❓ Hon. Paddy Embry questions the government's handling of WorkCover claims following Supreme Court decisions, alleging potential injustice and influence from the insurance industry. The Minister acknowledges the issue and states the government is considering the impact.
AnsweredQoN 329Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
The Supreme Court decision in the case of Dutch opened the way for lawyers of the insurance industry to clog the courts with writs of certiorari. The more certain decision of the Supreme Court in the case of De Santos has empowered WorkCover review officers to reject claims months or years after the WorkCover director has accepted them as valid. What guarantee can the Premier give to victims whose claims were previously accepted, but are now rejected, that their claims will not be extinguished because of WorkCover’s failure to assess the applications adequately in the first place? Does the Government have the power to legislate so that the determinations are made in the spirit of the Act rather than according to pedantic legal interpretation? Why does the Government refuse to legislate to overcome this artifice that is so blatantly unjust? Is this failure to legislate another example of the insurance industry blackmail to which the Premier claims to have been subjected? In the State of Queensland the insurance rates for workers compensation and public liability are significantly lower than the rates in Western Australia and there appears to be a very high rate of satisfaction among claimants. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a speech. Hon PADDY EMBRY: I was getting to the last part of the question, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: Is this statement about the Queensland insurance rates relevant to any question? Hon PADDY EMBRY: It certainly is. The PRESIDENT: I look forward to hearing the question. Hon PADDY EMBRY: Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away crown law rights from citizens of this State? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a speech. Hon PADDY EMBRY: I was getting to the last part of the question, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: Is this statement about the Queensland insurance rates relevant to any question? Hon PADDY EMBRY: It certainly is. The PRESIDENT: I look forward to hearing the question. Hon PADDY EMBRY: Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away crown law rights from citizens of this State? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
Hon PADDY EMBRY: I was getting to the last part of the question, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: Is this statement about the Queensland insurance rates relevant to any question? Hon PADDY EMBRY: It certainly is. The PRESIDENT: I look forward to hearing the question. Hon PADDY EMBRY: Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away crown law rights from citizens of this State? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
The PRESIDENT: Is this statement about the Queensland insurance rates relevant to any question? Hon PADDY EMBRY: It certainly is. The PRESIDENT: I look forward to hearing the question. Hon PADDY EMBRY: Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away crown law rights from citizens of this State? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
Hon PADDY EMBRY: It certainly is. The PRESIDENT: I look forward to hearing the question. Hon PADDY EMBRY: Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away crown law rights from citizens of this State? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
The PRESIDENT: I look forward to hearing the question. Hon PADDY EMBRY: Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away crown law rights from citizens of this State? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
Hon PADDY EMBRY: Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away crown law rights from citizens of this State? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a speech. Hon PADDY EMBRY: I was getting to the last part of the question, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: Is this statement about the Queensland insurance rates relevant to any question? Hon PADDY EMBRY: It certainly is. The PRESIDENT: I look forward to hearing the question. Hon PADDY EMBRY: Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away crown law rights from citizens of this State? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
Hon PADDY EMBRY: I was getting to the last part of the question, Mr President. The PRESIDENT: Is this statement about the Queensland insurance rates relevant to any question? Hon PADDY EMBRY: It certainly is. The PRESIDENT: I look forward to hearing the question. Hon PADDY EMBRY: Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away crown law rights from citizens of this State? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
The PRESIDENT: Is this statement about the Queensland insurance rates relevant to any question? Hon PADDY EMBRY: It certainly is. The PRESIDENT: I look forward to hearing the question. Hon PADDY EMBRY: Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away crown law rights from citizens of this State? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
Hon PADDY EMBRY: It certainly is. The PRESIDENT: I look forward to hearing the question. Hon PADDY EMBRY: Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away crown law rights from citizens of this State? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
The PRESIDENT: I look forward to hearing the question. Hon PADDY EMBRY: Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away crown law rights from citizens of this State? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
Hon PADDY EMBRY: Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away crown law rights from citizens of this State? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
I thank the member for some notice of the question, although perhaps I should thank Mr Paul O’Halloran for some notice of this question. Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
Hon Paddy Embry: He gives considerable assistance. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: The question that the member read out is somewhat different from the question that I have in front of me, but it will not affect the answer. I should point out what the difference is, because I do not want to mislead the House in any way. The last part of the question that I have in front of me states - Since full common law entitlements apply in Queensland, why does the Government deem it necessary to take away common law rights from citizens of this State? The members said “crown law rights”. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following answer - The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
The Supreme Court in its decisions in Dutch and De Santos has determined the requirement for medical evidence necessary to support an election for common law. This decision negated the interpretation by not only the WorkCover Director Conciliation and Review but also the legal and medical representatives of workers who had presented that evidence to the director as satisfying the requirements of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Government is considering the impact of these decisions on injured workers, but any remedial action must be appropriate and balanced and not such as to create further problems. The Queensland workers compensation system, which is different from the Western Australian system, does apply constraints to access to common law.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.