The RIS notes that under the base case, there would be inconsistencies between treatment of workers who are catastrophically injured - between jurisdictions and in a motor vehicle accident. Standardisation leads to both the reduction of current rights in some jurisdictions in order to meet the common denominator’ but also has an impact on lesser ‘lowest injuries on the scale. The ALA supports, in principle, harmonisation. However, the history of such endeavours has been of a race to the bottom: harmonisation the stated basis upon which a diminution of rights has occurred. The ALA supports the principle of harmonisation only on a levelling up basis. Question 12: Do you agree with the identified impact of the minimum benchmarks on workers? Impacts on workers The RIS states that under the minimum benchmarks options, insurers will no longer be entitled to make commutation offers to workers and caps on services will be removed. For reasons already stated, this is a misconceived proposal. We believe that an impact of this will be that workers may seek to be assessed below the level of injury so as to avoid the pitfalls of participation in a ‘catastrophic’ scheme in which they have no real control. So too, we believe that workers will face increased disputes with insurers who may seek to have cases classed as in order that the care and support of ‘catastrophic’ these individuals would fall to the NIIS instead. This has often been the case within the NSW Lifetime Care and Support Scheme, where people will seek to have their injury assessed at below a catastrophic rate so that they may continue to exercise choice and control over their care, support, and life. Subsequent impacts on significantly injured people Another impact of the minimum benchmarks that has not been highlighted by the RIS, is the subsequent impacts on workers suffering a less severe injury. The funding model pursued by each jurisdiction towards securing lifetime care for people who are catastrophically injured, has the scope to have a significant impact on access to benefits and eligibility for workers compensation scheme coverage for other workers in that jurisdiction.
The RIS notes that under the base case, there would be inconsistencies between treatment of workers who are catastrophically injured - between jurisdictions and in a motor vehicle accident. Standardisation leads to both the reduction of current rights in some jurisdictions in order to meet the ‘lowest common denominator’ but also has an impact on lesser injuries on the scale. The ALA supports, in principle, harmonisation. However, the history of such endeavours has been of a race to the bottom: harmonisation the stated basis upon which a diminution of rights has occurred. The ALA supports the principle of harmonisation only on a levelling up basis. Question 12: Do you agree with the identified impact of the minimum benchmarks on workers? Impacts on workers The RIS states that under the minimum benchmarks options, insurers will no longer be entitled to make commutation offers to workers and caps on services will be removed. For reasons already stated, this is a misconceived proposal. We believe that an impact of this will be that workers may seek to be assessed below the ‘catastrophic’ level of injury so as to avoid the pitfalls of participation in a scheme in which they have no real control. So too, we believe that workers will face increased disputes with insurers who may seek to have cases classed as ‘catastrophic’ in order that the care and support of these individuals would fall to the NIIS instead. This has often been the case within the NSW Lifetime Care and Support Scheme, where people will seek to have their injury assessed at below a catastrophic rate so that they may continue to exercise choice and control over their care, support, and life. Subsequent impacts on significantly injured people Another impact of the minimum benchmarks that has not been highlighted by the RIS, is the subsequent impacts on workers suffering a less severe injury. The funding model pursued by each jurisdiction towards securing lifetime care for people who are catastrophically injured, has the scope to have a significant impact on access to benefits and eligibility for workers compensation scheme coverage for other workers in that jurisdiction.
C2015-011_Australian_Lawyers_Alliance.docx