

Parliamentary review of Scheme The Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 requires a review of the scheme at least once every 5 years Current review being conducted by the Parliament’s Finance and Administration Committee

Parliamentary review of Scheme Commenced work in June 2012 Was due to report to Parliament 28 February 2013, report date extended to 23 May 2013 To date the Committee has received 206 written submission from over 184 organisations and individuals Over 81 persons have attended public hearings in Brisbane, Mackay and Cairns

Employer submissions Advocate for: –Common law threshold –Restriction of journey claims –Restrictive definition of worker and injury Provide personal experience with claims management and premium calculation Seek more robust claims process: –Thorough investigations –Better contact with WorkCover –Education of treating doctors

Employer Associations submissions Advocate for: –Common law threshold –Restriction of journey claims –Restrictive definition of injury –Align definition of worker with Australian Taxation laws –More flexibility in premium calculation

Insurer submissions Limited number of submissions Advocate for: –Opening scheme to private insurers; or –Outsource claims management to private insurers

Professional Bodies submissions Limited number of submissions Unique issues impacting their membership Examples of issues include: –Chiropractors sought direct access by injured workers to allied health providers; –Melanoma patients submission sought retention of coverage for solar injuries.

Lawyer submissions Include submissions from peak bodies and individual law firms Advocate for: –Retention of access to common law –Retention of access to journey claims

Union and Worker submissions Advocate for: –Retaining current scheme access and benefit structure –Oppose introduction of common law threshold –Oppose restriction to journey claims Submit that the 2010 legislative reforms have achieved policy objectives.

Consistently Raised Matter Five matters consistently raised: –common law access threshold; –journey claims; –definition of injury; –definition of worker; –premium calculation method.

Access to Common Law Over 102 submissions addressed access to common law Employers seek introduction of threshold between 0% and 15% Union, lawyers, workers oppose any changes In common law claims made up 44% ($593.3M) of scheme claim costs

Journey/Recess Claims Over 34 submissions addressed journey/recess claim entitlement Cost of journey claims does not impact an employer’s premium experience In : –6,285 journey claims accepted –4,170 (66%) of claims related to vehicle incidents –$69M paid out for statutory claims –$27M recovered from MAIC –Net cost of journey claims to WorkCover of $42M

Definition of Injury Over 33 submissions addressed the definition of injury Employers advocate that: –current definition is unfair to employers –employers paying for pre-existing injuries –employers paying for injuries sustained elsewhere –employment should be “the” significant contributing factor Unions and lawyers do not support change

Definition of Worker Over 15 submissions addressed the definition of worker Employers advocate that: –current definition is confusing –“results test” has failed to deliver certainty –inconsistent definition with ATO creates regulatory confusion and burden –burden most significant for industries that engage independent contractors Unions and lawyers do not support change

Premium Calculation Over 33 submissions addressed current system for calculating premium Employers seek increased recognition in premium of efforts & investments in WHS Current EBR system incentivises employers to improve WHS outcomes; however, the lag is too long for business WorkCover has commenced implementing procedural improvements to address some of the issues raised in submissions.

Questions For Further Information Workplace Health and Safety Queensland – Q-COMP – WorkCover Queensland –