HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WORKCOVER CORPORATION

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (15:16): I seek leave to make an explanation before asking the minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations questions about the WorkCover scheme.

Leave granted.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Last Friday, in a full Supreme Court judgment in the matter of Thompson v WorkCover, WorkCover was unanimously slammed for conducting a persecution campaign against Mr Thompson, which was, in the words of the court, an 'oppressive' and 'unfair' approach to the legal actions mounted against Mr Thompson. Amongst other bizarre events in this case, the judge noted:

Mr Thompson was unrepresented during critical stages of the trial, and although he later obtained representation, the initial prejudice was incurable...It also failed to produce relevant documents to Mr Thompson in a timely fashion, many highly relevant documents not even being produced until after the close of the prosecution case.

The Sunday Mail reported:

WorkCover was heavily criticised for trying to claim Mr Thompson had either made up his illness or continued to act sick after recovering. 'The alternative particulars made it impossible for Mr Thompson to have a fair trial,' the judgment said.

'On the one hand, he faced an allegation that he did suffer no compensable injury. At the same time, he faced an allegation that he did suffer compensable injury but had recovered.'

The judgment said that these charges were not only latently ambiguous but patently ambiguous and that the prosecution effort 'bore the hallmarks of a desire to win at all costs with scant regard to the fact that it was prosecuting serious criminal offences'...

WorkCover was also criticised for using its own prosecutors in a matter where it considered itself to be the victim of the crime. They said the authority's prosecution team would not have been able to conduct themselves with 'fairness and impartiality'.

I am advised that, before the full Supreme Court appeal, Chief Investigations Officer for WorkCover Mark Faggotter's employment with WorkCover was terminated some 12 months ago, just at the time that Mr Thompson was appealing the decision of magistrate Ackland before the Supreme Court.

Faggotter's employment was allegedly terminated when issues were raised in the Supreme Court of his direct involvement in withholding crucial documentation required under discovery in freedom of information for Mr Thompson's defence. The matter was successful before the Supreme Court and was referred back to the Magistrates Court for further hearing.

The PRESIDENT: I ask the honourable member to get to the question.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Yes. One more short paragraph. This was a repeat of an identical series of steps taken by WorkCover, when Mr Thompson's matter was first heard at the Magistrates Court and a senior investigator, Ian Bassey, was due to be called up to give evidence on his conduct of the investigation. His employment was also terminated under the same conditions some time before it could be presented to the court. My questions are:

1. Will the minister step in to ensure that WorkCover does not appeal the unanimous verdict handed down by the full Supreme Court in light of the patently demonstrable injustices against Mr Thompson?

2. Who was responsible for the decision to prosecute Mr Thompson, given that this bounty hunt, lasting over five years, has cost WorkCover in excess of $1 million?

3. Will the minister undertake to look into WorkCover Corporation's handling of other cases being litigated in the courts with precisely the same blueprint of appalling conduct in those cases involving many of the same players as in that of Mr Thompson?

4. Will the minister recommend legislative change to give the responsibility of the investigation and prosecution of WorkCover claimants to independent bodies who can act in an impartial and fair manner with a view to ending the manifest oppression of injured workers?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:19): I thank the honourable member for her question. I will refer it to the Minister for Industrial Relations in another place and bring back a reply.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT