Hon. Ljiljanna Ravlich questions the Minister for Commerce regarding WorkCover WA's handling of a workers' compensation claim and potential non-compliance by Allianz Australia Insurance. The Minister responds that Allianz was not required to issue the notice and the matter has been considered by courts.

AnsweredQoN 321Legislative Council
Asked
27 June 2013
Portfolio
Commerce

QuestionView source ↗

WORKCOVER WA — WORKERS'
COMPENSATION SCHEME
321. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Minister for Commerce:
Further to question without notice
242 regarding Mr Geoff Barkla's workers' compensation claim —
(1) Will the minister
explain why WorkCover WA allowed noncompliance of section 57A(3)(b) of the
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 by Allianz
Australia Insurance for a period of 21 months?
(2) Given that
the insurer is required to issue a notice pursuant to section 57A(3)(b) of the
act and has failed to do so, what action has been taken to date by WorkCover WA
in respect of this matter?
(3) If no action
has been taken in respect to (2), will the minister now refer the matter to
WorkCover WA, as per section 100(k)(iv) of the Workers' Compensation
and Injury Management Act 1981; and if not, why not?

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the honourable member for some notice of the
question.
(1) I am advised
that Allianz was not required to issue a notice under section 57A(3)(b) of the
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 in relation to Mr
Barkla. This particular matter has been considered by various courts on appeal
by Mr Barkla, which have confirmed the decision of the WorkCover WA arbitrator.
(2)–(3) Not applicable.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more