WORKCOVER

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (14:41): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Minister for Workers Rehabilitation questions about the appalling treatment of an injured worker.

Leave granted.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Some members in this place may be familiar with Mrs Mandy Jamieson who, since her workplace injuries, has had to endure ongoing appalling treatment and sheer incompetence by WorkCover. First they underpaid her and then they denied her basic assistance to cope with daily tasks. This placed enormous pressure and stress upon her husband, whom they knew was suffering from depression, tragically leading him to take his own life at the Riverside Centre.

To minimise the fallout, WorkCover then concocted a story of a fictitious divorce, suggesting Mrs Jamieson's injuries had nothing to do with her husband's death. This is despite subsequently providing Mrs Jamieson with in-home care for three hours five days a week. A further demonstration of WorkCover's incompetence was when they mistakenly assumed, and commiserated her on, her son's death rather than her husband's death.

All this comes the amidst the battle by Mrs Jamieson to access basic equipment to ensure the quality of life she is rightfully entitled to, namely, an electric wheelchair. After she pursued this right in WorkCover's compensation tribunal WorkCover agreed, during conciliation, to provide Mrs Jamieson with an electric wheelchair for three months following her now necessary shoulder surgery—which ironically, according to doctors, could have been avoided if Mrs Jamieson had been provided with the wheelchair earlier.

Mrs Jamieson provided WorkCover with six weeks' notice of the August surgery date and expected the ramps required to allow her access to and from her home to be installed well in advance, as was negotiated with WorkCover. Instead, Mrs Jamieson failed to hear from WorkCover until one week prior to her surgery, by which time they were unable to get the work undertaken. Two days beforehand they cancelled her surgery. Reading the file, a cynical person may think that there was never an intention by WorkCover to comply with the agreement made during the conciliation process. My questions to the minister are:

1. Will the minister indicate how much more this woman must endure before she is provided with the equipment that all her treating physicians recommend?

2. Given the history of this case, does the minister accept that WorkCover has breached its obligations under section 36 of the act where Mrs Jamieson is concerned?

3. When will the minister finally learn that the deny-and-defend approach to injured worker entitlements is more expensive, traumatic and ultimately unproductive than supporting injured workers to ensure their basic needs are met?

4. What action will the minister take to ensure that WorkCover Corporation complies with their obligations to injured workers?

5. Will the minister give a commitment to review this particular case and find out why WorkCover Corporation has not complied and what their intentions are towards Mrs Jamieson's future?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (14:45): I will be happy to refer the question to the Minister for Workers Rehabilitation in another place and bring back a response.