Workers' compensation claims in Australia used to be the target of prime time current affairs shows.
Remember the reporters chasing those people claiming 'compo' for a back injury in the 1980s and 1990s who were miraculously able to live it up in some exotic location shortly after receiving their compensation payment?
Back then, some Aussies even barracked for those who actually ripping off the system. But times have changed and people have wised up to the fact that ripping off the 'system' actually means ripping off the rest of us.
Workers' compensation has an important place in Australia. It should not be used or abused, so funds can remain available to look after those in genuine need.
So is it any wonder that there has been some outrage over the case of ABC TV presenter Maryanne Demasi, who lodged a compensation claim after breaking her hip while jogging?
The anger isn't that her case was thrown out. It is more about the fact that she even thought of lodging a workers' compensation claim in the first place.
I feel sorry that Demasi suffered such an injury.
But, going for a jog does not qualify for workers' compensation and never should. Jogging is not a work related activity and taxpayers cannot be expected to pick up the tab for medical bills.
It makes a mockery of a system set up to help genuine cases.
She claimed that she was entitled to be compensated by federal workplace insurer Comcare because she was working from home at the time. An interview set down for 9.30am was delayed and she decided to go for a 7km run; 30 minutes into it she tripped on an uneven surface and broke her hip.
She argued that going for a run was a way for her to clear her head. Her producer also considered her exercise relevant to Demasi's employment.
Every taxpayer funds Comcare. The public reaction to this case shows that Australians are keen to draw a line between genuine workplace injuries and other accidents that clearly don't relate to work at all.
To me, these two cases, simply stretch the boundaries of entitlements of people who should know better.
Health insurance and income protection insurance exist for these unfortunate accidents and it is incumbent on everyone to make sure they take responsibility for themselves.
Yet in the modern age, the era of entitlement we so often hear about, should any of us really be surprised by Demasi's actions in trying to claim?
Twenty-five years ago, there was also public outcry when the then Speaker of the Federal Parliament Leo McLeay lodged a compo claim against his own parliamentary department.
He claimed various injuries after an improperly assembled fold-up bicycle on loan from Parliament House collapsed under him when it hit a pothole. Gymnasium staff had warned him he was too heavy for the bicycle.
Yet Mr McLeay was still awarded $65,000.
But perhaps, the real precedent for Demasi's case was actually set back in 2007 when taxpayers ended up spending more than $600,000 defending a workers' compensation claim from a female public servant who was injured while she had sex in a motel room on a work trip.
While at the motel, she met a friend for dinner and they went back to her room for sex.
During the act, a glass light fitting above the bed was ripped from its mount, causing damage to the woman's nose and mouth. She claimed that the psychological impact was so great that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and was unable to continue working for the government.
She sought compensation from Comcare under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act on the basis the injuries were suffered 'in the course' of her employment.
I kid you not!
Most people would have been too embarrassed to even admit what had happened, let alone pursue it. It's not exactly something you would want to have on your CV applying for another job.
The case became a test of employers' liability and, of course, in our democracy everyone is entitled to their day in court. So the case between this public servant and Comcare dragged on for four years, all the way to the High Court.
Early on, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had found the government and Comcare were not liable for the woman's injuries, but the Federal Court had later found the tribunal had erred and ruled the woman should be compensated.
Comcare was granted special leave and appealed to the High Court, with the matter seen as an important test case.
The High Court ended up ruling she was not eligible for compensation. Comcare won. But to win, taxpayers forked out $600,000 in legal fees.
The opposition spokesman on workplace relations at the time, Senator Eric Abetz, hailed the ruling as a victory for common sense and suggested that had the decision gone the other way it would have opened the floodgates for public servants to claim compensation for anything from paper cuts suffered during card games to sexually transmitted diseases.
"In Australian workplaces there has to be a form of 'mutual obligation' where employees and employers both work together and are prepared to accept personal responsibility," he added.
Personal responsibility is a strong theme in many of my columns.
To me, these two cases, simply stretch the boundaries of entitlements of people who should know better.
It is simply playing a game with the money of Australian taxpayers, who at the end of the day are the ones who foot the bill for Comcare.
However, it is also possible that in cases like these the applicants were taken along by overly litigious lawyers who were perhaps wanting to set a precedent and win a sensational case.
Either way, taking a step back and really being honest about what and why you are claiming seems to be lost time and time again.
Perhaps making claimants, or their lawyers, liable for the legal costs of any outlandish claims may make them think twice.
Karalee Katsambanis is a mother-of-three and a journalist for more than 20 years. Listen to her on 6PR's PerthTonight with Chris Ilsley between 9pm-10pm on Mondays.
3 comments
New User? Sign up