Released 4 April 2008
RELEASE DATE 04/04/2008
The following statement was read out in the SA Parliament by the Minister for Industrial Relations, Michael Wright on Thursday, 4 April 2007 in response to this advertisement placed by the Australian Lawyers Alliance
I know there is some distress in the community about the changes proposed by the Government. I acknowledge there will be some reductions in benefits as a result of these reforms. But what has disappointed and frustrated me during the public debate on this issue, both in and outside of this House is the fearmongering and disinformation campaigns that have been run by some organisations. As an example of this is an advertisement that was published by the Australian Lawyers Alliance in yesterday’s Advertiser.
An example of this is an advertisement that was published by the Australian Lawyers Alliance in the Advertiser on Wednesday 3 April.
They cited examples of four injured workers who would be affected by this legislation, Michael, Andrew, Sascha and John (not their real names) with various claims these workers would suffer under these reforms.
The ALA claimed Michael’s payments would cease immediately upon passage of this Bill. Despite being injured more than 2.5 years ago he would remain on 80% of his pre-injury earnings providing he was working to his maximum capacity. If he was not working to his maximum capacity, his entitlement to ongoing payments would cease. It is important to note that the nature and extent of rehabilitation provided would be considered when determining whether there is a capacity for work. The South Australian Workers Rehabilitation Scheme is not an ongoing pension scheme. Its objective is to provide short-term support and rehabilitation to injured workers while they recover and return to work, providing only longer-term support to those who are seriously injured and unable to return to work.
In regard to Andrew, who the ALA said would immediately lose his weekly payments and have reduced lump sums, under the new legislation he would be entitled to payments immediately under provisional liability enabling rehabilitation to commence immediately. He would then be entitled to 100% of his pre-injury earnings for the first 13 weeks, reduced to 90% at 13 weeks (based on the amendments I have proposed) and 80% at 26 weeks. If Andrew was seriously and permanently impaired he would have access to increased lump sum benefits which have almost doubled from $230,000 to $400,000 in the proposed legislation.
In regard to Sascha who the ALA said struggled to her claim accepted and will now have her payments stopped – under the new legislation she would be entitled to payments immediately under provisional liability enabling rehabilitation to commence immediately. If Sascha had no capacity for work after three years, she would be entitled to ongoing weekly payments at 80% of per pre-injury earnings. Similarly, if Sasha had capacity to work and was working to that capacity, she would be entitled to ongoing top up weekly payments at 80% of pre-injury earnings. However, if she had capacity and was not working to that capacity, she would no longer be entitled to ongoing payments. This is consistent with the objective of the Scheme to provide short-term support and rehabilitation to injured workers while they recover and return to work, providing only longer-term support to those who are seriously injured and unable to return to work.
In regard to John who the ALA said suffered many serious and permanent disabilities, on that basis that he would be entitled to increased lump sum benefits, which have doubled from $230,000 to $400,000 in the proposed legislation.
Now I don’t know the details of each of those individual cases, but there really is some misinformation presented in those case studies and I am concerned that the fearmongering of a number of interest groups in connection with this Bill has caused undue distress to people currently on WorkCover.