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/cca8/2/2019 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.php8/2/2019 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.pdf8/2/2019 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.htm8/2/2019 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/cpm8/2/2019 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.php8/2/2019 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