Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

download Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

of 58

Transcript of Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    1/58

    Comparative Performance Monitoring

    Report

    WORKPLACE RELATIONS MINISTERS COUNCIL

    Comparison of occupational health and safety and workers

    compensation schemes in Australia and New Zealand9th Edition

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    2/58

    WORKPLACE RELATIONS MINISTERS COUNCIL

    Comparative Perormance

    Monitoring ReportComparison o occupational health and saety

    and workers compensation schemesin Australia and New Zealand

    Ninth Edition

    February 2008

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    3/58

    Commonwealth o Australia (Department o Education, Employment and WorkplaceRelations) 2007

    ISBN No. 978-0-642-32711-6

    This work is copyright. Apart rom any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission rom theCommonwealth. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should beaddressed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney-Generals department,Robert Garran oces, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or posted at ag.gov.au/cca

    An electronic copy o this report is available at: workplace.gov.au/cpm

    Department o Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

    Oce o the Australian Saety and Compensation Council

    GPO Box 9879

    Canberra ACT 2601

    Telephone: (02) 6121 9256

    DISCLAIMER

    Important Notice

    The Department o Education, Employment and Workplace Relations through the AustralianSaety and Compensation Council (ASCC) provides the inormation given in this documentto improve public access to inormation about occupational health and saety inormationgenerally. The vision o the ASCC is Australian workplaces ree rom injury and disease. Itsmission is to lead and coordinate national eorts to prevent workplace death, injury anddisease in Australia.

    The inormation provided in this document can only assist you in the most general way.This document does not replace any statutory requirements under any relevant State andTerritory legislation. The ASCC accepts no liability arising rom the use o or reliance on thematerial contained on this document, which is provided on the basis that the ASCC is notthereby engaged in rendering proessional advice. Beore relying on the material, usersshould careully make their own assessment as to its accuracy, currency, completenessand relevance or their purposes, and should obtain any appropriate proessional advicerelevant to their particular circumstances. To the extent that the material in this documentincludes views or recommendations o third parties, such views or recommendations do notnecessarily refect the views o the ASCC or the Department o Education, Employment andWorkplace Relations nor do they indicate a commitment to a particular course o action.

    http://ag.gov.au/ccahttp://www.workplace.gov.au/cpmhttp://www.workplace.gov.au/cpmhttp://ag.gov.au/cca
  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    4/58

    III Workplace Relations Ministers Council

    ForewordThe Labour Ministers Council, now known as the Workplace Relations Ministers Council (WRMC),

    released the rst Comparative Perormance Monitoring (CPM) report in December 1998. The

    CPM reports provide trend analysis on the occupational health and saety (OHS) and workers

    compensation schemes operating in Australia and New Zealand. Inormation in the report isdesigned to help gauge the success o dierent approaches undertaken by the various workers

    compensation and OHS authorities to reduce the incidence o work-related injury and disease. This

    is the ninth annual report o the CPM project.

    The CPM is complemented by the Compendium o Workers Compensation Statisticswhich

    provides more detailed analysis o national workers compensation data using key variables such as

    occupation, industry, age and gender with supporting inormation on the circumstances surrounding

    work-related injury and disease occurrences. The Compendium series can be ound at

    www.ascc.gov.au.

    Statement o purpose

    Provide measurable inormation to support policy making and program development by governments

    on OHS and workers compensation, to meet the goal o Australian and New Zealand workplaces

    ree rom injury and disease and to enable durable return to work and rehabilitation or injured and

    ill workers. The inormation should provide:

    (a) measurement o progress against national strategies

    (b) identication o actors contributing to improved OHS and workers compensation

    perormance (which includes consideration o resources), and

    (c) measurement o changes in OHS and workers compensation over time, including

    benchmarking where appropriate.

    Changes to the report this year

    A number o changes have been made to the current CPM report rom the inormation published in

    the previous report.

    (i) Jurisdictional data are now shown in the graphs in magnitude order.

    (ii) A new indicator has been included to measure jurisdictional progress against the National

    OHS Strategy 20022012.

    (iii) Expenditure data are now provided or each scheme showing claims management costs and

    payments to injured workers.

    (iv) The level o entitlements section has been extended to provide the proportion o pre-injury

    earnings a worker would receive or a selection o incapacity periods.

    (v) The denition o remuneration or premium rates now includes superannuation due to the

    majority o employers now paying premiums using this denition.

    (vi) A new indicator, premium rates by industry, has been added and all industry inormation

    grouped into one chapter, Chapter 6.

    (vii) A eature article using data rom the Australian Bureau o Statistics Work-Related Injuries

    Surveyhas been included at Appendix 3.

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    5/58

    IV Workplace Relations Ministers Council

    Data

    Readers should be aware that data presented here may dier rom jurisdictional annual reports due

    to the use o dierent denitions and the application o adjustment actors to aid the comparability

    o data. Explanatory commentary on the data items are contained within each chapter with

    additional inormation included in Appendix 1 - Explanatory Notes, at the end o this publication.

    Data or this report are collected rom:

    the various workers compensation schemes and OHS authorities as ollows:- New South Wales WorkCover New South Wales- Victoria WorkSae Victoria- Queensland Workplace Health and Saety Queensland, Department o Employment

    and Industrial Relations and Q-COMP

    - Western Australia WorkCover Western Australia and WorkSae Division,Department o Consumer and Employment Protection

    - South Australia WorkCover Corporation South Australia and SaeWork SA- Tasmania Workplace Standards Tasmania and WorkCover Tasmania- Northern Territory NT WorkSae and Department o Employment, Education and

    Training

    - Australian Capital Territory Australian Capital Territory WorkCover and the Oce oRegulatory Services within the Department o Justice and Community Services

    - Australian Government Comcare- Seacare Seacare Authority (Seaarers Saety, Rehabilitation and Compensation

    Authority), and

    - New Zealand Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation. the Australian Heads o Workers Compensation Authorities Return to Work Monitor, the ull

    results o which can be accessed at hwca.org.au/reports_rtw.php, and

    the Australian Bureau o Statistics, which provides denominator data, based on the LabourForce Survey, the Survey o Employment and Earningsand the Survey o Employment,

    Earnings and Hours.

    CoordinationThis report has been compiled and coordinated by the Oce o the Australian Saety and

    Compensation Council (ASCC), Department o Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

    with assistance rom the CPM Technical Group, comprised o representatives rom all OHS and

    workers compensation authorities in Australia and New Zealand.

    The ASCC is made up o representatives rom each Australian state and territory, the

    Commonwealth, the ACTU and ACCI. The role o the ASCC is to lead and coordinate national

    eorts to improve OHS and workers compensation arrangements, declare national standards and

    code o practice or OHS and provide policy advice to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council

    on OHS and wokers compensation arrangements. The ASCC is not a regulatory authority anddoes not make or enorce laws. OHS laws in Australia operate in each o the state, territory and

    commonwealth jurisdictions, and are administered by jurisdictions OHS authorities.

    http://www.hwca.org.au/reports_rtw.phphttp://www.hwca.org.au/reports_rtw.php
  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    6/58

    Comparative Perormance Monitoring 200506 V

    Contents

    Foreword ....................................................................................... III

    Summary o ndings ..................................................................... VII

    Chapter 1 Progress against the National OHS Strategy ...................1

    Injury and musculoskeletal target ............................................................................................. 2Jurisdictional progress .............................................................................................................. 2Fatalities target.......................................................................................................................... 3International comparison........................................................................................................... 4

    Chapter 2 - OHS perormance ......................................................... 5

    Serious claims .......................................................................................................................... 5Long term claims ......................................................................................................................7Duration o absence .................................................................................................................. 8Compensated atalities .............................................................................................................. 9Notied atalities ......................................................................................................................11Claims by mechanism o injury/disease ................................................................................... 12Claims by size o business ....................................................................................................... 13

    Chapter 3 Enorcement .............................................................. 14

    Chapter 4 Workers compensation premiums and entitlements ... 18

    Standardised average premium rates ........................................................................................................18Entitlements under workers compensation .............................................................................. 19

    Chapter 5 Workers compensation scheme perormance ............. 23

    Assets to liabilities ratio ........................................................................................................... 23Scheme expenditure ............................................................................................................... 24Durable return to work .............................................................................................................27Disputation rate....................................................................................................................... 28Dispute resolution ................................................................................................................... 29

    Chapter 6 Industry inormation ....................................................31

    Claims by industry ...................................................................................................................31Premium rates by industry ....................................................................................................... 31

    Appendix 1 Explanatory notes .................................................... 34

    Appendix 2 Key eatures o Australian Workers CompensationSchemes ................................................................ 44

    Appendix 3 Work related injury survey ........................................ 46

    Appendix 4 Jurisdictional contact inormation ............................. 48

    http://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdfhttp://../National%20Data%20Team%20(DCNC)/Projects/PERFORMANCE%20MONITORING/8th%20CPM/REPORT/CPM8%20Part%202.pdf
  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    7/58

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    8/58

    Comparative Perormance Monitoring 200506 VII

    Summary o fndings

    Perormance against the National OHS Strategy 20022012

    The reduction in the incidence rate o injury and musculoskeletal claims between the base period

    (200001 to 200203) and 200506 was 13%, which is below the rate o improvement required to

    meet the National OHS Strategy 20022012(the National OHS Strategy) target o a 40% reduction

    by 201112. An improvement o at least 16% was required in 200506 to be considered on

    track to meet the target. NSW is the only jurisdiction to have exceeded this level o improvement,

    recording a 21% improvement, though the Australian Government recorded a 15% improvement,

    and Seacare and South Australia recorded a 14% improvement. Considerable eorts will be required

    by all jurisdictions i the target is to be met.

    While atality incidence rates had shown more encouraging levels o improvement in previous reports,

    the number o atalities recorded or 200506 is higher than in previous years, decreasing the

    percentage improvement rom the base period. The incidence o compensated atalities rom injury

    and musculoskeletal disorders decreased by 8% rom the base period to 200506. While this is

    still on target to meet the 20% reduction required by 201112, a urther 2% reduction is required

    to meet the interim target o a 10% reduction by 200607. The atality incidence rates show

    considerable volatility and consistent improvement is required.

    The National OHS Strategy also includes an aspirational target or Australia to have the lowest

    work-related traumatic atality rate in the world by 2009. Analysis o international data indicates that

    in 200405, Australia recorded the sixth lowest injury atality rate, with this rate decreasing more

    quickly than many o the best perorming countries in the world. However, despite this improvement,

    it is unlikely that Australia will meet the aspirational goal unless substantial improvements are

    recorded in the next ew years.

    OHS perormance

    There has been a all o 14% rom the rate o 18.2 claims per 1000 employees reported in 200102

    to the rate o 16.8 claims per 1000 employees reported in 200405. The preliminary workers

    compensation claims data or Australia indicate that in 200506 the incidence o serious injury and

    disease claims was 15.6 claims per 1000 employees. It is expected that this rate will increase by

    around 3% when the liability on all the claims submitted in 200506 is determined.

    There have been 231 compensated atalities recorded so ar or Australia or 200506, o which 184

    were rom injury and musculoskeletal disorders and 47 were rom other diseases. It is expected that

    this number will rise slightly when all claims are processed. The number o compensated atalities

    has decreased rom 316 recorded in 200102 to 254 recorded in 200405.

    The preliminary workers compensation claims data or New Zealand indicate that in 200506 the

    incidence o serious injury and disease claims was 13.3 claims per 1000 employees. New Zealand

    recorded an 11% increase in incidence rates rom 200102 to 200405, though the New Zealand

    rate remained lower than Australia. One reason or this is that the New Zealand scheme does not

    provide the same level o coverage o occupational diseases (such as work-related mental disorders)

    as Australia. There were 92 compensated atalities in New Zealand in 200506, down rom 103

    recorded in 200405 but still an increase on the 68 recorded in 200102.

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    9/58

    VIII Workplace Relations Ministers Council

    Summary o fndings

    Body stressingcontinued to be the mechanism o injury/disease which accounted or the greatest

    proportion o claims (42%). Claim numbers or this group have shown little change over the past ve

    years. This mechanism is receiving attention under the National OHS Strategy. Claims or Mental

    stressrecorded the greatest percentage increase o all mechanism groups: 12% over the period

    rom 200102 to 200405. These claims represent 6% o all serious claims.

    In 200506 over 114 000 inspections o workplaces were undertaken around Australia with 67 200

    notices issued, over 900 prosecutions commenced and almost $23 million in nes handed out by

    the courts.

    The highest incidence rates were recorded in the Manuacturing industry (28.6 claims per 1000

    employees) ollowed by the Transport and storage industry (28.3), the Agriculture, orestry and

    shing industry (25.9) and the Construction industry (25.3). All these industries together with the

    Health and community services industry, are receiving attention under the National OHS Strategy.

    Workers compensation scheme perormance

    Australias standardised average premium rate ell 9% rom 2.16% o payroll in 200304 to 1.96%

    o payroll in 200506. Most jurisdictions recorded alls over this period. While the Australian

    Government scheme recorded a 9% increase over this period, it still recorded the lowest premium

    rate o all jurisdictions at 1.22% o payroll in 200506.

    The New Zealand standardised average premium rate was 0.94% o payroll in 200506, a small

    increase on the previous year which recorded 0.91% o payroll, though still lower than Australias

    rate. One reason or the lower rate in New Zealand is that it does not provide the same level o

    coverage or occupational diseases as Australia provides.

    In 200506 the Australian average unding ratio rose to 115%, the rst time it has been over 100%

    since the CPM began compiling these data. Stronger investment perormances have contributed

    to this increase with ve o the eight Australian schemes recording improvements rom last year. A

    number o schemes have also introduced reorms which have helped reduce liabilities. Western

    Australia recorded a notable all rom 125% to 113% ollowing improvements to benets.

    In 200506, Australian workers compensation schemes expended $5799 million, o which, 52%

    was paid direct to the injured worker in compensation or their injury or illness and 22% was

    expended on medical and other services costs. Claims management expenses made up 18% o the

    total expenditure by schemes, up rom 14% in 200102.

    The durable return to work rate continued to increase with 80% o workers returning to work in

    200506 ollowing a work-related injury or disease. South Australia was the only jurisdiction to not

    record an improvement in return to work rates.

    The rate o disputation on claims ell to 8.6% o claims in 200506, down rom 9.0% in 200405.

    The Northern Territory and Tasmania recorded the largest percentage alls in disputation rates. The

    time taken to resolve disputes has not shown any improvement since 200102.

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    10/58

    Comparative Perormance Monitoring 200506 1

    Chapter 1 Progress against the National OHS Strategy

    The National OHS Strategy provides the ramework or collective eorts to improve Australias

    OHS perormance. The National OHS Strategy sets national targets to reduce the incidence o

    work-related atalities by at least 20% and reduce the incidence o workplace injury (includingmusculoskeletal disorders) by at least 40% by 30 June 2012. Interim targets to be achieved by

    30 June 2007 are to reduce work related atalities by 10% and to reduce workplace injury by 20%.

    A standard denition o serious claims due to injury or musculoskeletal disorders has been used or

    analysis to enable greater comparability in the jurisdictional data. Serious claims include all atalities,

    all permanent incapacity claims (as dened by the jurisdictions) and temporary claims or which

    one or more weeks o time lost rom work has been recorded. This denition takes into account the

    dierent employer excesses that exist in the various schemes.

    Achievements against the national targets or injury and atality are measured using the National

    Data Set or Compensation-based Statistics(NDS). The baseline or the national targets is taken romthe data or the three-year period 200001 to 200203. Note that this is a change rom the single

    year (200102) used as the base year in the previous publication. This move was motivated by the

    desire to publish jurisdictional level data where one year o data may not be typical. A three-year

    base period will smooth much o this volatility, resulting in a more typical starting point at which to

    measure progress against the targets. Another change rom the previous publication is the cessation

    o the use o preliminary data in preerence to using the most recent updated inormation. While

    the base period data are considered stable, revisions are likely or the more recent years. To ensure

    a more accurate measure o improvement is calculated, the most recent year o data have been

    projected orward to indicate the likely incidence rate once updated data are received.

    Since its adoption in May 2002, the National OHS Strategy has inormed the work and strategic

    plans o all Australian OHS authorities as well as driving the work o the Australian Saety and

    Compensation Council (ASCC) in the area o OHS. The ASCC is working to achieve the goals o the

    National OHS Strategy through a variety o means including developing and reviewing national OHS

    standards and codes o practice, supporting the development o national OHS units o competency

    to be included in all vocational education training, encouraging excellence in OHS through National

    Sae Work Australia Awards and improving the collection and analysis o OHS data and research to

    inorm policy and the development o regulatory rameworks.

    National compliance and intervention campaigns initiated by the Heads o Workplace Saety

    Authorities (HWSA) demonstrate the emergence o coordinated and collaborative national programs

    relating to the priority risks and industries under the National OHS Strategy. National campaigns

    undertaken in 2005-06 covered a range o areas such as demolition/asbestos in the Construction

    industry, hazardous substances in Manuacturing (particularly boat builders using breglass

    reinorced products), agricultural plant manuacturers, suppliers and importers, and creating

    a national register o incidents involving amusement devices. Further national campaigns are

    underway or planned in the areas o large mobile plant, manual handling in manuacturing and

    labour hire in the ood processing industry.

    All parties to the National OHS Strategy are committed to achieving a steady improvement in OHS

    practices and perormance and a corresponding decline in both incidence and severity o work-

    related injuries.

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    11/58

    2 Workplace Relations Ministers Council

    Progress against the National OHS Strategy

    Injury and musculoskeletal target

    Indicator 1 shows there was a 13% improvement recorded in the incidence o injury and

    musculoskeletal claims between the base period (200001 to 200203) and projected 200506

    data. This is below the rate o improvement needed to meet the long term target o a 40%

    improvement by 2012. An improvement o at least 16% would need to have been recorded or

    200506 to be considered on target. Thereore the rate o decline in the incidence o claims will

    need to accelerate in uture years i the target is to be achieved.

    Indicator 1 Incidence rate o serious* compensated injury and musculoskeletal claims,

    Australia, base period (200001 to 200203) to 200506

    * Includes accepted workers compensation claims or temporary incapacity involving one or more weeks o compensationplus all claims or atality and permanent incapacity.

    Jurisdictional progress

    Indicator 2 shows how the jurisdictions are progressing towards the injury target. To be on target

    jurisdictions would need to have recorded a 16% improvement rom the base period. New South

    Wales was the only jurisdiction to exceed this level, recording a 23% improvement. The Australian

    Government recorded a 15% improvement while Seacare and South Australia both recordedimprovements o 14%. The Australian Capital Territory is the only jurisdiction that did not record an

    improvement rom the base period, while the Northern Territory recorded no change.

    Changes to scheme operations since the base period can aect the percentage improvements

    shown in this indicator. Reorms to the Australian Capital Territory Private Scheme introduced

    during the base period have resulted in a higher level o reporting o claims since 200102. This

    has resulted in a comparatively low base period incidence rate, making achievement o the target

    more dicult.

    0

    4

    8

    12

    16

    base

    period

    2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

    Claimsper1000employee

    s

    Actual Projection Reduction required to meet target

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    12/58

    Comparative Perormance Monitoring 200506 3

    Indicator 2 Incidence rates (claims per 1000 employees) and percentage improvement o

    serious* compensated injury and musculoskeletal claims by jurisdiction

    Jurisdiction Base period 200203 200304 200405200506

    preliminary200506projected

    Percentageimprovement

    (%)**

    New South Wales 19.0 18.2 17.5 16.8 14.3 14.7 22.6

    Australian Government 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.0 7.7 8.1 14.7

    Seacare 35.6 31.8 35.2 21.4 30.0 30.6 14.0

    South Australia 18.8 17.9 18.3 17.8 15.6 16.2 13.8

    Victoria 12.1 10.9 10.8 10.2 10.7 11.1 8.3

    Queensland 17.1 17.6 16.3 15.8 15.9 16.4 4.1

    Western Australia 12.9 13.2 13.5 13.5 12.2 12.5 3.1

    Tasmania 16.4 16.4 15.8 16.1 15.6 16.1 1.8

    Northern Territory 13.3 12.8 13.0 13.4 13.0 13.3 0.0

    Australian Capital Territory 13.7 15.0 16.9 14.1 13.7 14.2 -3.6

    Australia 15.8 15.3 15.0 14.4 13.4 13.8 12.7

    * Includes accepted workers compensation claims or temporary incapacity involving one or more weeks o compensationplus all claims or atality and permanent incapacity.

    ** Percentage improvement from base period (200001 to 200203) to 200506 projected

    Fatalities target

    Indicator 3 shows progress towards the atalities target. These data show that the incidence rate o

    compensated atalities rom injuries and musculoskeletal disorders has decreased 8% rom the base

    period. While this is still on target to meet the 20% reduction required by 201112, a urther 2%

    reduction is required to meet the interim target o a 10% reduction by 200607. The graph below

    shows the volatility in this measure and consistent improvement is still required.

    Note that a table o jurisdictional improvements in atalities has not been included due to the

    volatility o these data. Inormation on the number o atalities recorded by each jurisdiction can be

    ound in Indicator 10.

    Indicator 3 Incidence rates o compensated injury & musculoskeletal atalities, Australia, base

    period (200001 to 200203) to 200506

    0.0

    0.9

    1.8

    2.7

    Base

    period

    2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

    Claimsper100000employ

    ees

    Actual Projection Reduction required to meet target

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    13/58

    4 Workplace Relations Ministers Council

    Progress against the National OHS Strategy

    International comparisonFollowing the rst triennial review o the National OHS Strategy, WRMC adopted an additional

    aspirational goal o having the lowest rate o traumatic atalities in the world by 2009. Analysis o

    injury atality data using inormation published on the International Labor Organization (ILO) website,

    (laborsta.ilo.org)was undertaken in 2004. The results o this analysis were published in a report

    titled Fatal Occupational Injuries How does Australia compare internationally?which can be

    accessed at ascc.gov.au/ascc/AboutUs/Publications/.

    The main aim o this report was to obtain a measure o the gap in perormance between Australia

    and the best perorming countries. Countries were thereore included in this analysis i they had a

    lower incidence o atality than Australia as reported to the ILO. This resulted in most o the countries

    included in this comparison being European. The analysis undertaken in the report only used

    atalities rom injuries, making adjustments where possible or dierences in scope and coverage.

    The data were then standardised against Australia to take account o dierent industry mixes and

    nally a three-year average was calculated to remove some o the volatility that results rom working

    with small numbers.

    Using this same methodology and continuing the data series we can see in Indicator 4 that since

    19992001 Australias work-related atality rate has generally decreased at a greater rate than

    the best perorming countries in the world. As at 200405 (the latest available international data)

    Australia has moved into sixth place, though this has more to do with poorer perormances in recent

    years in Finland than the improvements in Australia. While the gap between Australia and the better

    perorming countries has reduced, it is unlikely that Australia will meet this aspirational goal unless

    substantial improvements are recorded in uture years.

    It should be noted that due to dierences in scope and methodology, comparisons o occupational

    injury atalities data between countries have many limitations. The areas o concern lie in the

    exclusion o sel-employed workers, the lack o data relating to road trac atalities and the

    incomplete coverage within the data o the working population. The adopted methodology has

    attempted to address these concerns but some issues have not been ully resolved and may impact

    on the nal results.

    Indicator 4 Comparison o Australias work-related injury atality rate with the best perorming

    countries

    0.0

    1.0

    2.0

    3.0

    1999-2001 2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006

    Casesper100000employees

    New Zealand Australia Finland Denmark Norway Switzerland UK Sweden

    http://laborsta.ilo.org/http://ascc.gov.au/ascc/AboutUs/Publications/http://ascc.gov.au/ascc/AboutUs/Publications/http://laborsta.ilo.org/
  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    14/58

    Comparative Perormance Monitoring 200506 5

    Chapter 2 - OHS perormanceThe data used in this chapter are accepted workers compensation claims lodged in each nancial

    year. Workers compensation data are currently the most comprehensive source o inormation or

    measuring OHS perormance. While there are some limitations, most notably that the data refectthe injury experience o employees only and under-reports the incidence o disease, workers

    compensation data still provide a good indication o OHS trends. Recently the Australian Bureau

    o Statistics undertook the Work-Related Injuries Survey, a eature article on the results rom this

    survey has been included as Appendix 3 o this publication. The results o this survey support the

    continued use o workers compensation data as a good source o inormation on work-related injury.

    Serious claims

    As there are dierent employer excesses across the various schemes, a standard reporting denition

    o a serious claim has been adopted or analysis. Serious claims include all atalities, all permanent

    incapacity claims (as dened by the jurisdictions) and temporary claims or which one or moreweeks o time lost rom work has been recorded. More inormation on claims data is contained in

    point 1 o Appendix 1 - Explanatory Notes, at the end o this publication.

    In addition, due to the dierent number o employees in each jurisdiction, rates have been

    calculated to assist with comparisons. Incidence rates assist in the comparison across jurisdictions

    on a per employee basis while requency rates allow a comparison on a per hour worked basis.

    Indicator 5 shows the Australian incidence rate or serious claims has been steadily declining over

    the past our years, recording a all o 8% rom a rate o 18.2 claims per 1000 employees in

    200102 to a rate o 16.8 claims per 1000 employees in 200405. The preliminary data or

    200506 indicates an incidence rate o 15.6 claims per 1000 employees. While it is expected that

    this rate will rise when updated data are available, the preliminary rate or 200506 indicates a

    continuing improvement in incidence rates.

    Substantial alls in incidence rates rom 200102 to 200405 were recorded by New South Wales

    (down 25%), South Australia (down 17%) and the Australian Government (down 13%). Increases

    in incidence rates were recorded by the Northern Territory (up 13%) and the Australian Capital

    Territory (up 9%).

    Seacare recorded the highest incidence rate at 33.8 claims per 1000 employees with the Australian

    Government recording the lowest rate at 9.7 claims per 1000 employees.

    These data are higher than those shown in Chapter 1 as they include all injury and all disease claims.The National OHS Strategy measurement only includes injury and musculoskeletal claims, however

    these two indicators show similar levels o improvement.

    Over the period 200102 to 200405, New Zealand recorded an 11% increase in incidence rates

    due in part to increased coverage o the scheme to include some diseases. The preliminary data

    rom 200506 in New Zealand shows an incidence rate o 13.3 claims per 1000 employees, up

    rom 13.6 in the previous year. As the rate or 200506 is expected to rise when the preliminary data

    are updated, a continuing trend or increasing incidence rates in New Zealand is indicated.

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    15/58

    6 Workplace Relations Ministers Council

    OHS perormance

    Indicator 5 Incidence rates o serious* injury and disease claims by jurisdiction

    * Includes all accepted workers compensation claims involving temporary incapacity o one or more weeks plus all claims

    or atality and permanent incapacity.

    Indicator 6 shows that in 200506 the Australian requency rate was 9.4 claims per one million

    hours worked. While the requency rate data show a similar level o improvement or Australia, there

    are dierences in the order o the jurisdictions: Tasmania recorded the highest requency rate

    o 11.5 claims per one million hours worked but only the ourth highest incidence rate. Seacare

    also changed position due to the 24 hour basis on which its requency rates are calculated. Moreinormation on this can be ound in point 1 o the Explanatory Notes.

    Indicator 6 Frequency rates o serious* injury and disease claims by jurisdiction

    * Includes all accepted workers compensation claims involving temporary incapacity o one or more weeks plus all claims

    or atality and permanent incapacity.

    0

    3

    6

    9

    12

    15

    Claimsperm

    illionhoursworked

    2001-02 11.3 13.4 11.8 13.1 8.6 7.8 8.2 8.6 8.7 5.8 10.9 6.7

    2002-03 11.5 12.8 11.9 12.5 10.1 8.4 8.6 7.8 8.4 5.9 10.6 7.2

    2003-04 11.3 13.3 11.3 12.3 11.7 8.6 8.9 8.0 9.3 6.7 10.5 7.4

    2004-05 11.5 12.9 10.8 11.8 9.7 8.9 8.8 7.5 5.7 6.4 10.1 7.5

    2005-06 11.5 11.2 11.0 10.1 9.5 8.8 8.0 7.9 7.8 5.2 9.4 7.4

    2005-06 Aus Av 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4

    Tas SA Qld NSW ACT NT WA Vic S'careAus

    Gov

    Aus

    TotalNZ

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    Claimsper1000employe

    2001-02 37.7 21.6 19.3 17.8 22.4 14.0 13.2 13.5 14.0 11.2 18.2 12.3

    2002-03 36.6 20.9 19.5 18.5 21.4 16.5 14.6 14.5 12.9 11.8 17.7 13.2

    2003-04 40.4 21.3 18.3 17.9 20.7 18.8 14.6 14.7 12.9 12.7 17.4 13.6

    2004-05 24.6 20.8 17.9 18.2 20.0 15.9 15.3 14.8 12.2 11.7 16.8 13.6

    2005-06 33.8 18.0 18.0 17.7 16.9 15.2 14.9 13.3 12.9 9.7 15.6 13.3

    2005-06 Aus Av 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6

    S'care SA Qld Tas NSW ACT NT WA VicAus

    Gov

    Aus

    TotalNZ

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    16/58

    Comparative Perormance Monitoring 200506 7

    Long term claims - twelve or more weeks o compensation

    Indicator 7 shows the incidence rate or long term (involving twelve or more weeks o compensation)

    injury and disease claims in Australia decreased by 17% rom 4.8 claims per 1000 employees in

    200102 to 4.0 claims per 1000 employees in 200405. While the 200506 data show a continuing

    decrease, these data should be treated with caution due to the shorter development time these

    claims have had compared to previous years. Around 25% o serious claims result in twelve or more

    weeks o compensation.

    Indicator 7 Incidence rates o long term (12 weeks or more compensation) compensated injury

    and disease claims resulting by jurisdiction

    Indicator 8 Frequency rates o long term (12 weeks or more compensation) compensated injury

    and disease claims resulting by jurisdiction

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    Claimsper1000em

    ployees

    2001-02 14.0 5.8 4.2 4.5 3.5 3.8 4.6 3.8 5.4 3.0 4.8 2.1

    2002-03 11.7 5.8 5.1 4.1 3.8 3.6 4.2 3.7 5.1 3.3 4.5 2.5

    2003-04 12.7 5.8 5.1 4.0 4.0 3.3 4.1 3.8 4.7 3.5 4.4 2.5

    2004-05 10.1 5.5 5.3 4.0 4.1 3.4 3.8 3.7 4.1 3.2 4.0 2.6

    2005-06 15.5 4.6 4.5 3.9 3.7 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.6 3.4 2.6

    2005-06 Aus Av 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4

    S'care SA ACT Qld NT Tas Vic WA NSWAus

    Gov

    Aus

    TotalNZ

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    Claimspermillionho

    ursworked

    2001-02 3.2 3.6 2.6 2.7 2.1 2.4 2.8 2.3 3.2 1.5 2.9 1.2

    2002-03 2.7 3.5 3.1 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.2 3.0 1.6 2.7 1.3

    2003-04 2.9 3.6 3.2 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.6 2.3 2.8 1.9 2.6 1.4

    2004-05 2.3 3.4 3.3 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.4 1.7 2.4 1.4

    2005-06 3.6 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.4 2.0 1.4

    2005-06 Aus Av 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

    S'care SA ACT Qld NT Tas Vic WA NSWAus

    Gov

    Aus

    TotalNZ

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    17/58

    8 Workplace Relations Ministers Council

    OHS perormance

    Three jurisdictions recorded increases in the incidence rate o long term claims over the period

    200102 to 200405: the Australian Capital Territory (26%), the Northern Territory (17%) and the

    Australian Government (7%). New Zealand also recorded a 24% increase over this period.

    The requency rates o long term claims in Indicator 8 show a similar pattern to the incidence rateswith slightly dierent levels o improvement recorded but the jurisdictions remaining in the same

    order.

    Duration o absence

    The duration o absence or claims provides one indicator o the severity o injuries occurring

    in Australia. Indicator 9 shows the variation across the jurisdictions in the percentage o claims

    involving selected periods o compensation. These data are based on claims lodged in 200304,

    which is the most recent year that reliable data are available or this indicator.

    Indicator 9 Serious* claims: Percentage involving selected periods o compensation, 200304

    Jurisdiction Less than 6

    weeks

    6 weeks

    or more

    12 weeks

    or more

    26 weeks

    or more

    52 weeks

    or more

    % % % % %

    New South Wales 64 36 23 14 8

    Victoria 53 47 32 19 12

    Queensland 64 36 22 10 3

    Western Australia 61 39 26 16 9

    South Australia 60 40 27 18 12

    Tasmania 67 33 18 9 5

    Northern Territory 56 44 27 15 8

    Australian Capital Territory 60 40 27 18 11

    Australian Government 59 41 28 16 10

    Seacare 30 70 28 16 10

    Australian Average 61 39 25 14 8

    New Zealand 69 31 19 10 5

    * Includes all accepted workers compensation claims involving temporary incapacity o one or more weeks plus all claims

    or atality and permanent incapacity.

    These data show that 61% o claims in Australia resulted in less than six weeks o compensation

    being paid. The jurisdictional rates were quite similar except or Seacare, which only recorded 30%o claims being resolved in this time. Injured workers in the Seacare scheme ace unique problems

    in attempting to return to work, which need to be considered when interpreting the Seacare results

    in this indicator. More inormation is provided in the Explanatory notes under point 2.

    Victoria and South Australia had the equal highest percentage o claims continuing past 52 weeks o

    compensation (both with 12% o claims). In contrast Queensland had only 3% o claims continuing

    past 52 weeks o compensation partly due to the nature o the Queensland scheme.

    The New Zealand scheme nalised a greater proportion o claims within six weeks than did Australia.

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    18/58

    Comparative Perormance Monitoring 200506 9

    Compensated atalities

    Indicator 10 shows that in 200506 in Australia there were 231 accepted compensated claims or

    a work-related atality made up o 184 atalities rom injury and musculoskeletal disorders and 47

    atalities rom other diseases. As with the other data the number o atalities is expected to rise asmore claims lodged in 200506 are accepted. The historical data shows that there was a 20% all

    in the number o atalities rom 200102 to 200405.

    New Zealand recorded 92 compensated atalities in 200506. Over the period 200102 to 2004-05

    New Zealand recorded a 51% increase in the number o compensated atalities, partly due to

    increased coverage o some diseases.

    Fatalities are recorded in the NDS against the date o lodgement o the claim, not the year the worker

    died. Data revisions rom previous years can occur where a claim is lodged in one year but not

    accepted until ater the data are collected or that year or or an injury or disease in one year where

    the employee dies rom that injury or disease in a subsequent year. This is particularly the case withdisease atalities where considerable time could elapse between diagnosis resulting in a claim being

    lodged and death.

    Workers compensation data are known to understate the true number o atalities rom work-related

    causes, particularly deaths rom occupational diseases such as asbestosis and mesothelioma where

    compensation is oten sought through separate mechanisms including common law. For this reason

    Indicator 10 has been altered rom the previous publication to report separately on claims or atality

    rom asbestosis and mesothelioma. These data show the low number o atalities reported through

    the workers compensation system or asbestosis and mesothelioma compared to other sources

    o inormation such as cancer registries. Indicator 10 shows that Queensland and the Australian

    Government report a higher proportion o deaths rom these diseases than is the case or the otherjurisdictions due to the way their compensation systems operate. For example, in New South Wales,

    atalities rom these diseases are mostly compensated through the Dust Diseases Board, data rom

    which are not included in this publication. The ASCC is currently working to improve the collection

    and reporting o inormation on mesothelioma using data rom the National Cancer Statistics

    Clearing House.

    Deaths in the agricultural and construction sectors are also likely to be understated in the NDS data

    due to the higher proportion o sel-employed workers in these industries who are not covered by

    workers compensation.

    In addition, as compensation may be sought through the Compulsory Third Party insurance scheme

    or motor vehicles, work-related deaths rom road trac accidents may also be understated. Note

    that atalities occurring rom a journey to or rom work are not included in these statistics. In an

    attempt to capture inormation rom some o these groups, where underreporting can occur, the

    ASCC undertakes a collection o all atalities notied to OHS authorities. Detailed inormation on

    notied atalities is contained in the Annual Notied Fatalities Report, 200506 which can be ound

    at ascc.gov.au

    Detailed inormation on the causes and other characteristics o atalities reported through the NDS is

    contained in the Compendium o Workers Compensation Statistics, which can be ound at

    ascc.gov.au

    http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/
  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    19/58

    10 Workplace Relations Ministers Council

    OHS perormance

    Indicator 10 Compensated Fatalities by jurisdiction

    Jurisdiction 200102 200203 2003-04 2004-05 2005-065yr

    Average

    Injury and musculoskeletal disorders

    New South Wales 72 63 55 57 66 63Victoria 45 35 40 41 36 39

    Queensland 44 48 38 40 44 43

    Western Australia 18 21 20 15 16 18

    South Australia 12 12 11 12 11 12

    Tasmania 5 11 3 3 6 7

    Northern Territory 4 0 4 2 3 3

    Australian Capital Territory 4 1 0 2 2 2

    Australian Government 3 6 2 3 0 3

    Seacare 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Australian Total 207 197 173 175 184 187

    New Zealand 54 57 52 56 60 56

    Mesothelioma and asbestosis

    New South Wales 3 5 1 2 1 2

    Victoria 1 0 0 0 0 0

    Queensland 30 33 34 31 10 28

    Western Australia 1 2 0 3 1 1

    South Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Tasmania 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Northern Territory 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Australian Capital Territory 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Australian Government 8 8 6 5 3 6

    Seacare 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Australian Total 43 48 41 41 15 38

    New Zealand 14 32 28 47 32 31

    Other diseases

    New South Wales 26 15 18 11 13 17

    Victoria 19 30 22 13 5 18

    Queensland 6 10 8 9 7 8

    Western Australia 5 0 5 1 0 2

    South Australia 2 2 4 1 3 2

    Tasmania 2 0 0 1 0 1

    Northern Territory 0 1 0 0 0 0

    Australian Capital Territory 1 0 1 1 1 1

    Australian Government 5 6 5 1 3 4

    Seacare 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Australian Total 66 64 63 38 32 53

    New Zealand 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Total

    Australia 316 309 277 254 231 278

    New Zealand 68 89 80 103 92 86

    http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/
  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    20/58

    Comparative Perormance Monitoring 200506 11

    Notifed atalities

    While workers compensation data are currently the most comprehensive source o inormation

    or measuring OHS perormance, there are some limitations. Other data sources can be used to

    supplement workers compensation data and provide a more complete picture o work-relatedatalities, injuries and diseases. One alternative data source is the Notied Fatalities dataset.

    These data are collated rom the work-related traumatic atalities that are notied to jurisdictional

    OHS authorities under their OHS legislation. The use o these data addresses some o the limitations

    o the compensated data by capturing atalities occurring in categories o workers not covered or

    workers compensation, such as the sel-employed. This data source was only established in July

    2003. More inormation about the Notied Fatalities collection can be ound at ascc.gov.au

    Indicator 11 shows the number o notied atalities increased by 17% or workers and decreased or

    bystanders between 200304 and 200506.

    Indicator 11 Notifed work-related traumatic atalities, Australia

    200304 200405 200506

    Worker 126 127 148

    Bystander 18 12 9

    Total 144 139 157

    Note that Indicator 11 under-reports work-related road trac atalities as these atalities are not

    notied to some OHS jurisdictions, whereas Indicator 10 does not include deaths o persons who

    are not classed as employees, such as sel-employed workers and bystanders. While these data

    cannot be directly compared, they both indicate an increase in the number o injury atalities orworkers in 200506.

    http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/ascc/AboutUs/Publications/StatReports/StatisticalPublications.htmhttp://www.ascc.gov.au/ascc/AboutUs/Publications/StatReports/StatisticalPublications.htm
  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    21/58

    12 Workplace Relations Ministers Council

    OHS perormance

    Claims by mechanism o injury/disease

    Claim patterns can be analysed using the Type o Occurrence Classifcation System(TOOCS) which

    is a series o codes providing inormation on the cause o the incident and the type o injury or

    disease sustained. One part o this system is the Mechanism o Injury/Disease which is intendedto identiy the action, exposure or event which was the direct cause o the most serious injury or

    disease. More inormation on the TOOCS can be ound at ascc.gov.au.

    Indicator 12 shows the number o claims by Mechanism o injury/disease over the past ve years.

    Under the National OHS Strategy the ollowing are priority mechanisms: Body stressing; Falls, trips

    and slips o a person; Being hit by moving objects; and Hitting objects with a part o the body. The

    claims data indicate that the priority mechanisms account or 83% o claims. In particular, Body

    stressingremains the most common cause o claims, accounting or 42% o claims in 200506.

    Excluding the preliminary 200506 data, the largest decreases in claims over the our years rom

    200102 to 200405 were recorded in the mechanisms o Other and unspecifed mechanisms

    (down 17%) and Biological actors(down 9%). However these categories account or 6% and lessthan 1% o all claims respectively in 200506.

    Claims or Mental stressover the period 200102 to 200405 increased by 12%. This category

    accounted or 6% o all claims in 200506.

    More detailed inormation on claims by mechanism o injury/disease can be ound in the

    Compendium o Workers Compensation Statistics, which can be ound on at ascc.gov.au.

    Indicator 12 Mechanism o injury/disease: number o serious* claims by year, Australia

    *Includes all accepted workers compensation claims involving temporary incapacity o one or more weeks plus all claims

    or atality and permanent incapacity.

    0 10 20 30 40 50 60

    Biological factors

    Chemical and other substances

    Heat, radiation and electricity

    Sound and pressure

    Mental Stress

    Other and unspecified mechanisms

    Hitting objects with a part of the body

    Being hit by moving objects

    Falls, trips and slips of a person

    Body stressing

    Number of Claims ('000)

    2001-02

    2002-03

    2003-04

    2004-05

    2005-06

    http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/http://www.ascc.gov.au/
  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    22/58

    Comparative Perormance Monitoring 200506 13

    Claims by size o business

    Indicator 13 compares the incidence o serious compensated claims by size o business or

    200102 and 200506. Eight Australian jurisdictions and New Zealand collect compensation data

    by size o business; however there are dierences in the methodologies used by schemes to collectthis inormation and caution should be exercised when making jurisdictional comparisons.

    The trend across schemes over time is similar in most cases: businesses with 519 employees had

    the lowest incidence rates or compensated claims in both 200102 and 200506. However, our

    jurisdictions recorded increases in incidence rate over this period or this size o business.

    Indicator 13 Size o business: incidence rates (claims per 1000 employees) o serious* claims

    by jurisdiction

    1-4

    employees

    5-19

    employees

    20-99

    employees

    100 or more

    employees

    2001-02Victoria 9.5 9.2 13.2 17.3

    Western Australia 25.4 10.4 13.0 12.0

    South Australia 25.4 18.4 34.6 17.6

    Tasmania 9.9 13.5 22.1 19.8

    Northern Territory 27.4 20.5 14.5 6.1

    Australian Capital Territory 17.5 10.8 17.3 13.8

    Australian Government np 0.0 0.8 11.8

    Seacare 0.0 0.0 42.9 36.4

    Australia** 15.7 11.4 16.4 15.6

    New Zealand 10.0 14.6 16.3 11.8

    2005-06

    Victoria 8.1 8.7 13.8 14.9

    Western Australia 19.7 12.9 16.7 11.4

    South Australia 14.0 12.6 27.1 17.5

    Tasmania 12.5 15.2 12.8 23.0

    Northern Territory 31.8 26.5 16.7 6.2

    Australian Capital Territory 14.3 13.9 28.3 12.3

    Australian Government np 0.9 2.5 9.9

    Seacare 0.0 0.0 11.2 41.4

    Australia** 12.0 11.1 16.4 14.1

    New Zealand 17.7 10.6 10.3 18.1

    * Includes all accepted workers compensation claims involving temporary incapacity o one or more weeks plus all claims

    or atality and permanent incapacity.

    ** Consists only o Australian jurisdictions listed above

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    23/58

    14 Workplace Relations Ministers Council

    Enorcement

    Chapter 3 EnorcementJurisdictions enorce their OHS Acts using a variety o enorcement tools and protocols. Inspectors

    appointed under legislation may visit workplaces or the purpose o providing advice, investigating

    accidents or dangerous occurrences and ensuring compliance with the OHS legislation. Wherebreaches are detected the inspector, based on risk, may issue notices or escalate the action

    to ormal procedures, which are addressed through the courts or serious contravention o the

    legislation. Indicator 14 provides details on specic enorcement activity undertaken by jurisdictions

    or each year rom 200102 to 200506. In 200506 over 114 000 visits were made to workplaces

    around Australia with 67 200 notices issued, over 900 businesses prosecuted and nearly

    $23 million in nes handed out by the courts.

    In 2005-06 over 21 000 visits were made to workplaces in New Zealand. Out o 2183 notices

    issued 1743 were improvement notices: a sharp drop rom the 10691 improvement notices issued

    in 2004-05. The reason or this drop is that in October 2005, the New Zealand Department o

    Labour changed its procedures or issuing and recording improvement notices so that they would

    be issued only where employers were unwilling to comply with required improvements. Despite this

    drop, the departments overall enorcement action in 2005-06 is comparable with that in previous

    years.

    Victoria has recorded the largest all in the total number o workplace interventions over the past

    ve years. From 2001, Victoria has changed its enorcement ocus. This has seen a shit in the

    proportion o interventions between proactive and reactive visits rom 60/40 to 80/20. The increased

    emphasis on the eectiveness o visits has led to the introduction o an independent, six monthly

    survey o inspected workplaces, where manager and employee representatives in those workplaces

    are contacted to gauge their perception o the eectiveness and proessionalism o the inspection.

    Total workplace interventions consist o the sum o allproactive and reactive workplace interventions.

    Note: interventions in the mining sector are not included in these data because mining inspectors in

    most jurisdictions utilise their own reporting mechanisms.

    Proactiveinterventions are dened as all workplace visits that have not resulted rom a complaint

    or workplace incident. They include all planned interventions, routine workplace visits, inspections/

    audits and industry orums/presentations (where an inspector delivers educational advice or

    inormation).

    Reactive interventions are dened as attendances at work sites ollowing notiable work injuries,

    dangerous occurrences or issuing o notices where comprehensive investigation summaries (bries

    o evidence) are completed. Not all requests or investigations or incidents result in a ormal

    investigation. A range o enquiries may be made in order to inorm a decision on whether an

    investigation is warranted.

    Indicator 14 shows that in 200506, more than twice as many proactive workplace interventions

    were carried out than reactive interventions. Jurisdictions have indicated that using a more

    structured evidence based proactive approach or identiying where inspectorate resources should

    be deployed is considered a more successul approach than responding to low risk reactive

    situations.

    Where interventions by an inspector identiy a breach under OHS legislation, a notice may be

    issued. The total number o notices issued by the Australian jurisdictions has consistently increased

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    24/58

    Comparative Perormance Monitoring 200506 15

    over the last ve years. The use o inringement notices, sometimes reerred to as on-the-spot nes

    is the least used o the three notice types. In 200506, 1769 o this type o notice were handed out

    around Australia compared to 6918 prohibition notices and 58 517 improvement notices.

    Note: notices are dened by legislation in each jurisdiction. In some instances a single notice

    may be issued or multiple breaches o the legislation while in other instances multiple notices are

    issued or each breach identied. Thereore the data shown under these items will not be strictly

    comparable across jurisdictions.

    Indicator 14 shows a steady increase in the number o eld active inspectors employed around

    Australia. Field active inspectors are dened as gazetted inspectors whose role is to spend the

    majority o their time enorcing provisions o the OHS legislation directly with workplaces i.e. a

    compliance eld role. They do not include managers o the inspectorate. Current vacancies are

    included in these numbers and mines inspectors have been excluded rom the data due to dierent

    legislation operating across jurisdictions. Due to this denition it is possible that the number o eld

    active inspectors shown in this report may dier to inspectorate numbers shown in jurisdictional

    reports.

    Queensland reported a large increase in the number o inspectors or 200506 due to the growing

    demand or workplace health and saety assessments as a result o increasing economic activity

    in that state. In addition, the Department o Employment and Industrial Relations made a decision

    to provide career opportunities within Workplace Health and Saety Queensland or a signicant

    number o its industrial relations inspectors as a result o the reduced jurisdiction over state

    industrial relations.

    Substantial increases in the total amount o nes awarded by the court on oenders have also

    been recorded in most jurisdictions over the past ve years, in part due to increases in maximum

    penalties. Inormation on penalty provisions can be ound in the publication Comparison o OHS

    Arrangements in Australia and New Zealandavailable at workplace.gov.au/cpm. In some instances

    the courts declare that penalty amounts are to remain condential, thereore the data recorded in

    Indicator 14 are only those amounts known publicly.

    Comment on data or the Australian Government

    Australian Government data are not comparable with other jurisdictions data. As at 30 June 2006,

    Comcare had 22 sta appointed as investigators working out o ve regional areas across Australia.

    Comcare also contracts a panel o private sector organisations and appoints appropriately skilled

    and qualied people rom these organisations as investigators under the Occupational Health and

    Saety Act 1991 (OHS Act) to undertake investigations. During 200506, through memoranda o

    understanding with state and territory governments Comcare also had access to certain state and

    territory ocers as investigators under the OHS Act.

    In terms o workplace interventions, the data or Comcare only represent interventions which

    resulted in a comprehensive investigation report. They do not include visits to workplaces or

    providing advice, routine workplace visits or industry orums and presentations.

    http://www.workplace.gov.au/cpmhttp://www.workplace.gov.au/cpm
  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    25/58

    16 Workplace Relations Ministers Council

    Enorcement

    Indicator14

    Enforcementactivityby

    jurisdiction

    NSW

    Vic

    Qld

    WA

    SA

    Tas

    NT

    ACT

    AusGova

    Seacare

    TotalAus

    NZ

    To

    tal

    workp

    lace

    interv

    en

    tions

    2001

    02

    n/a

    50343

    13835

    b10600

    10325

    8256

    1883

    n/a

    134

    n/a

    95376

    24474

    2002

    03

    n/a

    48425

    17375

    b8774

    12582

    6003

    2233

    n/a

    194

    n/a

    95586

    23552

    2003

    04

    n/a

    43719

    21615

    b10085

    16931

    4523

    3188

    1

    360

    245

    191

    101857

    24503

    2004

    05

    n/a

    41842

    21068

    b11708

    21841

    6964

    4384

    2476

    203

    277

    110763

    20989

    2005

    06

    n/a

    41163

    26218

    b11356

    18908

    6506

    5

    522

    3

    960

    189

    206

    114028

    21064

    Numb

    erof

    proac

    tive

    workp

    lace

    interv

    entions

    2001

    02

    n/a

    38550

    n/a

    6335

    n/a

    4188

    1435

    n/a

    74

    n/a

    n/a

    13676

    2002

    03

    n/a

    37878

    n/a

    5072

    n/a

    2788

    1542

    n/a

    113

    n/a

    n/a

    12278

    2003

    04

    n/a

    33606

    13251

    5809

    8973

    1915

    2393

    n/a

    146

    181

    66274

    12124

    2004

    05

    n/a

    33601

    17023

    7028

    10081

    2857

    3597

    n/a

    133

    275

    74595

    9748

    2005

    06

    n/a

    27834

    23344

    6310

    9075

    2953

    4623

    n/a

    113

    201

    74453

    10985

    Numb

    erof

    reactive

    workp

    lace

    interv

    entions

    2001

    02

    n/a

    11793

    n/a

    4265

    n/a

    4068

    448

    n/a

    60

    14

    n/a

    10798

    2002

    03

    n/a

    10547

    n/a

    3702

    n/a

    3125

    691

    n/a

    81

    12

    n/a

    11274

    2003

    04

    n/a

    10113

    8364

    4276

    7958

    2608

    795

    n/a

    99

    10

    34223

    12379

    2004

    05

    n/a

    8241

    4045

    4680

    11760

    4107

    787

    n/a

    70

    3

    33693

    11241

    2005

    06

    n/a

    13329

    2874

    5046

    9832

    3553

    899

    n/a

    76

    5

    35614

    10079

    Num

    bero

    inringemen

    t

    no

    tices

    issue

    d

    2001

    02

    1471

    n/a

    99

    cn

    /a

    n/a

    n/a

    71

    0

    n/a

    n/a

    1641

    0

    2002

    03

    1289

    n/a

    289

    cn

    /a

    n/a

    n/a

    242

    0

    n/a

    n/a

    1820

    0

    2003

    04

    915

    n/a

    488

    cn

    /a

    n/a

    n/a

    31

    0

    n/a

    n/a

    1434

    6

    2004

    05

    1652

    n/a

    462

    cn

    /a

    n/a

    n/a

    7

    8

    n/a

    n/a

    2130

    32

    2005

    06

    1195

    n/a

    499

    cn

    /a

    n/a

    n/a

    47

    28

    n/a

    n/a

    1769

    20

    Num

    bero

    impro

    vemen

    t

    no

    tices

    issue

    d

    2001

    02

    10517

    11922

    6246

    9818

    1025

    420

    19

    77

    8

    3

    40055

    17302

    2002

    03

    12646

    14964

    11136

    10263

    1977

    346

    22

    80

    18

    0

    51452

    14652

    2003

    04

    17927

    12492

    16200

    11848

    2

    748

    198

    29

    202

    17

    1

    61662

    14044

    2004

    05

    18213

    12

    117

    13348

    12391

    4

    688

    423

    17

    163

    12

    9

    61381

    10691

    2005

    06

    14832

    11168

    16463

    11691

    3

    573

    297

    49

    427

    12

    6

    58517

    1743

    Num

    bero

    pro

    hibition

    no

    tices

    issue

    d

    2001

    02

    786

    3102

    1188

    887

    191

    109

    25

    39

    2

    2

    6331

    d

    2002

    03

    779

    2904

    1256

    895

    364

    131

    56

    48

    9

    2

    6444

    990

    2003

    04

    1139

    2303

    1696

    870

    814

    87

    14

    90

    6

    1

    7020

    1117

    2004

    05

    1421

    2308

    1788

    963

    899

    266

    14

    66

    20

    6

    7751

    745

    2005

    06

    1212

    1876

    2223

    708

    623

    125

    54

    68

    10

    19

    6918

    417

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    26/58

    Comparative Perormance Monitoring 200506 17

    NSW

    Vic

    Qld

    WA

    SA

    Tas

    NT

    AC

    T

    AusGov

    Seacare

    TotalAus

    NZ

    Numb

    ero

    fe

    ldac

    tive

    inspec

    tors

    2001

    02

    301

    226

    127

    70

    57

    n/a

    10

    1

    2

    16

    1

    820

    158

    2002

    03

    301

    236

    148

    70

    57

    n/a

    10

    1

    2

    16

    2

    852

    161

    2003

    04

    301

    236

    155

    94

    e

    89

    25

    12

    1

    2

    16

    5

    945

    168

    2004

    05

    301

    236

    189

    94

    89

    27

    12

    1

    2

    16

    3

    979

    166

    2005

    06

    301

    236

    206

    103

    89

    29

    12

    1

    2

    22

    3

    1013

    157

    Numb

    ero

    fe

    ldac

    tive

    inspec

    tors

    per

    10

    000

    emplo

    yees

    2001

    02

    1.1

    1.1

    1.0

    0.9

    1

    .0

    na

    1.1

    1.0

    0.7

    3.3

    1.0

    0.9

    2002

    03

    1.1

    1.1

    1.1

    0.9

    0

    .9

    na

    1.1

    1.0

    0.7

    6.3

    1.0

    0.9

    2003

    04

    1.1

    1.1

    1.1

    1.2

    1.4

    1.4

    1.4

    1.1

    0.7

    15

    .4

    1.1

    0.9

    2004

    05

    1.1

    1.1

    1.2

    1.1

    1.4

    1.4

    1.4

    1.0

    0.6

    8.7

    1.1

    0.9

    2005

    06

    1.1

    1.1

    1.3

    1.2

    1.4

    1.5

    1.4

    1.0

    0.8

    8.2

    1.1

    0.8

    Numb

    er

    olega

    l

    procee

    dings

    comm

    ence

    d

    2001

    02

    j550

    g186

    131

    29

    21

    33

    2

    1

    0

    0

    953

    145

    2002

    03

    j462

    g217

    122

    43

    16

    38

    0

    2

    0

    0

    900

    136

    2003

    04

    j336

    g206

    136

    65

    45

    9

    1

    2

    7

    0

    0

    825

    138

    2004

    05

    j587

    g188

    190

    64

    45

    7

    0

    1

    4

    0

    2

    1097

    110

    2005

    06

    459

    136

    174

    37

    71

    15

    0

    19

    1

    0

    912

    80

    Numb

    ero

    prosec

    utions

    resulting

    in

    convic

    tion

    2001

    02

    j455

    115

    114

    41

    8

    11

    2

    0

    0

    0

    746

    132

    2002

    03

    j443

    105

    101

    38

    22

    24

    0

    2

    0

    0

    735

    119

    2003

    04

    j399

    110

    120

    43

    30

    7

    0

    5

    0

    0

    714

    100

    2004

    05

    j384

    93

    156

    48

    31

    7

    0

    1

    1

    0

    1

    731

    119

    2005

    06

    340

    70

    143

    41

    51

    12

    0

    5

    0

    0

    662

    79

    To

    tala

    moun

    t

    ofne

    s

    awarde

    dby

    theco

    urts

    ($000

    )

    2001

    02

    $9500

    h$6

    069

    $1593

    $187

    $1

    01

    $32

    $2

    $0

    $0

    $0

    $17484

    NZ$916

    2002

    03

    $13000

    $2

    997

    $1994

    $152

    $3

    79

    $199

    $0

    $3

    $0

    $0

    $18724

    NZ$899

    2003

    04

    $13300

    $4

    159

    $2024

    $385

    $6

    28

    $87

    $0

    $5

    5

    $0

    $0

    $20668

    NZ$1037

    2004

    05

    $11500

    $3

    294

    $3344

    $457

    $4

    39

    $78

    $0

    $3

    2

    $0

    i$0

    $19145

    NZ$1859

    2005

    06

    $13878

    $3

    532

    $3823

    $383

    $10

    42

    $157

    $0

    $13

    4

    $0

    $0

    $22949

    NZ$1929

    aAusGovdatacannotbecompareddirectlywiththeotherjurisdictionsbInWA,

    totalworkp

    laceinterventionsdoesnotincludeinspec

    torsdeliveringeducationaladviceorinform

    ation.

    cT

    here

    isnolegislativerequirementforinfringementnoticesinWA.

    dNZdataforimprovementandprohibitionnoticesshownunderimprovement.eNewinspectorintaketrainingoccurredinSAin

    January

    2004,

    fulldutiescommencedinmidJune2004.fI

    ncludesinspectorswhoinvestiga

    teunsafeasbestos.gVictoriadataisforleg

    alproceedingscompleted.

    hInVictoria2001

    02therewas

    oneunusualprosecutionof$2million.

    iSeacareareawaitingsentenceofthecourtregarding

    thelegalproceedingresultinginconvictionlistedabove.

    jNewSouthWalesprevious

    lyreportedthe

    numberofbreachesratherthanthenumberofcompaniesbeingprosecuted.

    Indic

    ator14

    Enforcementactivityby

    jurisdictioncontinued

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    27/58

    18 Workplace Relations Ministers Council

    Workers compensation premiums and entitlements

    Chapter 4 Workers compensation premiums

    and entitlements

    Standardised average premium ratesThe rates in this chapter are or policies that provided coverage during the reerence nancial years.

    The premium rates reported are earned premium, which is dened as the amount allocated or

    cover in a nancial year rom premiums collected during the previous and current nancial years.

    The premiums reported are allocated or dened periods o risk, irrespective o when they were

    actually paid, enabling rates to be compared or each nancial year. GST charged on premiums

    is not included in the reported rates as most Australian employers recoup part, or all, o this tax

    through input tax credits.

    The data in this indicator are dierent to previous publications due to the denition o remuneration,

    which is used to calculate payroll being changed to include superannuation, a denition now usedby most o the larger jurisdictions. Only three years are shown due to the diculty o adjusting or

    the new denition or earlier years.

    Indicator 15 shows that in 200506 the standardised Australian average premium rate was 1.96%

    o payroll, a decrease on last years rate o 2.05%. This decrease was the result o large alls in most

    jurisdictions.

    The Australian Government Scheme was the only Australian jurisdiction to record a notable rise o

    5%, however this scheme still had the lowest premium rate o all jurisdictions at 1.22% o payroll.

    While the premium paying sector o the scheme predominantly covers administrative and community

    service workers, the scheme as a whole comprises a diverse range o occupations and industriesincluding police, customs ocers, communications, reight services, engineering and transport.

    Recent inclusions to the scheme also include some sel-insurers which may have competed directly

    or business with current or ormer Australian Government owned companies. Data or the Australian

    Government does not include the Australian Capital Territory Public Service.

    Indicator 15 Standardised average premium rates (including insured and sel-insured sectors)

    by jurisdiction

    0.0

    1.0

    2.0

    3.0

    4.0

    %o

    fpayroll

    2003-04 7.93 3.05 2.88 2.46 2.43 2.21 2.25 1.92 1.35 1.12 2.16 0.832004-05 6.92 3.04 2.97 2.40 2.38 2.03 1.98 1.72 1.33 1.16 2.05 0.91

    2005-06 6.05 3.06 2.87 2.35 2.17 1.84 1.76 1.67 1.36 1.22 1.96 0.94

    2005-06 Aus Av 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96

    S'care SAACT

    PrivateNSW NT Tas Vic WA Qld

    Aus

    GovAust NZ

  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    28/58

    Comparative Perormance Monitoring 200506 19

    Queensland recorded the next lowest premium rate at 1.36% o payroll. The Queensland scheme is

    a predominantly lump sum scheme because o the relatively open access to common law provisions,

    and there are also slightly lower continuance rates. This results in lower administrative costs and

    hence lower premiums.

    Seacare recorded the highest premium rate in 200506 at 6.05% o payroll due to the high risk

    nature o this industry. The past two years, however, have seen substantial alls rom nearly 8% in

    200304.

    South Australias standardised average premium rate o 3.06% was the next highest rate and refects

    WorkCovers decision to increase the average levy rate rom 2.46% to 3.00% in 200304 to improve

    the nancial position o the scheme. The average levy rate has remained at 3.00% since that time.

    In New South Wales the change in the amount o payments direct to workers between 200102

    and 200506 is due to the introduction o legislative changes rom 1 January 2002. This shited the

    NSW system ocus to the payment o medical expenses, weekly income support and return to work

    (RTW) services, resulting in signicantly improved health and social outcomes or workers. Since

    November 2005, the NSW government has announced a number o reductions in premium rates.

    As a result, premium rates have reduced signicantly since the latest reporting period covered in the

    current Comparative Perormance Monitoring Report. In addition to these reductions and a number

    o new payment arrangement initiatives, wages paid to apprentices are no longer included in an

    employers workers compensation premium.

    The New Zealand standardised average premium rate increased slightly in 200506 to 0.94% o

    payroll, which is still much lower than the level recorded in Australia. One reason or the lower rate

    in New Zealand is that its scheme does not provide the same level o coverage o disease cases,

    although recent court cases have meant that asbestosis, which was considered a disease and thus

    not covered, is now included and may be part o the reason or recent increases in NZ premium

    rates.

    Note that these data will be dierent to published rates rom the jurisdictions due to the adjustments

    made to the data to enable more accurate jurisdictional comparisons to be undertaken. The

    principal regulatory dierences that aect comparability and or which adjustments have been

    applied in this indicator are: the exclusion o provision or coverage o journey claims, the inclusion

    o sel-insurers; the inclusion o superannuation as part o remuneration; and the standardisation

    o non-compensable excesses imposed by each scheme. The eect o each o these adjustments

    is shown in Appendix Table 4 in the Explanatory Notes at the back o this report. Inormation

    on published rates can be ound in the Comparison of Workers Compensation Arrangementspublication (ascc.gov.au).

    Entitlements under workers compensation

    Premium rates are set at a level to ensure sucient unds are available to cover the entitlements

    payable under workers compensation in the event an employee is injured or develops a work-

    related disease. Hence dierent entitlement levels across the jurisdictions can explain some o

    the dierences in premium rates. Data provided in other chapters o this report should also be

    considered when comparing entitlements provided under the various workers compensation

    schemes.

    http://www.hwca.org.au/reports.phphttp://www.hwca.org.au/reports.php
  • 8/2/2019 Comparative Performance Monitoring 9thEdition

    29/58

    20 Workplace Relations Ministers Council

    Workers compensation premiums and entitlements

    The ollowing examples have been included to provide indicative entitlements payable in each

    jurisdiction. A brie summary on how entitlements are calculated is contained in Appendix 2. More

    detailed inormation can be ound in the Comparison of Workers Compensation Arrangements

    publication. These entitlements are based on legislation current as at 1 January 2006.

    Temporary incapacity

    This example examines how jurisdictions compensate low, middle and high income employees

    during selected periods o temporary incapacity. Three payment proles are shown or this example

    to highlight the statutory maximum entitlements payable plus the low income example highlights

    some dierences where the worker is employed under an award. Entitlements or an injured

    employee are shown in the ollowing table using pre-injury earnings o $500 gross per week (award

    wage), $1000 gross per week (non-award wage) and $2000 gross per week (non-award wage).

    Scenario

    The employee has a dependent spouse and two children (aged 7 and 8). The employee

    injured their back and has lower back strain as a result. The employee remains unableto work or a period o time beore returning to their previous duties on a ull-time basis.

    Indicator 16 Percentage o pre-injury earnings or selected periods o incapacity, as at

    1 January 2006

    Level o pre-injury income

    NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT ACT Aus Gov NZ

    13 weeks o incapacity

    Low income 100 95 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 80

    Middle income 80 95 85 100 100 100 100 100 100 80

    High income 72 58 85 76 97 100 100 100 100 72

    26 weeks o incapacity

    Low income 100 85 100 100 100 93 100 100 100 80

    Middle income 80 85 85 93 100 93 100 100 100 80

    High income 72 58 85 76 97 93 100 100 100 72

    52 weeks o incapacity

    Low income 100 80 100 100 100 89 95 97 99 80

    Middle income 69 80 80 89 100 89 89 83 97 80

    High income 51 58 80 76 97 89 88 83 97 72

    104 weeks o incapacity

    Low income 100 78 100 100 90 87 93 95 94 80

    Middle income 63 78 73 87 90 87 83 74 86 80

    High income 40 58 73 70(a) 87 87 81 74 86 72

    120 weeks o incapacity

    Low income 100 77 100 100 89 86 92 95 94 80

    Middle income 62 77 72 87 89 86 83 73 84 80

    High income 38 58 72 61(a) 86 86 80 73 84 72

    (a) In Western Australia the prescribed maximum amount or weekly benet ($145 892) would be exhausted during the96th week o compensation. Ater this time, i there were exceptional circumstances a urther amount o $109 419 couldbe approved. This example assumes there were no exceptional circumstances.

    For low income earners, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia provide the highest

    percentage o pre-inj