|
AMENDMENT |
IMPLICATIONS |
|
|
Reduce
weekly
payments
to
90%
of
salary
after
13
weeks
and
then
80%
after
26
weeks |
Reduction
in
pay
for
workers
who
are
injured
puts
them
under
financial
stress
during
their
recovery.
On
many
occasions
it
is
not
the
injured
workers
fault
that
they
may
not
be
back
at
work
after
13
weeks.
A
worker
in
minimum
pay
would
still
be
earning
lower
than
the
national
minimum
wage.
Verdict
-
bad
for
injured
workers
|
|
|
Allocating
$15
million
for
a
return
to
work
refund |
This
is
not
new
(it
is
one
of
the
Clayton
recommendations)
and
is
not
what
the
unions
have
asked
for
which
was
a
discreet
fund
for
retraining.
This
money
will
be
dissipated
with
rehabilitation,
promotion,
information
for
businesses
etc.
It
will
not
solve
the
problem
that
workers
who
are
injured
can
only
go
back
to a
different
job
if
they
can
access
the
training
to
do
so.
Verdict
-
window
dressing
and
will
not
solve
the
problem
|
|
More
powers
for
the
WorkCover
Ombudsman
-
appeal
ceasing
of
weekly
payments
-
review
termination
decisions
-
ensure
employers
meet
obligations
to
find
duties
for
injured
workers
|
All
the
powers
allocated
in
these
amendments
to
the
ombudsman
currently
exist
for
the
Workers
Compensation
Tribunal,
the
Industrial
Relations
Commission
or
WorkCover
itself
which
are
legal
bodies
and
have
the
power
of
enforcement.
The
allocation
of
these
powers
to
an
ombudsman
will
only
weaken
the
rights
of
workers
as
this
position
has
no
legal
standing
and
ability
to
enforce
decisions
and
orders.
Verdict
-
Window
dressing
and
worse
for
workers |
|
Removing
the
Arbitration
process
from
Workers
Compensation
Tribunal
|
This
is a
positive
move
- it
retains
the
current
practice.
Not
a
new
thing.
It
will
mean
that
the
successful
conciliation
process
that
currently
exists
will
be
retained.
Verdict
-
same
as
now
and
supported |
|
|
Retaining
the
7.5%
levy
cap
instead
of
the
proposed
15% |
This
will
reward
the
most
dangerous
employers
who
injure
and
kill
people.
It
was
one
of
the
only
parts
of
the
Bill
that
put
pressure
on
employers
to
make
workplaces
safer.
This
is a
disgrace
when
the
Bill
already
hugely
favours
employers.
Verdict
-
good
for
bosses.
Another
benefit
for
bosses
which
does
not
help
workers.
Reward
for
bad
behaviour
|
|
Increase
notice
for
ceasing
payments
and
other
penalties
from
7
days
to
14
days
|
Currently
it
is
21
days
notice
so
this
is
still
a
significant
reduction
in
the
time
for
families
to
re-adjust
to
loss
of
income
and
change
in
their
circumstances.
Verdict
-
bad
for
workers |
|
In
regulation
formula
for
fees
for
employers
to
exit
the
scheme
|
This
is
insignificant
Verdict
- no
impact |
|
No
longer
making
amendments
regarding
annual
leave
|
This
will
remain
the
same
as
it
currently
is.
Verdict
-
the
same
for
workers,
so
supported |
|
|
Clarification
of
medical
questions
referred
to
medical
panels |
Would
need
to
see
the
detail
to
determine
if
this
would
deal
with
issues
such
as
doctors
determining
inappropriate
questions
but
would
not
stop
the
lack
of
justice
for
workers
who
would
still
not
be
able
to
appeal
any
decision
of
the
medical
panel.
Verdict
-
slightly
better
but
medical
panel
proposal
still
bad
for
workers
|
|
|
Not
proceeding
with
proposal
to
provide
lump
sum
payments
for
stress
injury |
One
of
the
few
beneficial
changes
for
workers
in
the
Bill
is
knocked
out
due
to
pressure
from
business.
This
means
stress
injured
workers
continue
not
to
be
able
to
have
their
injuries
compensated
through
a
lump
sum
payment.
Verdict
-
bad
for
workers
|
|
|
Make
clear
levy
is
GST
free |
Requested
by
employers
and
granted.
Verdict
-
another
sop
to
employers
|
|
|
Conclusion
-
bad
for
workers |
- still the case that nearly everyone will be kicked off the scheme after 2 and a half years and this would apply retrospectively to people already on the scheme
- pay still suspended if a worker disputes a decision about their workers compensation claim
- still proposal to significantly reduce the amount of money workers get for loss of limbs or body functions
- levy cut for employers while at the same time severely cutting workers rights and payments
- no access to common law to sue employers for damages
|
|
