Queensland Workers’ Compensation

1.

A number of changes are being proposed to workers' compensation arrangements in Queensland that will affect all employers and employees. These changes are being sought by WorkCover due to its deteriorating financial position.

WorkCover's deteriorating financial position has been put down to three key factors:

Two consecutive years of negative investment returns due to the global financial crisis;
Growth in net claims expenditure due to the increasing number of common law claims compared to statutory claims;
Income not keeping pace with net claims growth, with premiums maintained at an average premium rate of approximately $1.15 per $100 of wages paid.

To improve the situation, the WorkCover Board has put forward a number of recommendations to the Minister for Industrial Relations.

Progressive increases over time in the average premium rate;
Introducing a common law threshold of 10% or 15% whole person impairment (WPI) while at the same time extending common law coverage to host employers and principle contractors who have a WorkCover policy;
Increasing statutory lump sums and improving rehabilitation and return to work processes;
Reducing the step down in weekly benefits between weeks 14 to 26 from 85% of normal weekly earnings to 80% or the federal minimum wage (FMW), and increasing step down benefits between 14 weeks and 5 years from 75% to 80% of normal weekly earnings or the FMW.

The Department of Justice and Attorney-General (DJAG) is currently consulting with industry on these options. The results of this survey will be forwarded to the Minister for Industrial Relations.

Please note CCIQ places upmost importance on your privacy and will not disclose any personal details submitted in this survey.

Question Title

* 1. How many employees are employed at your organisation?

0 -19 employees

20 - 49 employees

50 - 99 employees

100+ employees

Question Title

* 2. In which industry sector is your business primarily involved?

Question Title

* 3. Do you support WorkCover improving their financial position through:

	Strongly Support	Support	Neutral	Oppose	Strongly Oppose
Progressively increasing premiums over time	Progressively increasing premiums over time Strongly Support	Progressively increasing premiums over time Support	Progressively increasing premiums over time Neutral	Progressively increasing premiums over time Oppose	Progressively increasing premiums over time Strongly Oppose
Finding savings by achieving efficiencies within WorkCover's cost structures	Finding savings by achieving efficiencies within WorkCover's cost structures Strongly Support	Finding savings by achieving efficiencies within WorkCover's cost structures Support	Finding savings by achieving efficiencies within WorkCover's cost structures Neutral	Finding savings by achieving efficiencies within WorkCover's cost structures Oppose	Finding savings by achieving efficiencies within WorkCover's cost structures Strongly Oppose
Reducing the step down in weekly benefits ie from 85% to 80% of normal weekly earnings or the federal minimum wage	Reducing the step down in weekly benefits ie from 85% to 80% of normal weekly earnings or the federal minimum wage Strongly Support	Reducing the step down in weekly benefits ie from 85% to 80% of normal weekly earnings or the federal minimum wage Support	Reducing the step down in weekly benefits ie from 85% to 80% of normal weekly earnings or the federal minimum wage Neutral	Reducing the step down in weekly benefits ie from 85% to 80% of normal weekly earnings or the federal minimum wage Oppose	Reducing the step down in weekly benefits ie from 85% to 80% of normal weekly earnings or the federal minimum wage Strongly Oppose
Introducing a common law threshold to reduce the number of claims, subsequently reducing claims expenditure	Introducing a common law threshold to reduce the number of claims, subsequently reducing claims expenditure Strongly Support	Introducing a common law threshold to reduce the number of claims, subsequently reducing claims expenditure Support	Introducing a common law threshold to reduce the number of claims, subsequently reducing claims expenditure Neutral	Introducing a common law threshold to reduce the number of claims, subsequently reducing claims expenditure Oppose	Introducing a common law threshold to reduce the number of claims, subsequently reducing claims expenditure Strongly Oppose
Removing access to journey claims (for incidents that occur to and from work)	Removing access to journey claims (for incidents that occur to and from work) Strongly Support	Removing access to journey claims (for incidents that occur to and from work) Support	Removing access to journey claims (for incidents that occur to and from work) Neutral	Removing access to journey claims (for incidents that occur to and from work) Oppose	Removing access to journey claims (for incidents that occur to and from work) Strongly Oppose
Reduce the maximum lump sum payment for statutory claims (currently $244,710)	Reduce the maximum lump sum payment for statutory claims (currently $244,710) Strongly Support	Reduce the maximum lump sum payment for statutory claims (currently $244,710) Support	Reduce the maximum lump sum payment for statutory claims (currently $244,710) Neutral	Reduce the maximum lump sum payment for statutory claims (currently $244,710) Oppose	Reduce the maximum lump sum payment for statutory claims (currently $244,710) Strongly Oppose
Increasing the excess paid by employers for statutory claims	Increasing the excess paid by employers for statutory claims Strongly Support	Increasing the excess paid by employers for statutory claims Support	Increasing the excess paid by employers for statutory claims Neutral	Increasing the excess paid by employers for statutory claims Oppose	Increasing the excess paid by employers for statutory claims Strongly Oppose
Removing the premium discount received for early payment	Removing the premium discount received for early payment Strongly Support	Removing the premium discount received for early payment Support	Removing the premium discount received for early payment Neutral	Removing the premium discount received for early payment Oppose	Removing the premium discount received for early payment Strongly Oppose
Introducing a late premium payment penalty fee	Introducing a late premium payment penalty fee Strongly Support	Introducing a late premium payment penalty fee Support	Introducing a late premium payment penalty fee Neutral	Introducing a late premium payment penalty fee Oppose	Introducing a late premium payment penalty fee Strongly Oppose
Higher premiums for employers with a high number of claims	Higher premiums for employers with a high number of claims Strongly Support	Higher premiums for employers with a high number of claims Support	Higher premiums for employers with a high number of claims Neutral	Higher premiums for employers with a high number of claims Oppose	Higher premiums for employers with a high number of claims Strongly Oppose
Improving management of WorkCover's investment portfolio	Improving management of WorkCover's investment portfolio Strongly Support	Improving management of WorkCover's investment portfolio Support	Improving management of WorkCover's investment portfolio Neutral	Improving management of WorkCover's investment portfolio Oppose	Improving management of WorkCover's investment portfolio Strongly Oppose
Less propensity for WorkCover to settle Common Law claims	Less propensity for WorkCover to settle Common Law claims Strongly Support	Less propensity for WorkCover to settle Common Law claims Support	Less propensity for WorkCover to settle Common Law claims Neutral	Less propensity for WorkCover to settle Common Law claims Oppose	Less propensity for WorkCover to settle Common Law claims Strongly Oppose
Increased focus on improving employer WHS procedures, therefore reducing claims	Increased focus on improving employer WHS procedures, therefore reducing claims Strongly Support	Increased focus on improving employer WHS procedures, therefore reducing claims Support	Increased focus on improving employer WHS procedures, therefore reducing claims Neutral	Increased focus on improving employer WHS procedures, therefore reducing claims Oppose	Increased focus on improving employer WHS procedures, therefore reducing claims Strongly Oppose

Other (please specify)

Question Title

* 4. Do you support the following changes to common law?

	Strongly Support	Support	Neutral	Oppose	Strongly Oppose
Cap on the amount of damages that can be awarded	Cap on the amount of damages that can be awarded Strongly Support	Cap on the amount of damages that can be awarded Support	Cap on the amount of damages that can be awarded Neutral	Cap on the amount of damages that can be awarded Oppose	Cap on the amount of damages that can be awarded Strongly Oppose
The introduction of a threshold, such as a 10 or 15% Whole Person Impairment (WPI) threshold, to access common law	The introduction of a threshold, such as a 10 or 15% Whole Person Impairment (WPI) threshold, to access common law Strongly Support	The introduction of a threshold, such as a 10 or 15% Whole Person Impairment (WPI) threshold, to access common law Support	The introduction of a threshold, such as a 10 or 15% Whole Person Impairment (WPI) threshold, to access common law Neutral	The introduction of a threshold, such as a 10 or 15% Whole Person Impairment (WPI) threshold, to access common law Oppose	The introduction of a threshold, such as a 10 or 15% Whole Person Impairment (WPI) threshold, to access common law Strongly Oppose
Restrictions on the types of damages that an injured worker can receive	Restrictions on the types of damages that an injured worker can receive Strongly Support	Restrictions on the types of damages that an injured worker can receive Support	Restrictions on the types of damages that an injured worker can receive Neutral	Restrictions on the types of damages that an injured worker can receive Oppose	Restrictions on the types of damages that an injured worker can receive Strongly Oppose
Extending common law coverage to host employers/principal contractors to cover injuries to workers employed by labour hire firms and contractors	Extending common law coverage to host employers/principal contractors to cover injuries to workers employed by labour hire firms and contractors Strongly Support	Extending common law coverage to host employers/principal contractors to cover injuries to workers employed by labour hire firms and contractors Support	Extending common law coverage to host employers/principal contractors to cover injuries to workers employed by labour hire firms and contractors Neutral	Extending common law coverage to host employers/principal contractors to cover injuries to workers employed by labour hire firms and contractors Oppose	Extending common law coverage to host employers/principal contractors to cover injuries to workers employed by labour hire firms and contractors Strongly Oppose
Allow claims only where employment was the major significant contributing factor to the injury	Allow claims only where employment was the major significant contributing factor to the injury Strongly Support	Allow claims only where employment was the major significant contributing factor to the injury Support	Allow claims only where employment was the major significant contributing factor to the injury Neutral	Allow claims only where employment was the major significant contributing factor to the injury Oppose	Allow claims only where employment was the major significant contributing factor to the injury Strongly Oppose
Allow courts to award costs against plaintiffs (those who initiate the lawsuit) whose claims are dismissed	Allow courts to award costs against plaintiffs (those who initiate the lawsuit) whose claims are dismissed Strongly Support	Allow courts to award costs against plaintiffs (those who initiate the lawsuit) whose claims are dismissed Support	Allow courts to award costs against plaintiffs (those who initiate the lawsuit) whose claims are dismissed Neutral	Allow courts to award costs against plaintiffs (those who initiate the lawsuit) whose claims are dismissed Oppose	Allow courts to award costs against plaintiffs (those who initiate the lawsuit) whose claims are dismissed Strongly Oppose
Increase the ability of employers’ to defend a common law claim	Increase the ability of employers’ to defend a common law claim Strongly Support	Increase the ability of employers’ to defend a common law claim Support	Increase the ability of employers’ to defend a common law claim Neutral	Increase the ability of employers’ to defend a common law claim Oppose	Increase the ability of employers’ to defend a common law claim Strongly Oppose
Increase the lump sum maximum payment under statutory law from $244,710 to $300,000	Increase the lump sum maximum payment under statutory law from $244,710 to $300,000 Strongly Support	Increase the lump sum maximum payment under statutory law from $244,710 to $300,000 Support	Increase the lump sum maximum payment under statutory law from $244,710 to $300,000 Neutral	Increase the lump sum maximum payment under statutory law from $244,710 to $300,000 Oppose	Increase the lump sum maximum payment under statutory law from $244,710 to $300,000 Strongly Oppose
No access to common law	No access to common law Strongly Support	No access to common law Support	No access to common law Neutral	No access to common law Oppose	No access to common law Strongly Oppose

Other (please specify)