NEVILLE BROWN: So scrapping Workcover and replacing it with what will amounts to Workcover Mark 2 is to be the answer (‘Beyond redemption’: Workcover to be decommissioned, InDaily, 21 October 2013). So what is the real question?
It boggles the mind that politicians fail to see the answers that have been obvious to many in the industry for years: massive conflicts of interest, change for change’s sake, and a total failure to understand the dynamic of workplace injury. The cycle is turning again and we are back to early intervention – why we ever left it is beyond me. Why do I suspect that we are about to enter another cycle of “blame the injured worker” for cost blowouts? I am quite sick of seeing a system managed by people who have no idea of anything other than an “insurance” adversarial model of case management and vocational rehabilitation. If you see cases mismanaged from the start, it is no surprise that people do not get back to work in an optimal manner. If you see service providers audited by people who are neither qualified audit specialists, nor service/case management/rehabilitation specialists, you have to wonder what is being achieved. It is quite possible to fix the existing system – IF the government has the guts to get serious about it. It is a total cop out to abandon what started as an excellent system until successive governments kept tinkering with it. Any new system will be no better than the old system, because you will end up with the same blinkered people making the decisions.
ROSEMARY MCKENZIE-FERGUSON: In 2002 WorkCover Corporation was $65 million unfunded. Now, almost 12 years later, the unfunded liability just lurches from one disaster to another and try as the WorkCover system might all they have managed to do is destroy what was once a very workable very widely respected workers’ compensation system. Now Minister Rau wants to scrap everything and start again all the while knowing that he is basically the gate keeper until the March 15 State election.
I can almost predict what will happen post-March 15, regardless of which party comes to power: the minister will call for a review of what is already in place; the review will take 6-8 months; at the end of the review a series of recommendations will be handed to the Minister; the Minister will then have to table the review and set aside time for debates and committees and a raft of policy re-writes.
Whilst all of that is happening injured workers will still be left to work their way through the maze of a system that has imploded on itself, all the while injured workers will be held up as the reason for the waste and for the excessive costs.
Topping all of that off is that the employers of South Australia are required by legislation to pay for a broken workers’ compensation system that does not deliver anything that is workable or reliable.
Enough is enough: the farce, the smoke screen, the slight of hand workers’ compensation system has destroyed enough lives.
MICHAEL SCHILLING: With reference to your cover story on the 30 year transport plan, the Government deserves credit for thinking that far ahead. Any major infrastructure for transport has long lead times and a plan should cover 30-50 years. At first glance, there are two concerns. One, why do we invest so heavily in trams considering the relatively narrow streets we have? Electric buses and underground in the city are a much better way to go, and probably less expensive. Second, the price tag of $36 billion may be realistic but it is pie in the sky given our current and projected income. It is good to plan, but we should always try to keep our feet firmly on the ground. And to get an alternative government to commit to such an enormous undertaking so close to an election is wishful thinking and unlikely. But it is a discussion starter, a good election platform, but one hopes that there is also a plan B.
JOHN MCROBERT: The piece, Do we have the courage to prevent fires?, (InDaily, 21 October 2013) somehow brought to mind the old story of a New Zealand farmer who lit his pipe just as one of his cows let loose a goodly whiff of methane from its nether end. The resultant explosion burned the barn down, but his insurance claim was rejected on the basis that this was a genuine case of ars(e)on fire.
Your feature writer who linked ‘Climate Change’, ‘Arson’ and ‘Land Use’, must spend more time on research, as there is convincing evidence that climate change is not caused, nor cannot be controlled by mankind (good old King Canute had to prove to his subjects that even he could not control natural things such as the tide), and if people are tempted to light fires in high-risk forest areas, they should (a) be taught to be more responsible, and (b) the forests should be better managed to ensure that even the effects of lightning strike have minimal outcomes.
Just one example of pre-climate change hysteria: Gippsland fires and Black Sunday (VIC), 1 February-10 March 1926 Large areas of Gippsland caught fire, culminating in the Black Sunday fires on 14 February that killed 31 people in Warburton, near Melbourne. Over the two-month period, a total of 60 people were killed.
Major forest fires happened long before this fraud of man-made climate change was invented.
IPCC reports should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. IPCC is a parasitic organisation feeding on the host body, taxpayers of the world. The best cure for termites is exposure to sunlight, and the light of fact is finally shining through the gloom.
ANDY ALCOCK: Thank you for publishing the very timely article by Janet Stanley, the Chief Research Officer at Monash University, Do we have the courage to prevent fires?
The ferocity of the bushfires we are currently seeing in NSW should be making our political leaders take climate change far more seriously than what they do. I agree with Janet Stanley that, while the Carbon Price was not perfect, it was an important step to taking climate change seriously and the Australian Government should immediately reconsider its irresponsible intention to abolish it.
Climate change is one of a number of issues that are being ignored by our leaders. Last week, the International Agency for Research into Cancer declared that it has classified vehicle fumes as a category one carcinogen for human beings.
This surely raises concerns for those fighting bushfires and those living in bushfire prone areas.
Vehicle emissions are generated by combustion of petrol. Fumes from all fires produce seriously toxic cocktails of numerous chemicals because of the combustion of many different compounds. As climate change gets worse, we can expect more bushfires and other serious disasters. The bushfires will increase toxic pollutants while contributing to further warming of the planet. This means that we need to urgently be doing more to reduce pollution to keep us safe from environmental pollution while we take more decisive steps to combat climate change.
JEREMY BROWNE: Your article on bushfires fails to address other important issues. Should planning control building in high risk areas? Should creation of fire breaks around property be mandatory? Are we compromising safety to save a few trees?
Send us letters via email to [email protected], including your full name. The editor reserves the right to edit letters.
Or join the discussion on our Facebook page.
