Proposed psychological injury test risks denying frontline workers support.
Queensland Council of Unions General Secretary Jacqueline King has warned the LNP Government’s proposed workers’ compensation changes will make it harder for frontline workers to access support for psychological injuries.
The Government’s response, released today, supports changing the test so employment must be the “major significant contributing factor” to a psychological injury, rather than “a significant contributing factor”.
“Psychological injuries can have more than one cause. A worker’s job can significantly contribute even when other factors also play a part. Requiring work to be the major contributing factor risks shutting workers out of compensation and access to the support they need.
“The Government’s projected increase in claim costs should be a call to prevent harm, not restrict access to support. Frontline workers, including police, nurses, teachers, paramedics, child safety officers and corrections staff, often face extreme workloads, trauma, abuse and occupational violence.
“Workers cannot safely return if the hazards that contributed to their injury remain. The priority must be early support, effective treatment and safer work. Those same hazards can put other workers at risk.
Ms King said there were a range of other recommendations to the Industrial Relations Act as well as the state’s workers compensation system that needed to be considered in totality by the QCU, unions and other stakeholders.
“In the meantime, it is up to the Government to explain how it will protect workers from being psychologically injured at work before raising the threshold they must meet to access compensation and support”.
“These changes should not be rushed through Parliament with all stakeholders needing sufficient time to consult and scrutinise their impact.”
The QCU’s “Protect the People Who Protect Queensland” advertisement launches on 15 October, midway through Safe Work Month, and will highlight the risks of restricting compensation for psychological injuries for Queensland’s frontline workers.
How the proposed test could affect frontline workers
These examples are fictional and are provided to explain the difference between the current and proposed tests.
Police officer
A police officer attends several fatal crashes and violent incidents over a period of years. The repeated exposure contributes to post traumatic stress, anxiety and/or depression and the officer becomes unable to continue working. The officer is also dealing with a serious illness in their family.
Under the current test, the question is whether the officer’s work was a significant contributing factor to the psychological injury while also recognising other factors can also contribute.
Under the proposed test, work would need to be a “major significant contributing factor”. If the insurer considers the family illness a major cause and the work exposure significant but not major, the officer could be denied support – even though the traumatic work events contributed to the injury and the employer has a legal duty to prevent that exposure so far as is reasonably practicable.
Paramedic
A paramedic responds to repeated emergencies involving serious injury and death, experiences assaults and works under sustained pressure. Over time, the paramedic develops a psychological injury and cannot keep working. During the same period, the paramedic is also going through a relationship breakdown.
Under the current test, the paramedic’s work could be a significant contributing factor even though the relationship breakdown also played a part.
Under the proposed test, the work must be a “major significant contributing factor”. If the insurer finds that the relationship breakdown was a major cause and the workplace pressures were significant but not major, the paramedic could miss out on compensation and support.
Child safety officer
A child safety officer manages an excessive caseload over a long period due to chronic understaffing, regularly encounters traumatic situations involving children and families, and experiences abuse or occupational violence at work. The combined pressure builds over time and the officer develops a psychological injury that makes it difficult to continue working. During this period, the officer also experiences a difficult event in their personal life.
Under the current test, the question is whether the work was a significant contributing factor to the injury. The personal event may also have contributed, but it does not automatically rule out a claim.
Under the proposed test, employment would need to be a “major significant contributing factor”. If the insurer considers the personal event a major cause and the cumulative workplace pressures significant but not major, the officer could be denied support – even though excessive workloads, trauma and workplace violence contributed to their injury.
These examples show the concern that workers may be left without support even when their work significantly contributed to their psychological injury.
