The key problems with WorkCover are:

• The abolition of Common Law right to damages 

Common law for non-economic loss was abolished in 1992, on the premise that WorkCover would properly compensate injured workers for any loss sustained as a result of their injury.

The Common Law right of injured workers to sue negligent employers still exists in all other states, including Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania. Where it exists, employers have improved OHS&W standards. By comparison, South Australia doesn't even investigate OHS&W breaches, much less identify and prosecute employers that show a blatant disregard for compliance with OHS&W standards.

• Cost Shifting - Who Really Pays?

 You do! The WorkCover "unfunded liability" is an artificial calculation of what taxpayers would owe if the Corporation collapsed, but this figure regularly changes depending on who does the actuarial reports. The alleged "unfunded liability" will not become "the next State Bank disaster". In fact, it is not even included in State Budget calculations as it does not influence government expenditure or debt. It merely represents a calculation of the number of workers on the scheme and what it would cost the Corporation (not taxpayers!) to pay those workers their insurance claims until age 65, although most will be off the system between 2 weeks and 3 months. 

• Scheme Critical

 It has been alleged that WorkCover has at various times illegally compiled, used and disseminated a "Scheme Critical List". 

The practice behind the "Scheme Critical List" was exposed on the SBS Insight Program for 15/6/2000 titled "Bullies at Work", where it was alleged that the "Scheme Critical List" is a "hit list" issued by WorkCover and widely circulated to the judiciary across all Courts (including Supreme and High Courts) and Tribunals, as well as agents and legal representatives for the Corporation. It was said that the cases that appear on the list are those which are deemed to hold a "significant financial or legislative impact" for the WorkCover Corporation. In other words, they are cases which uniquely represent all other claims on which the Corporation does not want to have to pay out and which are ear-marked for "special treatment" and obstruction.

It serves as a "Code Red" warning to the courts, staff and other professionals to corrupt due processes and influence outcomes in its favour, regardless of merit. It is these long-term claims (36+ months) which represent the "long tail" of corporate, "unfunded liability". 

Ann has called for a Royal Commission and the establishment of an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) style of inquiry into the compilation and distribution of the Scheme Critical List and the outcomes for Scheme Critical claimants.

The unfunded liability "doom and gloom" predictions frequently occur during election cycles to dissuade people from changing the government that is in power at the time, and little more. 

However, for those most severely injured, the consequence of cutbacks to fair and proper insurance compensation payouts will be no lump-sum redemptions to allow people a dignified way out of "the WorkCover system", or the option of timely transfer onto Centrelink payments. 

Contrary to claims by government spin doctors, the most severally injured WILL NOT be looked after through medical panels. Rather, if injured workers dispute their claims decisions, their benefits with automatically be cut pending years of litigations. Some of these disputes have already moved beyond 18 years

The cost-shifting from compensation through employer premiums and WorkCover insurance, will now be passed onto all of us as taxpayers through adversarial and hostile arbitration processes, which will rely upon litigation and surveillance to build up a case where none may have existed.

If we allow cost-shifting to continue, the name of the game becomes "Fight against the workers entitlements at all costs!".