Government of Western AustraliaDepartment of twines an Pet ole m

Mr Gh ls WhiteA/C ief Executi e Officer //(;;WorkGove WA2 Bedbrook Place , ¦ ' ,SHENTON PARK WA 6008

Dear Mr White

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW OF THE ORKERS COMPENSATION ANDINJURY MANAGEMENT CT 1981

Thank you for you letter of 27 Septembe 2013 Inviting comment on thediscussion paper relating to the legislati e re iew of the Workers'Compensation and Injury Management Aot 1981 (the Act),

Your letter re attention to several pro osals to eithe re eal or amendsections of the Act hich referred directly to the i es S fety and InspectionAot 1994, or otherwise Im acted directly on the mining industr ,

This De artment acknowledges that the current provisions in the Aot biohelate to tributers and dlsentitlement of certain mine wo kers to com ensation

are obsolete, enablin the relevant sections of the Act to be repealed,

The remainin proposed chan es to the Act outlined In your letter do notdirectl impact on the ad inistration of the Mines Safety and Inspection Adand the Department has no comment on these propose changes,

DIRECTOR G NERAL

December

Mlnaral Houso too pl ln SlreBl Gn t Porlh Wodorn Au lralln 0.004

000200,mll(B,rowB - Cimnlnota

Gove ment of Western Aust alia§ Department of Mines and Pet oleum

Your raf;otirrsl; TBD

) 3 FEB 201/r

Kevin Gillingham orkCover WAWorkCover WA2 Bedbrook PlaceShenton Pa kWA 6008

Dear Mr Gillingham

LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT ND REVIEW, WO KERS CO PENSATIO AND I JU Y ANAGEME T

Thank yo for the opportunity to res ond to the Re iew of the WorkersCom ensation an Injury Manage ent Act 1981 - Discussion Pa er. Overall,the Department of Mines an Pet ole m (DMP) Is sup ortive of the oposedchanges and amen ments to the workers com ensation an Injury managementlegislation,

However, there Is one afea of the p oposed changes that may be of concern toDMP as It does ha e the otential to result In long term claims that are

oblematic to finalise,

• Compensation for pe manent Impairment (P: 41 & P: 42}, That is thepro osal for a lum sum payment to be made on assessment ofermanent impairment an this settlement sum not impacting on wee ly

payments or other claimed expenses, The proposal states that the Injure worker can also claim com on law damages as well as wee lypayments/expenses an the settlement sum,

¦ This has the otential to cost the Department signific nt monies in theevent of an Injured orker being assessed ith a e manent I ai entand that worker being able to continue to claim com ensation, Thisraises questions about whethe the ro osal could esult In cl i s thatare ongoin and difficult to resolve an that requi e significant In ut interms of claims,ma a ement,

For the rest of the discussion pape , D P are of the o inion that thd overallp oposed st ucture an conten of the legislation to repl ce the Wo kersCom ensation n Injury Mana e ent Act 1981, is a great Improvement. T eproposed le islation is in a more lo ical order, contains clarifications of Va iouspoints, new definitions, administ ative i rovem nts d some si lificatio s,making the whole workers compe sation and injur management rocess more

i

Mlimml ouse 100 Plain Slteel Easi Porth Western Aualfalla 0004telephone 061 8 0222 3333 FoosMIe+Oi fl 0222 3002

WWW.tlffl .Wfl.flOV.oUWO,0oV,BII

AON MM 10 035 051)

Understandable, less confusing, less time consuming and easier to use for DMPd el Injured staff alike,

In particul r:« Proposed changes to the Medical Certificates and Form 2B are ll

positive and will he beneficial to the a inistration of workerscompensation and Injury management for DMP,

e P oposed changes to the process for pehded claims, although uttingmore res onsibility with the orker, by requiring the Insure to rovidefortnightly ogress letters to the employee, will be helpful in these oases(P: 26 - P: 28),

» The Introduction of a new minor claim athway ill be beneficial to theDMP Co porate Occu ational Safet and Health (COSH) tea an willreduce the amount of ti e taken to service mino Injury claims (P; 29),

» The roposal for simplifying the method of calculati g weekly aymentsby basing the calculation for award n non-a ar workers on p e-injuryearnin s will speed up the process for Employee Benefits an t e COSHteam (P: 37 - P; 39),

• D P sup orts the pro o ed changes to the noise induced hearin loss(NIHL) testin , claiming and ispute process (P: 43 - P: 53),

• Discontinuation of t e Code of Practice (Injury Management) andsubsequent reliance on u lished Guidelines Is similarly roved of an supported by D P (P: 96),

• A olition of termination ay Is sup orted, as historically, this li s causedmuch conf sion for Injured workers (P: 17 ),

February 2014

2 a! 2

Some Tech ical Comments on the Noise-Induced Heating Loss sections

of the Review of the Wor ers Compensation an I jury Manage ent Act 1981; Discussion Pa er

1, It Is ug ested that the terminology be aligned with that In the International Standards Organisationstandard on this subject area, ISO 1999-2013, where noise-in uce Is hyphenate - he, replace noiseIn uce earing loss with nolse-In uce hearing loss erever it occurs,

2, It will also be necessar to use pre ise terminology For the criteria for entitlement to com ensation, For

e ample the last sentence In clause 281 of the discussion paper says When a subse uent air conduc ion testsho ys a hearing loss of 10% o more a potential claim arises.,, , Thi should technically rea Whe asubseque t air conduction test shows a percentage loss of hearing jPLH) 10% or more g eater than the PLHat the baseline test, a otential clai arises,..

This may ound pedantic bu It Is m understanding hat In the other states of Australia orke s a e eligiblefor compensation when the PLH equals or e cee s a particula th eshold PLH without any adjustment forabaseli e level, so his distinc io In the WA sche e nee s to be made clear If In eed It Is Inten ed to carry Iton,

3, Clause 275 of the iscussion paper says th t "No changes are ropose to thethreshol for en itle ent. This Is a little surprisin to me as there have been discussions over the years about reducin the 10% LHmore han baseline to somethin smaller, to better reflect the difficulties that people with acquired hearingloss have In day-to-day situatio s, The PLH scale as developed by the Australian Na ional AcousticsLabo ato ies In the 1980s wi h the zero on the scale set to Indicate when people would be ex ected to stallha ing oble s with ally listening asks, So anythin more han zero Indicates thatthere are likely to beroblems, Au iologists have tol e that at a 5 LH the problems a e such that it Is appro riate for theerson to co sider using a hea ing ai , 10% PLH Is really quite a large amount of hearing loss, Other

Australian juris ictions have a ange of entitle ent threshol s, between a PLH of 5% an 10 , an I notehat the present 2010 WA Gui e for the E aluation of ermanent Im airment has an entitlemen thres ol

of 6 PLH forsud en hearin loss caused by head Injur or ex losion. Is the e any o e nationall toharmonise these entitle ent th eshol s? It Woul also be goo to take the o portunity to clarify whether

there Is an en itle ent to com ensa ion for gradual hearing loss caused by wo kplace chemicals and fornoise- or chemical-in uced tinnitus,

d, In clause 284 oposes (P:43) hat WorkCover WA no longer approves audi meters o audlometrlc te tbooths. Whilst It Is appreciated that this will save on WorkCove reso rces, It a be necessary to Ins igatea random au it rocess to ensure that the necessary standards are being adhered to,

5. Clause 287 ro oses (P:44) hat the baseline and subsequen audlometrlc testing must be underta e Wherea orker Is re i ed, or should be equired, by the em loyer to use personal hearing p otectio equipment,I Is u clear what should be require " mean . Doe this refer to obligations under OSH/WHS legisla ion? Ifso, this will still require a fo mal assessment of noise e posure le els. It will mean tha baseline andsubsequen au lo etrlc tests are require at a lo e Ucfl,8 value than at present (85 dB(A) ratherthan 90dB(A!), However It ill be less confusing for emplo ers a d worke not having two differen criteria In thecompensation and OSH/WHS le islation, Proposal P;45 empowerin Wo kCover A to eem a wor place asone where audlometrlc testing us occur Is a good I ea to o ercome the problems there have been I ecidin re resen ativeness of easure ex osures In so e work laces,

6, Clause 294 proposal P: 8 where a 10% or more PLH greater than at baseline Is deemed prima facie evidenceof NIHL presu ably eans that In the ajority of cases the orker will not be retested by ah au iologist norassessed by an ENT, Does this also a ply to the baseline tests (l.e, no more referral for full audlologlca! testsIf the Waugh an Mac ae criteria are met)? Whilst this will certainly streamline testing and com ensationcases It ay lea to fewer orkers with a potentiall treatable conductive hearin loss being detected an (privately) referre to a pro riate s ecialists, resulting In ore wor ers in the wor place with hearin

difficulties.

7, Clause 305 proposes (P:53) that the last liable em loyer can only see contributions from other liableemployers up to 5 years before the clai , rather than fro any liable em loyer since the baseline test. ThisIs not a particularly fair apportionment as NIHL does not occur In a linear fashion. Table G2 of AS/NHS1269,4:2005 shows that In a g oup of male wor ers e osed to an L co.oii of 100 dB(A), a 10% PLH due tonoise could be expected to accumulate after 25 years, Of this 10% half (5%) woul be acquire in the first 5years an only one tenth (1%) in the last 5 years, So allowin apportionment among earlier em loye would be fairer. Also It Is not clear f om the discussion pa er whethe Interim subsequent audiogra ,

articularly tho e taken at the end and start of va ious periods of employment, can be taken Into account In

the apportionment process.

Snr Scientific Officer NoiseWo kSafe DivisionDe artment of Com erce

PO Box 294, West Perth, WA 6872

2 January 2014

Gove ment of Western Aust aliaDepartment of E ucation Your rsf

Mr Kevin GillinghamWorkCovar WA2 Bedbrook Place8HENTONPARK WA 6008

Dear Mr Gillingham

The Department of Education (the Department) seeks to ma e the following submissionon possible amendments to the Workers' Compensation and Re abilitation Aot 1981 (theAct). The following observations reflect practical problems and other difficultiesexperienced by staff of the Depart ent In affectively managing wor er's co pensatio clai s and the rehabilitation of Injured em loyees.

As bac ground the Department e plo s approximately 40,000 staff located at nearly 800locations across Western Australia. s such the Department Is the sin le largestemployer In estern Australia. Its workforce com rises teachers and administrators;school psychologists; public ser ants and government officers; e ucation assistants,school cleaners an ar eners,

The manage ent of orkers' com ensation claims and the rehabllilatlon of all lnjuredemployees rest with the Department s Em loyee Support Bureau (ESB) hich Is part ofthe Workforce Division. ESB currently has an establishment of appro i ately 30 FTE.'The De artment also has a contracted occupational physician ho Is Involved In themanagement of Injured employees not the subject of a co pensable Injury,

SUGGESTED AWIENDIVIENTS TO THE ACTIt Is requested that In consi ering possible amendments to the Act that the follo ingIssues be examined;

• Under section 5 with re ar s to the efinition of "Injury" an In particular "stress"that the efinition be expan e to include any atte where a wor er Is subject bythei employer of a performance mana ement process o un er Investigation Inregar s to isciplinary atter, This would preclu e an em loyee fro lodgin aclaim hilst undergoing these processes so long as the employer's actions werenot deemed to be unreasonable or harsh.

The Departme t has regular experiences of various unions a isin their membersto lodge a claim In order to frustrate these rocesses. It Is also awa e thatemployees mani ulate the Act In orde to have these rocesses elayed.

* Section 19 to be clarified as to the eaning of "atten ance" to stale hat Is actuallyeant by this te m l.e. Is It when a wor er signs on for ork; enters the entrance or

foyer of their wor place etc. This could also be e pande upon In secllon19 (2) with. egards to "journe 1 and when the wor e 's Journey begins an ends.

» Section .61 does not provi e for the cessation of eekly payments by the employerIf p og ess me ical certificate |s not pro uced stating a wo ker Is totally or partially

161 Royal Slrest, Eaal Perth Western Australia 8004

2

* Section 61 does not provide for the cessation of wee ly ayments by theemployer If a rogress edical certificate Is not produced stating a orker Istotally or partially Incapacitate for wor . This can only be one b theemployer applying to have the ee ly payments cancelle an rovidingevi ence that the worker Is fit for uties.

Where the worker oes not sub it a progress medical certificate on a regularbasis then employers often o not know t e status of the worker and whethert ey are fit or otherwise. There Is also the risk t at a worker can submit ame ical certificate Indicating the are unfit and re ain on ee ly com ensationpayments In efinitely particularly where the worker does not wish to becontacted or deliberately avoids bein co tactable, The De artment haspractical ex erience of this scenario occurrin ..

Accordingly It Is recommen ed that the Act be amended so wee ly paymentsca be ceased If ro ress edical ce tificates showing continuity of unfitnessare not regula ly for arded to the employer. Consideration ou t to be i en tosome arrangements In o er to prevent em lo ers acting unilaterally ornreasona ly prior to ceasin weekly co pensation ayments. An e loye

woul need to demonstrate I has taken all reasonable ste s In attem tin toobtain evidence from the worker and the worker has failed to ro uce thenecessary me ical certificate ),

» Section 72A s oul be amen e to allow employers to cease wee lyco ensation ayments here a worker falls to attend me ical examination

ithout goo reason a the employe can sho It has en ea oured toaccommodate the worker's request. Cur ently onl orkCover as theaut ority to cease weekly co pensation ments, This Is a very timeconsu in and costl exercise an fro the De artment's e perience can ta eup to 6 on hs from the time a edical revie Is sought until the ti e anArbitrator might hoar a m tte of this in .

* The De artment's operations are nique to other employers In that schoolsbeing the primary work location are closed for school vacations throughout theyear, Teaching staff (principals and teachers) fo obvious reasons are notrequired to attend ork urin school vacation periods. This cohort ofem loyees have not traditionally had a perio of annual leave escribe Intheir In ustrial aw r s or agreements as b "custom an ractice" this wasco si ere to form art of the school Vacatio period.

GENERAL COMMENTS

DICAL EVIDENCE REQUIRE E TST e Department sup orts the need for further responsibility to be lace on anInjured worker to rovi e regular upd ted me ical evi ence. There shoul also bean onus on the orker's medical praciltloner to provide reasonable evidence andclarification of the employee's capacity for work Inclu ing the e pected len th ofIncapacity. Further education of treating medical practitioners Is required as somecertify or ers as being unfit for exten e periods, particularly In relation to mentalhealth Issues. Limits should t erefore be set re arding the ma imum period of timethat a person can be certifie as unfit for work, After the e piration of that eriod newmecllcal evidence shoul be rovi e to allow the period to be exten ed.

3

Thera should also be a slrnpllfled process far rsVleVVlhfl a worke 's medical conditionwhere (here Is s ecialist Info mation Indicating that the worker h s ca acity forwork however the worker's general practitioner continue to certify them as unfit.Conflicting medical evi ence of this in lea s to unnecessary delays In effectivelymanaging or ers suffering from compensable Injuries.

CASE MANAGEMENT OF INJURED WORKERSThe De artment also supports the nee for mandatory participation In caseconferences for Inju e worke s by the em loyer or their authorised agent Inclu ingfor example a ork lace rehabilitation ovider, The nee for treatin me icalpractitioners to participate In case conferences w en required should also be clearlyset out In the Act,

The p ocess for esol ing situations where a wor er chaoses not to articipate In aretu n o wor o am equi es evie , curre tly It can take onths for a c se to behear by an arbitrator urin hich time the orker continues to receivecompensation payments, Again these delays result In a ditional costs being Incurredby the wo kers compensation system.

Should you have any queries conce ning the above please contact

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORORKFORCE

- FEB 2014

Government of Western AustraliaDepartment of HealthOffice of the Directo Gene al J&J

WorkCoVB!' WA

Mr Chris WhiteA/Cblef Executive OfficerWorKGover WA2 Bedbroo PlaceSHENTON Par WA 6008

Dear r White

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 2013

I refer to your letter dated 27 Se tember 2013, concerning the Re iew of theWorkers Compensatio a d Injury Management Aot 1981 Discussion Paper(Discussion Pa er),

Both the Discussion Pa er and you letter Inviting submissions egardin the reviewproposals were forwarded e tensivel throughout the Department, There haye beenno concerns raised nor have there been an significant comments made re ardingthe p oposed amendments,

We than you for the opportunity to provide feedback,

a/director general

r.ii lM! Wi.'i.luili ' llr.li. ili Alil'l ¦• isi/.Mi't.i.

llll|l*/ <W .y.lM!;l||ll VAl/lllU .HI

riii|Miliwml cil I li llh iimi nlhiii ;i iim lt li I liimninniini

Government of Wester Aust aliaDepartment of HealthOffice of the Directo General

Chris WhiteA/Chlef Executive OfficerWorkCover A2 Bedbrook PlaceSHENTON PARK WA 6008

Dear Mr White

LEGISLATIVE REVIE 2013

I refe to your letter dated 7 September 2013 and our pre ious corres ondencedated 14 January 2013 concerning the Review of the Workors1 Compensation andInjury Management Aoi 1981 Discussion Paper (Discussion Pa e ),

Whilst I confirm the Discussion Paper and our letter Inviting submissions regardin Ihe review proposals were forwarded extensivel throughout the Department, Iadvise that there have been a number of late submissions receive since the date ofmy last corres on ence, hich provide considerable feedback on your roposals,

Broadly, the De artment Is su ortive of the proposed chan es to the Wor ers Com ensation le islation Intended to improve the structure of the Act and to simplifyand moder ise the langua e and draftin convention used, e are in a reementwith most of the recom endations made In the discussion a er but wish to ma es ecific comment on the following proposed chan es,

Our comments are as follows:-

1, Referring to proposal 17, Definition of Com ensation, It Is note orthy that atpara raph 178, no chan es are p oposed to the existing liabilit of emplo ers,The definition of injury within Section 6 of the Act limits the exclusion ofdisease caused by stress to matters contained in Section 6 (4) of the Act(e, .discipline), It Is submitted that the matters Included In Section 5 (4) of the Act,should specifically include Injuries that arise holly or predominantly f om decision by the e ployer In relation to substandard peiformance,

2, In proposal 20, section 6 of the Act should provide for a claim lodgementocess that Is uniform and efficient, The notion of uniform lo gement

documentation and requirements Is sup orted: for all claims (e, , time lost, noinnR wjlS(raan ifitParti A|Qulo»W\mlmllu(K)(l4

' 1 ' 1 asn u efM 7ko

lil||j://www,h allh,wm)(>v,!ill

DoiHiil icinl n( H fillh - pmmtillniJ n imi lw Imo (iivvl oimuinl

2

time lost); and for all employers (e.g. insured and self-insured employers);and Including public autho ities,

3, We refer to page 21 of the Discussion Paper, Medical Certificates, West ongl o pose the p oposal to enable classes of persons other than medicalpractitioners to issue wo kers' compensation certificates In escribedcircumstances, The extensive an comprehensive training provi e tomedical practitioners equ s them with the kno ledge and s ills equire toacc rately diagnose an effectively mana e the treatme t of work relatedInju ies and me ical con itions. It Is conside ed t at medical actitioners arealso bette ble to un e stand the mechanism of inju Invol e n therebyetermine If there is a causal relationship to t e Injure worker's em loyment.

Nu se practitioners an allied health service providers undertake mo es ecialised training w ich limits their dia nostic s ills and ability to clinicallymanage medical con itions, incorrect iagnosis an failure to Initiateap o iate t eatme t will esult In mo e severe injuries, protracte recove yan poo er eturn to wo k outcomes. This in turn will Increase the cost of

orkers' co ensation claims.

Ha ing ifferent professions Issuing or ers co pensatio certific tes islikel to lead to confusion an conflicting a vice, It is important that there beclarity about hich rofession is in char e of clinical care, Effective Injurymanagement requires a primary carer to coordinate t e clinical mana e entof the orke and medical ractitioners are the best laced to eliver theholistic care require ,

If the Act is amende to inclu e nurse actitioners, then the correspondinge ulations should state that other a proved classes of e sons such as

chiropractors or hysiotherapists a e unable to certif incapacity for work,

4. Refe ing to p oposals 22 an 23, Consent Authorit , we strongl sup ort theIntro uction of a mandato y and Irrevocable consent authority extendin to allrelevant medical and other Info mation sources, This will im rove timeliness Inecisior m king on claims where further information is required and

potentially re uce the se e ity of Inj ries where elays in determinin liabilit revent the commencement of Injury mana ement an wor place

rehabilitation.

Wor Co er ay ish to consi er that e sonal Information shoul only bereleased here the Insu er's access to the o ker's me ical history isex ressly limite by relevance.

5. At proposal 24, the notion of intro ucing a eneric rocess based upon a'claim fo com ensation Is supported i,e, a sin le claim rocess for weeklypayments a d for statuto y benefits.

6. At proposals 26 an 28, the Pro osals to re ulate notifications for pendin claims are su orted. Cu rently, Injured employees are not afforde specifican a equ te groun s h liabilit for the claim Is unable to e deci ed,Furthe , the requi e ent to re-issue t e otice every 14 days maintains an

GOVERNM NT OF WESTERN AUST ALIA

3

obligation upon the ins rer to kee the key arties Info med a d, to a dressthe issues r orte ly in dis ute,

7, Referring to ro osal 29, Minor Claims, overall the De artment sup o ts thisinitiative, This Is a actice hich we already adopt with minor clai s bothmedical ex enses onl claims an those with'minimal lost ti e here liabilitymay be in is ute, VVe believe this enables expe ient rocessing of claims

ithout the nee to dete mine liability,

There are howe er, concerns that the pro osal may be Inconsistent with thefundamental rig t of an employee to an earl and sustainable decision Inrespect of the occur ence of Injury. Also, In t e event of an adve sedevelopment In the I jury, em lo ees may ha e ifficulty in accessi information or locating witnesses to assist in establishing claim liability, theemployee may be rej iced, an will ear the bu de of proof,

A deoision in res ect of claim lia ility Is the most Importan ecision in the lifeof a claim, The scheme framewo k must ovi e t at a prove insurersensure that a equate an ro er resou ces are focused u on the decision,The Act currently pro ides that if the initial decision in espec of claim liabilityIs adverse, he employee is 'In an early position to ress and esolve theissues in dis ute - for ever case, this outcome shoul be reser e .

8, In res ect of p oposal 30, Recur ence of Injury, an injured employee shouldnot be expecte to complete questions aimed at recur ence1 - it is acom lex medical Issue that is within t e e clusive Jurisdiction of the Tribunalto resol e. The uni e sal requirement for the use of a for conta nin questions aimed at disclosin a y histor of sy toms might ssistemployees I rovi i Information a , in insu ers athering Information,However1, the fo m of the questions shoul not be specifically irected at a'Recurrence',

At aragra h 239, It Is recommen ed th t ex enses for vocationalrehabilitation se vices, report a other Investigation fees incur ed y anInsurer are exclude f om the stat tory entitlement; nd th t for e ployeeslocated in regional eas, the prescribed entitlement is increased,

9, Refer in to oposal 36, Com on La Impai ment Assessmen Expenses,we support the change to limit the entitlement for payme t of AMS e e sesassociate with a o ke 's common law assess ent to the first i pair entassessment only, Un er the current system common law im ai mentassessments can in ol e multi le assessments by A S and orkers' a eentitle to rei bursement of these expenses under the claim, Cur entl thereIs no limit to the numbe of assessments a wor er can have, Incur ingsi nificant costs that a d to the overall cost of the claim,

10, Referrin to ro osal 40, Entitlement to Leave While Incapacitate , westron ly oppose art i) hich pre ents the sus ension of wee ly paymentsdu ing e io s of le e as this isa vanta es the worker an employe . If aworker accesses annual o long service lea e whilst artially fit and

GOVE NMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

4

participating In a return to work rog am this Is likely to delay hei etu n to fullduties and result In the workers being on compensation p yments fo longer,This increases the cost of the claim an results In more severe injuries (i,e.I juries resulti g In lost time > 00 days). This also disadvantages the worker

ho is taxed more heavily due to their higher ea nin s urin the eriod ofleave, Being able to suspend ee ly wo kers' com ensation payments(where the wor e ro ides ritten autho ity to o so) fo t e erio of lea ereser es the wo kers' entitlement and does not ad u ecessary costs to the

claim,

11, Referrin to proposals 41 nd 42, Compensation for Permane t Impai ment,we do not su port e manent im airment assessment becoming anindependent entitle ent, The cur ent rovisions enable wo kers to accesscompensation fo permanent im airment and re eem the claim, encou agingthe worker to be res onsible for ongoi mana ement of their condition at e than bein dependent on the orkers co pensation system, Enabling accessto per anent Im air ent without ente in Into a settle ent ill Increase thecosf of claims as wo ke s' a e able to continue accessing their entitleme ts.

12, At oposal 80, lication to Vary Com ensation, the conourrent use ofSections 00 an 62 of the Act has been abuse , Inclu ing frivolous alle ationsof genuine ispute, it Is arguable hether the ro osal ill a oid similarbeha iou . It Is ossible that the existin f amework Is proper and a equate Ifutilise Within t e meaning of the Act,

13, At o osals 81 and 82, General Po er to Vary Com ensation, the ro osalsto rovi e clarity within Section 61 are su orte . Ho ever, the presentf amewo k ithin the Act treats the em loyee s ri ht to wee ly payments assacrosanct - this status should not be dil te an must be preser e . Section61 is subject to abuse y Insure s an employers in articular, the unilateralcessation, diminution of eekly ayments is improper, T e Act shoul exp essly rovide a efinition of return to wo k within the consolidated claimmana ement provisions of he pro osed Aot.

14, At roposal 83, .Returning to enumerated Employment, the Act s ould limit,avoid p oviding fo the unilateral ecision of a I surer to sus en , cease ordiminish the rate of a weekly ayment, In res ect of any mendment toSection 69, ft is Ina rop iate that an insurer should h ve t e right to suspendpayment of co ensation whe e Information has not been teste , orestablishe as f ct, Mere rumour o Innuendo should be Insufficient to groundsuspension of payments, The Pro osai oes not rovide for any safeg ar , Inmy view, the P o osal Is at isk of ab se, The Aot treats sacrosanct theem loyee's right to eekly ayments an a ne statute should ensure simila .

16. Pro osal 87, Definition of " e ical Practitioner , m do not su ort theroposal fo the ciefinilion of medical ractitione to Inclu e persons

appropriately qualifie an e iste ed outside the Co on ealth as ae ic l doctor. Ove seas doctors are unli ely to be aware of the medical

practit oner s ole i p o otin oactive Injury mana e ent an workplacerehabilitation an re more likely to certify the wor er as being totally

GOVERNMENT or WESTERN AUSTRALIA

5

Incapacitated if the worker is residing overseas where returning to the pre¬injur orkplace is not feasible, This pro osed chan e will create a barrier toachieving return to or outcome in these circumstances,

16, In relation to ro osal 80, Entitlements of Wo ke s In Custo , it Is submitte that an em loyer should apply the cu rent machinery of the Act (i,e, establishthe fact that the employee is In custody or is i isoned) before anysuspension of weekly ayments. The new statute will provide that ayments

a be suspen ed from a ate at the isc etion of an rbitrator, this Issufficient to a dress the ur orted issue. In ou vie , ro ision fo unilateraldecision ma ing by an insu er-employer Is a ris , Is op osite to the Intentionof the Act and should be minimised,

17. In proposal 101, Medical Certificate Re ulations, we su port the Intro uctionof e ulations to rescribe re uirements or conditions on the issuing andcontent of medical certificates, We recommend these regulations clarify thetreating me ical ractitioner's esponsibility to acti ely facilitate return to wor oth in terms of assessin work capacit and ensu i medical certificates are

pro i ed to the employer (and orker) in a timely manne , Cur entl there a eno uidelines for doctor's escribing the manner In which e ical certificatesshould be sent to an em lo er. There Is a ten ency for octor's to el onposting me ical certificates to the em loyer whi h esults in delays in theretu n to wor rocess articularly If the wo ke is not being provided ith acopy of the certificate which has been our experience, We believe that

here er possible medical certificates should be transmitte electronicallyan that this shoul be man ated in the re ulations, In a dition to t ere ulations e believe guidance material should be develo e for e icalractitione s ex lainin thei rol a d res o sibilities an tralnln /e uoation

be available to ass st doctors in the mana ement of work related Injuries,

18.In pro osal 107, Pre- njury Position and Suitable Duties, whilst the newstatute ill cla if when the 12 month eriod that an em loyer is equired toee the orker's re-inju y osition a ailable for commences, It oes ot

a ress how any periods of tot l ca acity (where the orker has retu ned topre-injury uties) it in the 12 mo ths will be dealt with In terms of calculating

hen the 12 months conclu es, We consider that further clarification of thisissue is require In the new statute,

In es ect of Section 84AA of the ct, It Is submitted that ( e ne statuteexpressly rovide that an employer is obliged to make reasona lea justments to cco o te the Injury, return to work - In this res ect, thene statu e ould be consistent with EEO legislation,

19, In propos ls set out In 110 -113, Injur ana ement Case Conferences aresu orte . Presentl , re resentallves of approved Vocational Rehabilit tionPro iders utilise medical appointments esta lished by workers fo discussin return to wor when the p imary pu pose of the a pointment is t e worker'smedical management, Amon st other things, courtesy and pri acy should bees ected - the Act must ro ide that an em loye or I surer establish an

Injury Management Co ference,

GOVE NMENT of WESTERN AUST ALIA

6

It Is stro gly recommended however that WorkCover provide w ittenguidelines fo me ical practitioners to assist the In understandi g thei rolein the case conference and how they can contribute effectively to this process,The treating medical practitio er is critical In terms of enga ing the worker inthe eturn o wor process and In ssessing work capacity, if t ey are notco nisant of the Im ortance of early intervention an return to work then this

ill be a si ificant barrie to the success of case conferences and workplacerehabilitation, It has been our e perience that so eti es the treating medic lractitioner sees their role more as a vocate for the wor er ather than

providi Information that ill assist In the evelo ment of n action plan toassist the Injured worker to return to ork, More education in ddition touidance material is needed for me ic l practitioners wor in In tire workers'

com ensation s stem.

20, Referrin to pro osal 120, Health Ser ice Directions, we strongly sup ort thero osal to enable WorkCover to issue irections establishin rules for

deter inin whethe a treatment or ser ice is reasonabl necessary; limitin the kinds of t eatment and ser ices for hich an em loyer la liable; andestablishing st ndard treatment l s for t e treatme t of pa ticular njurles o classe of i jur . Cu rentl there is a ten ency for me ical ractitioners toconti ue recommendin treatments where there s no emo strated benefit tothe injured worker but the Injured wor er believes it to be beneficial, Thisincreases the cost of t e claim and maintains a epen ence on t ecom ensation system rather than encouraging self management strategies, Italso encoura es workers to seek a medical solution to their sym to s whe this may not be ealistic and this has been shown to result in pooreroutcomes.

There are ho e er, concerns t at a ecision in respect of pro osed medicalna e ent shoul be based upon the totalit of the Information available;

the merits of the case; and the informed opinion of treatin me icalr ctitioners, It should be consi ered that, rathe than directions, the Act

should pro ide guidance in respect of outcome based treatment plans,

21, At p opos l 139 an 141, Self Insurance, attachin conditions to a self insurance approval must be ase upon an nnual review. Presently, themethodolo y ap lie by orkCover in un ertaki an annual review is nottransparent, The issue of con itions Is su ject to ocedural fairness; the Acts ould p ovi e for re ulation of the an ual review Inclu in the nature, extentand tra s a enc of the audit required to be underta en,

22, At oposals 143 to 145, Licensin , the ne statute must provi e a robustmetho olo y fo the ap oval of a license to insure liabilities un e the Acta a robust system of perfo mance measu ement of approved Insurers aswell s a tr nspa ent process,

23, At proposal 165, Insurance Commission an Public Aut orities, the P oposalto deem RlskCover an a rove Insurer is recommende he, that RlskCoVef

GOVERNMENT of WESTERN AUST ALIA

oo-c:

m53

mzzz

o

53

n

53

CD

r o-r

D-3

23

0

1oo

o

'C

o

d

DCDCD

scr23O

DO1-

J

oa»23_

7

~ 02-Q 3

-CO cr03CD g

. £1

sio23

-

23CD 03

oS

m oo CD CD/ >I oQ ii.

co SS 2323 r:

c CO=s* o233 SCD "J

°-!S

<CD

03

CD

D

CD233COo

CD

Government of Western AustraliaDeparlment of the Attorney Gene alOffice of th,e Director General

Kevin GillinghamManager Policy and Le islative Se vicesWo lccove A2 Bedbrooic PlaceSliBNTON PARK WA 6008

RECf '.- 12 NOV 20B

i!

WorkGovtP' vVA J

JDea Mr Gilli gh m

T ank you fo p ovi in t e opportunity to eo ent o t e 2013 ii view of (he Woi'kevaCompensation amiIiyury ManagementAol ll)8L

ith re ar to oposals 13 and 14,1 ote a d su ort the cla ificatio of t e no enclatu e ofthe c own an amen me ts to (he Act to b in the provisions equi ing oceedin s againstthe Atto ey General i to alig ent hir ouWeiit actice,

I ave no fu t er comments to ake wit rega d to the othe p oposals contained in thediscussion a e ,

Thank you lo b inging this matte to my attention,

Yours i c rel

DIRECTORGENJBR L

NOVE BER 2013

l.avol 12 I l l SI GaorflBB Tatfflco Porll) Waatarn Ailaltnlln B00DGpo Box P317 oitll Woalam Ay ffBlIq GB To|a|))»o a 136767 Fopalmllo (00) D20 l 1121

otidlo: WV V,tto|ofl,wq,flo ,allWO.flOV.BU

ADN 70 690 C'13 113MX2AG S1

Tom Samuels

From!Sent!To;Subject;

Monday, 10 Februar 2014 12:57 R

FW; Submission related to the discussion paper of the review of the wo kerscompensation and injury management act 1981

As reciuested please confirm recelpl

I Area Maiui er, OvaiputioiUil Safety ti l HetilthSafety Quality & Risk I South Metropolitan Health Survi e

Work Safe Live Smart in SIVIHS

The eentents of t is email Irahsmlssioh are Mehtfeil soMy (or Ihe iwimd teclpienl(s), may ha conllclentlal, and may e privileged or otimvlseprelected f om disclos re In Ihe uhlfc Interest. The use, m rad cllon, disclosure or istribution of llw contents of its email transmission by any

erson oilier then t e na e racl lenlfs) I prohibited. If you ere not o name reci ient plea e natllylhe ender Imi edlalely.

From:|Sent: Friday, 7 February 2014 12;23To: re lew workcover,wa.gov,au'Cc: |Subject: Submission related to the discussion paper of the review of the workers com ensation a d Injury

anagement act 1981

To whom it ma concern:

This is a submission o tlining the osition of the employer South Metro Health Service In relation to the followingsections of the review paper for the or ers co pensation and Injury mana ement act 1981:

Division 7 pg 432 settlement of clai .

T e limitation of using 92(f) deeds only for co on law s tuations when PI is confir e will, In our view, severelyrestrict the ability for employers an em loyees to settle claims early when tire circumstances allow an both partiesare a reeable. The settlement through MOA is reBlrictlve an oes not pertain to claims that re decline or pen edand often in these situation a com rehensi e settlement with consent of both arties Is in our iew better n morecomprehensively effecte throu h Ihe 92{F) dee , roviding reater clarit to both arties.S HS seeks or the Act to continue to allow the 92(f) as this offers the em loyee an employer an alternative o tion

hen liability is dis uted, me ical evidence is inconclusi e an all arties are in a ree ent that a settlement is In t ebest inlerests of the o ker add e ployer,

Di ision 4 - ot artici ating In a RT\A/ pa e 121The ro ose chan es indicated a requirement for workers to participate In a RTW and io expand on the efinition ofparllcl ate. It oes not explain;ihe consequence if a worker oes not articipate,Tile questions that, in ou view,need to e lored further are

» what ould be consi ere non-compliance i,e, employee missing RTW ays regularl or a set timeframe Inwhich they do not atten ?

* What does the e plo er need to do to demonstrate that all ste s have been taken to rovide a suitable RT lllr meaningful duties?

* What are liie enforceable consequences of the non - com liance if established?

i

With these clarifications clearly arliculated In Ihe act this section will he come more meaningful and will strengthen thereturn to work approaches advocated and underlying princ le of the act,

Part 1 section 6 definitions; injury(T e review did nol cover llv's section of Ihe current aci pertaining to t e efinition of ihjiliy)

SMHS requests that consi eration is given to amend the definition of injury,

Our iew is that the current efinition of injury should be extended to Include the exclusion for:

"administrative action taken in respect of the employee's employment" Injury si ilar to the Eastern Statesand ComCare Safety and Co ensation Act 1988 5A(1)

In this Act;

"Injury means;

(a) a disease suffe ed by an employee; or

(b) an injury (oilier than a disease) suffered by on employee, that Is a physical or ental injuty a ising o t of, or in thecours of, the employee s employm nt; or

(o) on agg avation of a physical or ental injury (other than a disease) s ffe ed by an employee (whether or not thatihjuiy aro e out of, or In the course of, the employee' em loyment), that is an agg avation (hat arose out of, or in thecourse of, that employment;

but doe nol include u /son o, InjUiy Of aggravation sultomd as a i sult of mo oniible administrative action taken inu reasonable manner In respect of the e loyee s e loyment."

This would allow employers lo a ress in a reasonable and practicable way any management and administrativeocesses Including business and service realignments and perfor ance management rocesses whilst still allowing

for any h rsh or unreasonable approaches to be compensable, Tills will also allow mana ement to ensure they canana e wit in tiie code of ethics and policy and proce ures of t e organisation without incurrin clai s of wor ers

that may isagree witii those rocesses, whilst workers are still rotected a ainst harsh and unreasonablea proaches by anagement, it ill also rovide greater clarit for emplo ees in relation to the prerogatives ofmana ers and su ervisors to be able to un erta e their duties and the correct way of addressi isa ree entsthrou h IR and HR processes rather tha wor ers compensation clai s, currenti we believe that stress relatedclaims can be use to address industrial disa reements rather than u reasonable action from manage ent.

| am happy to discuss any of t e above points further if clarification Is required

Kin tha s

Area Manager OSH

South etro Health Services,

Insunin o Co iiiiissliml'VVt'Sloi'ii A sli'iillii

Dale: 7 February 2014

Mr Kevin GillinghamWorkCover WA2 Bedbrook PlaceSHENTON PARK WA 6008

CHIEF EXECUTIVETlis Forrosl Ctmltn, Osvol 13221 SlGauryo'sTBrraca.PERTH WA GOODGPO Box U 1000 PERTH WA 6010

Tolsphono; 01 (0B) 0261 3333Pposlmllo; 61 (00) 020 3300Internet: vwr.lowa.v/s.oov.HU

Dear Mr Gillin ham

REVIE OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND INJURY MAN GE ENTACT 1981 - DISCUSSION PAPER

| am W iting in response to or Cover WA's discussion paper outlinin roposals toedraft the Workers' Compensation and Inju y Management Act 1981, and Inviting

submissions f om stakeholders,

A team of senior managers and workers' compensation claims practitioners within theRiskCover Division reviewe your discussion paper and proposed the responseattached,

The Insurance Commission endorses the following pro osals without comment; 1-5, 7,12-14, 16, 18-20, 22, 24, 30, 32 & 33, 36, 38-40, 43-62, 72-78, 80, 82-86, 89, 9 -96,98 & 99, 101-103, 105-109, 110, 113-116, 118-129, 134-137, 140-142, 147, 157-160,166, 173-176, 179 and 181 & 182, It has no comment to make about the proposalsnumbered; 10, 131-133, 138 & 139,149-156, 162 & 163 and 170.

We have attached a sche ule containing the Insurance Commission's comments onthe re aining proposals, The schedule also Includes co ents concerning t oadditional matters which the Insurance Commission proposes WorkCove consider forInclusion when redrafting the Act,

CHIEF EXECUTIVE

REVIEW OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND INJURY MANAGEMENTACT 1981 .• DISCUSSIO PAPER

PROPOSALS SPECIFICALLY CO ENTED O BY ICWA

Definition of Worker

P:6 It is proposed the efinition of 'wo ke ' In t e new statute be based on theesults test to distin uish bet een wor ers and In e en ent contracto s.

ICWA endorses (his proposal. However, IOWA rese ves It final comment until it seeshow this pro osal Is drafted In the amending Bill,P:8 It is opose ovisions elating to casuals, olice, ersonalre esentatives and de endants of decease or e s be st uctu ed as se a atesubsections within the definition of 'worke '.

ICWA endorses this p oposal, Howeve , ICWA reser es its final comment until It seeshow this roposal is draft d In the amending Bill,

ork fo rivate househol ers

P:9 - It is ro ose a e son is not a orke within the meaning of the ne statute while the erson Is enga e in omestic service in a rivate homeunless:

I) the e son is employed by an em loyer who is not the owner or occupie ofthe rivate ho e; and

ii) the e loye ovi es the o ner or occu ier with the ser ices of theperson.

ICWA endo ses this pro osal. However, for purposes of clarity, there may be a needto develop an inse t definitio o g ne al escri tion of omestic se vices1' toInclude for example, nannie , carers, g rdeners, home maintenance (plumbers,ca enters, electricians) and er onal traine s,

Religious wo ersP;1 - It is ro ose o isions rega in religious wor ers’ be consolidate intile ne statute.

ICWA endorses this p oposal, However, ICWA eserves Its final co ent u til It seeshow this propo l Is dr fte in th amendi g Bill.

O e seas wo kers

P:15 ~ It is pro ose the ew statute Include a ovision to eal ith o e seasworkers base on an ex ess erio of cove for 24 months.

ICWA endo ses this oposal. However, ICWA ese ves its final co ent until It seeshow this proposal is drafted in th a endin ill,

Page 1 of 16

Defi ition' of 'coiTips fiatidn'

P: 17 - It is proposed the new statute introduce a broad definition ofcom ensation encompassing all entitlements,

ICWA s pports this proposal subject to the d finition of 'compensation' being clear andunambiguous nd adhering to the rincipl s of plain language as set out in paragraphs64 68 of the Discussion Paper.

Medical certificates

P:21 - It is ro ose the new statute intro uce a head of ower for re ulationsto escribe classes of e sons, other than medical actitione s, ho mayissue worke s’ com ensation certificates In resc ibed circumstances.

Recognising the current pressure on general practitioner services, both in the Perthmet o olitan area and In regional areas, as well as the need for Injured workers toreceive medical attention In a timely manner, ICWA endor es this roposal In principle.There must, however, be strict requirements around; who can Issue ce tificates and Inwhat circumstances they can be Issued, Slgnlflcanlconcerns exi t about the potentialfor over-servicing by some allied health providers. Over-servicing Is not In line withevidence based treatment standards set by allied health Industry bodies. At resentthere Is very little Insurers and self-insured em loyers can do to have ov r-se vicingaddressed within the current wor ers' compe sation scheme, so we would not wish tosee a greater potential for this to occur,

Where an Injured worker requir s regular minor treatments following an Initial medic lppointment, It might be appro riate for a nurse practitioner to provide this treatment

and Issue progress/flnal medical ce tific tes, It Is ICWA' vi w that th first medicalcertificate must alw ys be Is ued by a medical ractitioner unless the Injured worker IsIn a remote a ea with no ti ely access to a doctor.

Consent authority

P:23 ~ It is ro ose a consent autho ity be mandatory, i revocable and exten to all elevant medical and othe Infor ation sources,

IOWA strongly ndorse this pro osal, It agrees th t for claim to be cc pted,a andatory, Irrevocable consent Is required,

Claim process

;25 - It is o ose the new statute Intro uce head of ower for egulationsto rescribe the rocess fo makin a clai .

ICWA endorse this proposal. However, ICWA reserves its final comment until it seeshow this proposal is drafte in the a nding Bill and would appreciate some s n e ofwhat would be roposed to be introduc d In the regulations,

Pen ed clai s

:26 - It is ro ose the timef ame an notification requi e ents related todecisions on liability by insu ers be resc ibe in re ulations,

ICWA endorses thi proposal. However, ICWA reserves Its final comment until It seeshow this proposal I d afted in ihe amendi g Bill,

Pads 2 of 16

p;27 - It Is proposed the ne statute iscontinue the Director s oversight ole ofclaims where a ecision on liability Is not m e ithin the rescribe time,

ICWA endorses this proposal, However, IOWA reserves lls final comment until It seeshow this p o osal Is drafted In the ame ding Bill,P:28 - It Is ro ose where an insu e is ot ble to make a ecision wi hin theresc ibed timeframe the Insurer must issue a rescribed notice. The Insurer

must reissue the notice every 14 ays until a ecision on liability is a e

ICWA op oses the roposed a en e t o the basis that It Is bureauc atic, d smore rocess and a e wo k for little gain and le v s room fo debate in eases wherelette s might b sent 15 days apart, difficult to administer, and doe not ad a y valueto the claims man gement rocess. The curr t p ovisions In sB7A & s67B aredequate, Workers have the right to h ve their dis ted cl ims dete mi ed quickly

and effici ntly by the conciliation rocess rovided (heir claims have merit,Most applications for co ciliation are heard wllhlh four weeks and Conciliation Officershave the powe to make Pay e t di ection under si B2K(2) o (4), Th refor theproposed a end ent seem contentious, en an necessa y bu de on theInsurer/selfdnsurer,

Since commencing Its review of the p o osal contained In the discussion paper,ICWA has become aWare of Wo kGover's alternative to P o osal 28, That Is, whe eno decision is made on liability within the resclbed timeframe (l.e. ended claims),co pen tion ay e ts a e to commence without this bein co st ue nadmission of liability, Additionally, where decisio on liability Is not made within 90clays, liability will be deemed accepted.

ICWA tron ly opposes the alte native p oposal. It Is ICWA' practice to o ly pendclaims where there is insufficient information U on which to m ke decision Within thes57 timeframe, Un er the c ent legisl tive requirements, ICWA Is equi ed to, a does, provi easons to wor ers as to why a decisio cannot be ade, so the wo ker

Is awa e of the osition of their claim, Collectio of the Information sought is followedup regula ly,ICWA, th o h govern e t gencies covere In th Rl kCove F n , ha a greaterreprese tation of stress clai s than other Insurers/self-lnsurers p rticipating In the WAWo ker ' compe satio sche e, These claims require f ctual I vestigations, legalo inions a sychiat ic reviews, all of which can a d do ta e ti e, especially due tothe diffic lty in obtaining ro pt medical appointments, and req ested r ports,Some govern ent agencies offer Injury management to the worker, on a WithoutPrejudice basis whilst this Information Is b ing collected, to hel maintain connectionwith the Worke ,Des ite WorkGove 's statistics about the. number of nd claim which areeventually dispute , any stress claims a e resolved by s92f Deeds, Often this Is thebest outcome for all arties, a d recognises the "greyness" of some m tters.

Autornatlo p y e t of p to 90 d ys weekly co e s tion, without ny ech ism torecover that In the event matte Is successfully is uted, will ad to cl i s costsbo ne by government agencie , The inc asing cost of wo kers' com e sation withinthe WA Government over recent years i matter of significant concern to thedepa tments and agencies we se e, we o not w nt to Increase co ts more thannecessary,

Paga3of16

It is considered the automatic paym nt of up to 90 days weekly comp nsation, Withoutany mechanism to recover that In the event a matter Is successfully disputed, willencourage some workers to lo ge claims, knowing they will receive some paymentregardless of the merits of their claim. In addition, (his measure Is likely to re ult Ininsure s declining claims instead of pending them to avoid the automatic ayments,with consequent fbw-on adverse impact on (he Conciliation &.Arbitration Service.

minor claims

P:29 - It is proposed the new statute intro uce a minor claim pathway allowingfor a ents of u to $750 (in exe annually) by Insurers to workers ithout anadmission of liability,

ICWA will work with WorkCover to develop this proposal furth r In an endeavour toavoid some of the consequences that have been encountered In othe jurisdictions,

Definition of prescribe amount'

P:31 - It is ro osed the new statute:

i) locate the definition of the presc ibe amount In the Com ensation Pa t;

II) int o uce a hea of owe fo regulations to rescribe the annual in exationetho ;

III) make clea the p escribed amount is e clusive of GST,

ICWA endor es this roposal subject to seeing and being comfortable with theind xation m thodology dopted for annual movement In the prescribed amount.

Definition of “other expenses

P:34- It is ropose the ne statute define 'othe ex enses to include current¦wor er entitlements that do not form art of the a imu entitlement for

e ical expenses,

ICWA en orses this ro osal subject to the application of an a propriate pre cribedcap/llmlt,Fi st aid an eme gency ex enses

P:35 - It is o ose the ne statute int oduce a entitlemen to reaso ableex enses associate ith ambula ce o othe se vice use to t a s o t a

o ker to hos ital or othe lace for e ical treatment ( ich will not fo m a tof the maximum entitle ent fo e ical ex enses).

ICWA endo e this roposal ubject to the a lication of an ap ro ri te rescribedcap/llmlt,Calculatio of ¦weekly payments

P;37 - It Is oposed the new statute sim lify the metho of calculating weekl ayments by basing the calculatio fo all wor e s on e-injur ea nin s,

ICWA understands that great care will need to be taken In the drafting of theserovisions ( there have been attempts previously to achieve clarity nd fairnes ) ndre willing to partici te In a wo king grou to assist In designing legisl tive

framewo k to achieve a fair outcome for all participants,

ICWA co mends Wo kCover on this in tiative and hopes a legislative framework canbe ut in place to achieve the e objective In a fair ma ner.

Page 4 of 16

Compensa on for permanent impairment

P:41 - it is proposed the new statute rovide lum su co ensation forermanent I airment is an In ependent entitlement an ay be obtainedithout ente ing Into a settlement

P:42 - It is ropose the ne statute rovide ecei t of lump sum com ensationfor e manent Im air e t oes not impact a wo ker's entitlement to ongoingco pensation or constrain the ight to u sue and recei e common la da ges (unl ss it forms part of a settlement).ICWA does not endorse the propose! that lump um com ensation for pe manentimpair e ts become a Inde endent entitlement without entering i to a s ttle e tThe conc t of roviding lump sum settlements for permanent I airments hashistorically and primarily been catered for by inclusion in a Schedule 1 Red ptionwhich' redeems the employer s liability or standalo e Schedule 2 lu p su settlement which oe not eem (he liability but does bring about an end to weeklypaym nts and medical ex en es, It would eem an sess ent of er anentimp irment to enable lump sum com ensation Is predicated and rightfully so, on theassu ption of maximum medical improvement and stabilisation of (he injury, andtheoretically with minimal or no require ent for ongoing treatme tUnder the current statute, if a worker elects to t ke Schedule 2 lump sum settlementbased on a permanent Im airment ssessment and at some time later the Im irmentwas as essed at a f r higher perce t e, the worker Is entitled to receive the extraamount (subject to medical evidence (hat the fu ther deterioration s directly relatedto the original injury),The proposal that lump su compensation for permanent Impai ments could becomen inde en ent entitle e t without entering i to a settle ent, and with such payment

having no Im act o a worker's ongoing compensation nor co strai in the right toursue and re ive damages (unless the payme t fo s art of a settle ent), does

not ppear to take Into account the concept of maxi l medical imp ovement andst bilisation of the injury being achieve before such n sessment / paym nt Is

de. If ongoing t eatment I required, then this y result In future Improve ent inthe wo ker's level of impairment, nd It i preferable that maximum recovery andstabilisation be reached before uch permanent i p ir ent are a sesse ndcompensated, This then begs the question to wh t venue re v il ble to anemployer / insurer If following further treatm nt a subsequent impairment assessmentis lower th n the o e that enable the payment.A secondary consideration In le ving permanent impairments linked to settlements isthe positive Imp ct on active clai number . It stands to re so that employ rs andInsurers want to kee their active lai nu be at a minimum and It Is hi hly likelythe proposal to allow ermanent Im airments being an indepe dent entitlement wouldlead to an increase in a tive cl ims.

Deatli an funeral entitlements

p:63 - It is p opose the n w statute int oduce a e f amewor for eath an fune al entitlements,

IOWA e dorses this proposal. However, ICWA reserves Its final comment until It seeshow thi proposal Is drafted In the mending Bill.

Page S of 16

Definition of 'dependant etc

P:64 - It is proposed the definition of the terms epen ant , e ber of thefa ily’, s ouse’ and ‘defacto pa t er’ be consolidated in the ew stat te an located within the sub ivision ealing with eath entitle ents,

ICWA endors s (his propose!, However, IGWA reserves its fine! comment until It s eshow thi pro osal Is drafted In the amending Bill.Lump sum death benefit

P:6S - It is proposed the ne statute Int oduce a new ma i u ‘lu p sumeath benefit’ for family me be s totally e en ent on the worker's ea nings,

IGWA endorses this roposal. However, IGWA reserves its final comment Until It seeshow this proposal I d afted in the amending Bill.

Lump su eath benefit

P:66 - It is opose the lump sum death benefit be increased from $283,418 to,5 times the rescribe amount (cur ently $516,855).

ICWA ndorses an Increase In the lump sum death ben fit, but consi ers a lesserIncrease than roposed would be ore appropriate,

Lump su death benefit

:67 - It is ropose no deduction Is to be ade f om the lu p su eathbenefit fo p ior o kers’ com ensation payments to the ecease worker,

IGWA does not endorse thi p oposal,

Lump sum a portionment

:68 - It is p o osed the new statute set out, In table fo m, the family membe seligi le fo the lum su eath benefit an thei ro o tiona e sha e,

IGWA ndo ses this pro osal but rese es Its final co ent until It sees how thisproposal Is d afted In the a ending Bill. Debate bout whether such a st tuto yrovision should replace provision in a perso 's Will ay be neede ,

P:69 - It is o osed totally epen ent chil ren be entitled to a share of thelum sum death benefit In a dition to the esc ibed children’s allowance.

ICWA endor es this proposal. However, IGWA reserves Its final comment until It seeshow this proposal is drafted In the amending Bill.P:70 - It is pro ose the lump su ayment fo a artial e en ent be an

ount ro o tionate to the loss of financial su port suffe e . The lu p su ay ent is not to exceed the axi um ount fo total de en ency (or theescribe maximum fo a e endent spouse, efacto a tne o chil ).

ICWA en orses this proposal. However, ICWA rese ves Its final co ment until it seeshow this pro osal Is afted in the amending Bill,p: 1 - It is o ose the ne statute o lon er rovi e fo a mini um mountay ble as a death benefit to depen ents,

ICWA endorses this ro osal, However, ICWA reserves lls final comment until It eeshow this p o osal ls drafted In the a endin Bill,

Page 6 of'|6

Me ical examinations

P:79- Itis ro osed the new statute consoli ate rovisions elating to em loye initiate edical exa inations.

ICWA endorses this p oposal, In the case of Insurer eferral , IGWA wo ld like thereto be provisions setting out th consequences for failure to tte d without reasons.

General power (o vary compeiisytian

P:81 it is ro ose the new statute clea l outline the specific circumstancesin hich an em loyer can a ( iscontinue, sus end o reduce) a wo ker sentitlement.

ICWA endorses this propo al. However, ICWA r serves its final comm nt until it seeshow this proposal Is drafted In the mending Bill.Defin tion of e ical ractitione 1

P;87 - It is o osed the new statute define medical practitioner’ to includeersons who are;

i) registe ed by the Australian Healt P actitione Regulation Agency;

li) a ropriately qualified and registe e outside the Commonwealth as aedical docto .

ICWA en orses this ropos l. Howev r, we would lik to see th t th rvices ofmedic l oct rs who are o ly regi te ed outside of the Co monwealth te only usedor approved when the Inju ed wo ker Is living or receiving tre tme t out ide ofA stralia,

Entitlements of wo ke s In custody

P;88 It is p o ose the ne statute provide, where a orker is in custody orse in a term of im isonment, entitlements may be sus ended by an e ployerwithout the o er of an arbitrato ,

ICWA endorses this proposal, rovided there is not auto atic reoniltlement withoutappropriate m dic l certific tion n there Is a vali claim for ongoing entitlements,

Safety net arran ements here em loye uninsure

P;90 - It is o ose the ne statute require a incipal contractor to be made aparty to roceedings if Wo kCoverW Is ma e aware the rincipal contractormay have liability (in accordance ith cur ent s175).ICWA endorses this proposal, b t on the basis that, In ny or ers Is ued, It Is clearlystated who is the payer.

:91 - It is o ose the e statute requi e a inci al cont actor to ayco ens tion uo to wo ke of n uninsu e e loye (with who therinci al is jointl an severally liable), ir es ective of whethe an a ard is

m de against the i ect em loye only,

1C WA does not endorse this proposal,

Pa e 7 of 16

participants,ICWA s pports Wo kOover's Gom nents as to legal advice for wo ke

23ca

C3O

s- o' 2 w

3' S-~ O OrO„ O 3

Oa

Co

§ §cd a

' d c s 'S' S o&§

i»

a § gs'?'§-

05 C

§ S-5rssd

CO0 S'

Co S £.c S S2 3CD O

C CD • C"

S B 55to ® O gS.- S 5-

c 'S" ®

SIS?s: 3 3 CL-.• 5 r~ CD

O Cl

a o.2l 2CD §s

ffl =rtoO

£2 a a

9 oO. 05oa

o D

2 toCD ~r~.C5

|12S' S

tor3- -® -o

tocso2CD

CD

s8

C5r _S 8Is

03

C <5Q '

to S' o ®Q 2 S tom cd c: to

£ to ~ 3S. o' g

m S' ®' "5o <Q

2 §g Q'ts o'111 r - Cr

g-gi;¦to to"

S.S

co CD

O D3S ®ol5.

£

£D

H.3*

I

2 23•Co Q_CD *CD CD•S -£kCD.

1 CD

§?¦§2 C ¦03 5.

. ' 3-CO

S- 5C& Q

c O SCo C .

CQ Onn

2"2o ; o

sLso ®S ¦S S:c 2r2 C '

03 Q CO

2 ©CD

o' 2.Co23O C

D

O S S Q S 5 2 tQ §•

a £

0 Q- 12 5 to to_? s-a s

d • yto QS' to Sto 03 C

Cr to o

to o ato &-m" 2 tr

oC3.-£o 3z

Co

a

O 23DO

5 . 23CD 5D'

3 'Ss: cdo~CD C23

3S ©c 5

51 §¦D S

DK

CDCD ro-

go£. ato. CD2. Q-

O aO DL§ S'

2

§ sci 23

2

CD 23-

=0-B fil 2 DD C 5 S'D

o'

O £U

toe?a a; a*

. 3' to-

aQ.¦aa

> to.2- a5 Q-o" to **-o "

2a o toto 5 g-§¦ ®'

to C 2S' g

•f-to §

2 Q-=+1

2 g• o toa.

S aa -=r

O

to toS -to2 a -J CD

0 to- o ao a¦g -§ .0

d a njg CL. 2 =s.'c

|_-§Cx Co

O CD

O

ItCo

- CD

£: CD2

DQ

C C .2 '

S_ 2 23 =o-

=3Q3

n>k

'Co JD

Oto '

-_O CO*j _2 '

to-g

- d o

1 f" a' ap . 3*oD r=:

5

23

co ' Q o cr

O CD Or3 D

S 03O M to-s:=a£§a |g ? Ss S ®«a -Jto Q S

2-1

o cdto

== c to to oa. 2 S CDS S. a

5 § §a to

aa to aa o a a.a-to- to CD'

CD CQ Co

2>

a2 sCo C o mt

o'

Dr

fCDQ,

S-a"

S'

aS' _ _a S a

£ s toto ® sa to to-a ato Q.2 ss a toC ? r\C D .23

g5CD

2 9.O 23

Co S d: 5 9

D> g a23 2S 053 3. S

23 Dr23 CD

CD C

OOOC D 2r Dr

CD

03 C Or 230-2a aa coa ao a

§ o5-§ ia § 3 3 2

05

t2 £0'

Q-a 3-

o"to a d

=ss-s

-Sf ®toj a|323' 3"¦ -52O 3=r o2 5 03Co_ s sCj o

s: 2

=¦ DC3o

CD

= 3 Co

: 23 OCl CD' 2

§88S.S to£ §¦§

t lC

23 O' S

o '03 Co

d =: OS dD

Co c C

C 2 SC 2 S3 O'

to - ~ oto.to-toitr

¦**i j\ 23 2 to

O D

.C

DS23

23

23

O

C O2 2

=sC2 -CCO oo 3w 03

S3

CD0)0

- Co

a*g

fa §- to Q

03

-N'~ S o

¦§ «¦?S. o

: 8 285 o

9. oO 3

i l

o W

3 -g

C2®Q. -03

£303

€ 2.o s:5-®CD 2S

CD0) 3

o g_ 03

03

03CDOo

.0

303

Oc03

® I23 5*g ®2. -c

OOO W © 3 © 5-o 2zO C

o S = 3

:S ><

S3<23_

S cr

01*3©o3[ooc=5w

o©0?

Statutory settleirient ath aysP:92 It Is proposed the new statute introduce a new settlement egimeoonsistin of a:I) prim y athway;

Uodo of Practice (Injury Management)

P:97 - It Is roposed the key equi eihehts outline In the Code of Practice(injury management) be Include in the ope ative p ovisions of the new statute,as ap ropriate.

ICWA endorses this proposal, However, IOWA eserves its final comment until it seeshow thi pro osal Is drafted In the amending Bill,Issuing of me ical certificates an ork capacity

P;10O - It is roposed me ical certificates (certificates of c acity) must:

I) certify the injure orker s Inca city fo wo k;ii) state hether the or e has a current work ca acity o has no current wor

ca acity u ing the erio stated in the certificate;

i) s ecify the ex ecte duration of the wo ker s incapacity.

ICWA e dorses this oposal, RiskCov r has x er enced situation where worker have not obtai ed regular medical certificates which has h mpered return to workoutcomes, ICWA t ongly supports the r q ir ent for workers to provide Initial androgress m dical ertificates In order to r ceive entitlements,

Pre-injury position and suitable duties

P:104 It is roposed the ne statute cla ify, where a worke attains ti l ortotal ca acit fo wor , t e em loyer is to rovi e t e worker with their re¬inju y osition.

ICWA supports this in principle but for many employers It will be difficult to provide th worker with part of their job and still operate effectively, he. Prison Officers with artialc pacity may not be able to safely return to prison officer duties if they cannot run orrestrain prisoners.

So e fle ibility Is needed for both he employee and em loyer, A statute can be ablunt instrument in this sp e where for sound e sons, one or other of the partiesmay not see etu to the p e-inju y position as a good or even viable outcome,

i jury management case conferences

Prl H - It is ro osed an inju y anagement case confe ence must be attendedthe worker, the worker s t eating e ical r ctitione , an eit er the

em loy or t e insurer o both.

ICWA sup orts the conce t of Injury manage ent, case conferences d recognise the be efit which can be achieved. However, ICWA is conce ned about legislationforcing any parly to ttend such a conference. Forcing p rlies to come to ether isusually unproductive. The intent of this roposal needs further consideration nddevelopment,P:112 - I is pro osed an injury anagement case confe ence must not betilised for the ur ose of obtaining edical examination o medical repo o

to dete mine questio s of lia ilit .

Whilst ICWA accepts that case conferences usually occur after li bility Is determine ,It does not endorse this proposal becau e there may h circumstances wherediscussion Involving questions of liability al ease conferences may he approp iate andnecessa for either or both p rties,

Page 9 of 16

Spe ialised retrairiiiig i'ocjra s

Pii17 - It is proposed the specialise retrai ing rog am e ime bediscontinued.

ICWA endorses this proposal as It un erstands this program has not been acc ssed atany time,

Excl sion of war

P:130 - It Is o ose worke s com ensation Insu ance policies be equi e toin emnify claims arisin out of ar and other hostilities,

ICWA points out that It Is likely that Insurers will not be able to secur rein uranc protection for this type of event, This proposal m y appear to be one that hasGovernment askin Insurers to cover rfsk which then winds u being risk borne byGove nment, Wo kGov r Wilt need to co i e how It Will ovide protection for

oved In urers and self-in urers, articularly for catastrophic war o hostilitie related event.

In aragr ph 588, mention Is made of the standard policy of Insurance Imposed onInsurers, and un rpinned b regulations. It goes o to state th t employer are notrequired to ins re for an aggregate amount of damages (common law) exceeding $50million, The st ndard policy, at clause 9, refers to an agreed amount of cover that isnot less than $50 illion. This a pear to be inconsistent.

The minimum amount of cover at $50 million was established following discus ionswith the Insurance indust y, Including ICWA, in about 1994. This amount is overdueor consideration for ossible Increase commensurate with increa es In CPI or ome

other relevant Inde ,

Licensing of i surers

P:'I43 - It is opose the new statute intro uce the term ’licensed insure ’ tore lace the te m a roved insure ’,

ICWA prefers to retain the te m 'app ov d Insur r' ther th n 'licence I urer1,This term Is more functional, particularly in view of P oposal 166 wher It is pro os dto deem ICWA to be an 'ap rove Insurer1, ICWA Will not be seeking a 'licence' toperform Its functions,

P:144 - It is ro ose t e new statute em ower WorkCove WA to licenseInsure s,

ICWA does not endorse this p oposal, See comments on Propos l 143, ICWAoper tes WA self-insu nc arran e ents Including workers' compensation, ICWAdoes not eek approval fo licencing for property o liability Ins rance for that reason.Workers' compensation is no different,

Con itions on licensed Ins re s

:145 - I is ropose t e ne statute e owe Wo kCove WA to I oseconditions o licensed insu ers.

ICWA does not endorse this proposal In accordance with Its comments forProposal 143.

Pago 10 of 10

Insurer performance monitori g

PI146 - It is proposed the new statute ro ide Wo ltCover WA with ex ressautho ity to mo itor hethe an insu er complies with licence a roval crite iaan conditions,

ICWA cloes not have any substantive comment on this proposal, as it is deemed aninsu er under s44 of the ICWA Act, and will not therefore be subject to su h unknown'lic nce approval criteria1,,

Ap roved insurer - requirs ent to quote

P:148 - It is pro osed the new statute oblige insure s to ro ide a quote on theemium li ely to be charged, if requested by an em loye .

ICWA endorses this ro osal, However, mind ul of Proposal 166 to eem ICWA to bean approved 'insurer' and s44 of the ICWA Ad, the principles outlined In aragra h694 should not be undermined by this proposal.

Cancellation of policies

:161 - It Is o osed the new statute enable o kCo er WA to e mit aninsu er to cancel a olicy of Insurance for nonpayment of emiu whe e:

I) the Insure h s given reaso able notice to the em loyer about the amountue;

II) the remium has remai ed unp id for a p esc ibe e io .

ICWA endorses this pro osal, However, more detail is equired about the exten oftim for the rescribed e iod, Reme ies will be Important to can ass,

I su ance Co ission an ublic autho ities

P;164 - It is propose section 44 of the Insurance Commission of Weste nAust alia Act 1986j I elation to the self insurance status of ublic authorities,be e ealed.

ICWA doe not endorse this proposal.

The WA Government has been self-insuring its liability to pay compe sation inaccordance with the WC&IM Act, and preceding workers1 compensation legislation,since at least 1926.

The WA Government, as parent of alt It public authorities which re/have beenmembers of the RlskCover Fun a d the ntece e t self-insurance fu s a darrange ts, has esse tially been operati g as an exem t em loye or self-insu erover the years, hut has never sought exem t employer tatus under the WC&IM Actan the pre edi legislation, The position take has bee that the Govern ent is notrequired to exempt itself under its own legislation, and there has been legal suppo t forthis osition,

In 1996, when the then State Government Insurance Commission Act 1986 wasamended to become the Insuran e Co missio of We ter Australia Act 1986, s44was included with the objecti e of providing clarity to th forthcomi g amendedWA Government self-insurance a rangements for workers' compensation u er theRlskCover Fund when It commenced on 1 July 1997,Around that time, ICWA gave a written un rta ing to WorkCover that it wo ldcontinue to provide st tistic l inform tion about cove s and claims admi istered, as if It

Page '11 of 16

Were an insurer notwithstanding Its role of managing the WA Govern ent'sself-lnsuranoe arrangements, IOWA also voluntarily abides by the Industry develope best p actice guideline for a roved insurers which Wor/(Cover has since doptedahd mo ifie as the Worker ' Compensation Licen ed In re Best PracticeGuidelines,S44 of the IOWA Act preserves the Intent fo public a thorities, which re members ofthe RlskCover Fund, to be exempt employers without the nee for each ublicautho ity to seek an exemption from the Gove nor, Where WA public authorities arenot embe s of Rls Cover ( .g, We tern Power, Gold Corporation & Uni ersity ofWA), they are required to obtai a Worker ' com en tion in urance policy fro nap roved Ins rer' or to seek e emption from the obligation to Insure under s164,

In parag aph 691 of the Discussion Paper, It Is co ented that the status of I WAunder the WC&IM Act Is not clea , In par graph 692, there is comment a out thestat s of public authorities s selMnsu ers, and e ployers In thei own right, Im lyin a laok of Gladly of thei res ective status, In aragraph 693, It Is commente fhat Inor r to clarify these matters, it Is roposed that the new stat te deem ICWA to be alicenced (approved) Insurer, and public authorities to be employe s,ICWA c nsid rs s44 of the ICWA Act clearly rticulates that WA ublic tho itie eex mpt em loy rs (sel -insurers) In respect of workers' compensation, and thatleWA's role is to a age and ad i ister these wo kers' co pensation self-insurancearrangeme ts, s art of Its broader function un er s6(c) of the ICWA Act, to managend administer Insurance and isk m nagement rrangements on behalf of public

authorities,

ICWA Is of the view that It's role In managing the self-ins rance ar a gements ofp blic aiilho tles Is clea ,Perhap the new WC&IM Act might make sp cific mention of WA p blic authoritieswhich are membe s of the WA Governme t's self-insurance f n (c r ently (heRlskCover Fu d), hol in exempt e ployer status, But this is robably not necessa ygiven ICWA (an Its ore-r n er ) have bee oing this for nearly a century,

P:165 - It Is pro osed the now statute:

i) deem ICWA an a ove Insure In res ect of w ke s co ens tionobligations of public autho ities;

ICWA en orse this proposal to the e tent Work over considers It ecessary,However, as not ll WA Government public authoritie are members of the lskCoverManaged Fund, Inclu e after "public authorities", "that are members of theGovernment of Weste n Australia's self-in urance fund", To reinforce the pointabove,, public auihorliles currently not members of RlskCover for workers'com ensation cover, are; Western Power, Synergy, Verve Energy, Horizon Pow r,Gold Cor oration, University of WA and Murdoch U iversity,ii) a ly the clai oced e an obligations for Insure employers an

rivate Insure s to ublic autho ities an ICWA es ectivel .

ICWA ha reservations abo t thi pro osal. ICWA supports the retention of theexemption Pom complyi with st66D(3) of the Act. ICWA believes Inju ymanageme t Is most effective when ma aged by e ployers, All agencies of the Fundshould endeavour to coordinate Injury anagement activities a sup ort InjuredWorke s return to wo k.

Pago 12 of 0

Furlher, In paragraph 694, It Is proposed that ICWA in being deemed an "ap rovedInsurer" will continue to administer a government fund and premium (fund contribution)methodology relevant to ublic authoriti s, Consistent with the RiskCover Fund being

self-insurance fund, the cover pro i ed to public authorities in r spect of workers'com ensation, Is broa er than the standard employers' Indemnity olicy, Thisvariation shoul also he continue ,

Although not contemplated in the Discussion Paper, ICWA Is currently exem t frompaying a surcharge In acco dan e with si4 of the Em loyers' Inde nitySupplementation Fund Act 1980 In respect of workers' compensation cover provide to public authorities by the RiskCover Fun , This Is effectively recognizing thatRiskCover, as the WA Government's elf-in ur nce fund, will never make a claim onthe EI3F, This hould be preserv following ICWA being deemed an "a rovedinsurer" in acco dance with the proposal 166,

WorkGov r and I WA will need to work closely a d gree on how to deal With othermatters, wher departures from th pproved Insurer' model will need to b preserved,

Mining em loyers - Insurance obligations

P:167 - It Is roposed mining em loyers e equired to insure asbestosliabilities with a oved wo ke s' compensation Insu e s un e stan ar Insurance olicies.

ICWA endorses this proposal, .

P:i68 It Is p opose the new statute require a oved insure s to in emnif mining em loyers for asbestos diseases f om a proclaime ate.

ICWA endorses this proposal,

Conciliation filing requirement

P:169 ~ It is proposed the requirement to ne otiate rior to filing an a plicationfo conciliation be discontinue .

ICWA endorses this proposal. Parties should still b encouraged h ne otiate but Itshoul not be made mand tory to do so. The presumed Intent of this provision Is toptlsh parties to negotiation b fore court does not ap ear to be working well. Havingnegotiation between unwilling parties a 'must do' before conciliation is not working,

A pearing In the Conciliation and A bitrat oirSei Icos

P;171 - It is pro osed the new statute specify the classes of persons who mayattend on behalf of a arty to a ispute.

ICWA provides conditional support for thi pro osal providing Its claims and disputere olution officers are still ble to tten on behalf of Its clie ts and th t the e Isreasonable oppo tunity for claim nts to pe re resented by people they choose.

Abolition of termi ation day

P;172 - It Is ro ose the termination a regime be iscontinue .

ICWA strongly endorses this roposal,

Page 13 of 16

Common iaw settlements - section 92(f)

P:176 - It Is pro osed the settlement of e claim for damages by agreement Isvoi unless the common law threshol an roce ural require ents are met Inelation to the Injur ,

IOWA does not support this p o osal and notes that to some extent It contradicts theo osed settlement framework outlined In proposals 92 and 93 of the discussion

paper,

P;177 It is ro osed the new statute require the Di ector to isapprove asettlement filed un e s92(f) If the common la th eshol an p oce u alrequirements are not met In elatio to the injury,

ICWA does not su port this propo al and notes that to so e e tent It contra icts theroposed settlement framework outlined In proposals 92 and 93 of the discu siona er.

Info mation manage ent

P:178 - It is opose the new statute clearly outline;

I) req i ements for t e ovisio of information to Wo kCover WA;

N) t e circumstances whe e elease of Info mation hel by Wor Cover WA canoccur,

ICWA onditionally su po ts this ro osal but enco ages WorkCover not to Imposeresource intensive re orting obligations on Insurers, ICWA Will publish Its ownstatistics.

Penalties

Pi'IBQ - It is o ose the new statute Introd ce a penalt unit system for alloffe ces which I cludes automatic In exation.

ICWA notes ibis proposal.

Pa jo 'H of 16

ADDITIONAL PROPOSA S FOR INCLUSIO I EW WORKERSCOMPENSATION CTDefinition of injury nd liability for stress claimsWhile the definition of Inju y has not been included In the discussion paper, ICWAconsiders that It should be Inclu ed, articula ly In th context of stre s related Injuries,ICWA, through RIskGover, ma ages a proximately 60% of all st ess claims In theWestern Australian workers' comp nsation scheme. The total number of stress claimslodged With RlskCo\/er annu lly is aroun 380 at a cost of $17.8 million. The averagecost of these claims I twice that of a physical Injury cl im, In simple terms, any ofthe stress related claims ICWA receives arise from circumstances Involving orsurrounding workers "perfor ance" nd the authoritie h e since well-e t blishedthat the existing s.6(4) "stress" e clusions do not apply to those claims as there wasno expectation of discipline o di cipline per se,

ICWA strongly recommends consi er tion be given to reviewing the current defi itionof injury with a view to changing It to include the refe enc to "reasonableadministrative action" the wording use In th Austr lian Government's, SafetyRehabilitation and Co pensation Act 1988 (ComLaw / ComCare) which states ;

"5A Definition of injury

(1) In this Act;

injur means:(a) a disease suffered by an employee; or(b) an inju y (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, that Is a physical o

mental Injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee s employment; or(c) an aggravation of g physical or mental Injury (othe than a disease) suffered b

an employee ( hether or not that Inju y arose out of, or in the course of, theemployee's employment), that is an aggravation th t arose out of, or in thecourse of, that employment;but does not Inclu e a disease, Injury or aggravation suffered as a result ofeasonable administrative action taken In a easonable nner in respect of the

em loyee's employment,

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) and without limiting that subsection,easonable ad i istrative action Is taken to inclu e the following;

(a) a reasonable appraisal of the employee's performance;(b) a reasonable counsellin action ( hether formal or informal) taken in respect

of the employee's employment;(c) a reasonable suspensio action In respect of the e ployee's employment;(d) a reasonable disciplinary action (whether formal or Informal) ta en In respect

of the employee's e ployment;(e) a ythin reasonable done in connection ith an getlon mentioned In

paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d);

page 15 of l 8

(f) anything reasonable done In connection with the employee's failure to obtain ap omotion, eclassification, t ansfer or benefit, or to retain a benefit, Inconnection with his or her employment.'1

As can be seen, this definition of Injury Is not dissimilar to what wo currently havean would provide em loyers with an Increased sense of confidence that thoseclai s arising from their reasonable administrative actions are capable of beingdefended*

It Is believed that over a period of time, fewer tress relat d claims would be lodgedand the claims costs across the WA Public Sector, t least, woul ultimately reduce.

Inju y Wlanage»Yient Perfo mance AuditingICWA has been closely Involve with the monitoring of the Inj ry managementp rfo mance of WA Gove ment Agencies In the Rl kCover Fun . It has been ICWA'sex erience that the Injury man ge nt req ire ts im osed on em loye In the2006 changes to (he Wo ker Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 havenot h d the Intended effect of Imp oving ret n to work outcomes. This I likely to al obe largely the case for priv te sector employers, While ICWA does not believeI cre sing req i ments on em loyers will be of benefit, we do believe that thoroughreview of an m loyer' i jury ma agement culture an racllces can b of value. Tothis e d ICWA recommends WorkCover WA establish an auditing program focusingon large and edium employers with high work r ' compen ation costs with th aim ofim roving return to work at s and reduci g claims costs,

Page 10 of 16

aoVcfttiMEKfonwearfifui usTfi UA

-3 FEB M

WorkCover WA

Public SectorCommission

Office of the Commissioner

28 January 2014

Mr Chris WhiteA/Chief Executive OfficerWorkCover estern Aust alia2 Bedbrook PlaceShenton Park WA 6008

LEGISL TIVE VIEW 2013

Than you for your letter of 27 September 2013 Inviting the Public SectorCommission to make a submission In relation to the review of the Workers'Compensation and Injury Management A 1981 (the Act),

I am particularly intereste in any roposed c anges In rel tion to governancematters as art of is eview, This woul Include the statutory role of theWorkCover A Authority (constituted under Part V of the Act) and st tutory function,po ers an associated arran e ents relating to ministerial over ance andirectives, I note tha the discussion p er states the Scheme Regulation Pali of

the new statute will set out th powers and f nctions of WorkCover WA along withMinisterial governance, role of the Minister and offenoes" andtpat ''[n]o significantch nges a e pro osed in rel tio to the regulatio ad i istration of the sche e"( . 177).

As ublic Sector Commissioner, I have a lea ing role in monitoring and re ortin onhow public sector odies com ly ith blic sector standar s and ethical co es ofconduct under the Public Sector Management Act 1994. Accor ingly, our recordsIndicate that the Wor Cover Department, under the overnance of the Authority,a ears to be o e atin in an efficient and effective mannerwlth a hi h level ofcom liance, 1 also un erstan that there Is a hi h level of compli nce with res ect toAccountable a d Bthloai Decision Maki g ( EDM) training within the Departmentan that the WorkCover Authorit also recently u dertook their AED trainin inJune 013.

2 Hevalock Sires!, West Parlh Western Australia 6005Looked Bag 3002, West Perth Western Australia 6872Telepliona (OB) 6552 OSOD FaoalmllB (08) 6552 8601

www,publlosaotor,wa.gov.au

2

There Is an ongoing obli ation on statutory boards, such as the WorkCoverAuthority, to monitor and review their systems, practices, and governance frameworkto ensure that those s stems and practices remain rele ant and current to theBoard s situation, I reco nise that the provisions of section .111 and 111AoftheAotwhich relate to Ministerial accountability reflect the principles of the 1089Commission on Accountability (the (Burt Com ission) an l recommend that they beretained In the same or similar form as these p ovisions allow sufficient scope for theMinister to direct, Section 95 of the Act outlines the member qualifications hichalso ap e r appropriate and complement the principles of ood go ernance withoutcompromisin representative membership,

Accordingly, I support the eview of this le islation and the proposed Intention tomaintain the current statutory scheme in relation to the Wo kCover Autho ity and Itsgovernance of the Department,

Yours sincerely