Searching...
Thursday 13 August 2015

Amended workers' compensation scheme provokes criticism



CHANGES to the workers' compensation scheme have boosted the payments to be made to the families of all workers who die, excluding thousands of coalminers.

The measures, described by Finance and Services minister Dominic Perrottet as creating a "fair and financially sustainable scheme", wound back many of the government's 2012 controversial reforms by restoring benefits to injured workers.

They passed NSW Parliament on Thursday after being rushed through the NSW upper house overnight on Wednesday.

But the swift process has provoked criticism of the government for pushing through such complex legislation, as confusion reigned during the late-night debate as to whether an increase in death benefits should apply to coalminers as well as other workers.

Under the amended scheme, the lump sum paid to dependents of workers who have died will increase from $524,000 to $750,000.

A WorkCover NSW spokesman said the change was made in the context of the 2012 reforms, from which miners were excluded, and "it would be anomalous to now apply this change to coal miners, unless the other features of the scheme were also extended to them".

Police were also exempt from the 2012 changes. But last-minute additions to the new bill following lobbying by the Police Association mean the increased lump sums will apply to police and emergency services too.

Greens MP David Shoebridge said coalminers "are now the only group of workers in NSW not guaranteed the newly increased lump sum compensation if they are killed in the course of their employment".

However, Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union northern mining district president Peter Jordan said the industry has its own insurer, Coal Mines Insurance, with which the union was in negotiations to have the benefit payment increased.


"Appropriate discussions have been occurring . . . such that we expect that coalminers won't be disadvantaged," he said.

"I'm reasonably confident that we should achieve the same outcome."








Source -Here-

0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Back to top!