Seacare Logo

Chapter 4 - Page 4

4.5.10 Seacare Authority rehabilitation and return to work benchmarks for the maritime industry

 In November 2001 the Authority agreed on six benchmarks against which to monitor rehabilitation and return to work performance in the maritime industry, as part of implementation of a rehabilitation and return to work strategy for the industry.

The benchmarks and benchmark measures, along with performance against those benchmarks at 30 June 2002, are set out in Table 22. Benchmarks one and two are derived from Seacare data. They were determined on the basis of average 1999–00 and 2000–01 performance, while benchmarks three to six are derived from the Australasian Return to Work Monitor results for the Seacare scheme for 2000–01.

Table 22: Seacare Authority rehabilitation and return to work benchmarks and performance against those benchmarks — 2002–03

Benchmark item

Benchmark
(at 30 June 2001)

Performance
(at 30 June 2002)

Performance
(at 30 June 2003)

1. Number of claimants assessed
as capable of undergoing are habilitation program relative to the number of eligible claimants i.e. claims involving incapacity of 28 days or more (an average of performance over the two previous years)

Source: Seacare Authority Annual Report Table 19

52%

 27.9%

28.2%

2. Number of claimants commencing a rehabilitation program relative to those assessed as capable of undertaking a rehabilitation program (an average of performance over the two previous years)

Source: Seacare Authority Annual Report Table 19

60%

85.9%

70.8%

3. Return to work

 Source: ARTW Monitor

79% 

87%

77%

4. Durable return to work

Source: ARTW Monitor

74%

  73%

67%

5. Partial or graduated return to work
Source: ARTW Monitor

2%

5%

4%

6. Seafarer perception of the usefulness of the return to work (rehabilitation) program

Source: ARTW Monitor
Source: Seacare Authority and Australasian Return to Work Monitor, Campbell Research & Consulting

47%

52%

59%

Table 22 indicates that the number of claimants who have been assessed as capable of undergoing a rehabilitation program relative to the total population eligible to be so assessed (28.2%), while slightly improved over 2001–02 (27.9%), remains well below the Seacare benchmark of 52%. There has also been a fall in the number of claimants commencing rehabilitation relative to those assessed, but the outcome nevertheless remains above the Seacare Authority benchmark. The return to work rate and durable return to work rate have both fallen and are below the Seacare Authority benchmark.

TOP

4.5.11   Long tail claims

Table 23 below contains details of long tail claims, defined as those claims that have received more than one year's weekly compensation payments that were active during each of the last five years.

Table 23: Number and cost of long tail claims 1997–98 to 2001–02

Year

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

Number of long tail claims

85

87

80

62

88

Cost of claims

$1 435 543

$1 371 255

$2 377 166

$1 422 652

$2 061 903
Source: Taylor Fry Pty Ltd report to Seacare Authority of August 2003
Note: As this data is collected as part of CPM reporting, the data is one year behind most Annual Report reporting.

The average duration of long tail claims being supported by both major scheme insurers is 2.27 years. An analysis of the long tail data shows that the longest duration long tail claim since commencement of the scheme has been 7.85 years. The data suggests that the design of the scheme, which potentially provides for very long tail claims, has not resulted in a large number of long duration claims, though there are nevertheless a high number of long tail claims which are adding extensively to costs in the scheme.

TOP

4.5.12   Insurance premiums data (for the five years to 30 June 2002)

In late 2002 the Seacare Authority engaged Taylor Fry to collect comprehensive Seacare premium data from insurers for 2001–02. Taylor Fry obtained comprehensive data from all Seacare scheme insurers.

The data collected revealed an average raw premium level of 3.56% based on a wages pool of $273.3million. It also revealed that some $9.73million was collected in premiums from the industry in 2001–02. These results are summarised in Table 24 below.

The Seacare Authority commissioned Taylor Fry to calculate an adjustment to the raw premium to convert it to a five day deductible (excess) equivalent (a five day deductible or excess being the most common deductible across Australian workers' compensation schemes). The five day deductible premium rate using the Taylor Fry conversion is 6.19%for 2001-02. Taylor Fry also undertook a premium standardisation process to account for different industry mixes across workers' compensation schemes (see explanation of standardisation at page 116). Using this adjustment, the Seacare scheme standardised premium is 3.95% in 2001–02.

The data provided by insurers for 2001–02 was based on earned premiums, including adjustments to burning costs policies, which provides a more accurate picture of premiums than reporting deposit premiums only, which has been the basis of premium reporting in previous years.

TOP

Table 24: Seacare premiums data 1999–00 to 2001–02

 

Seacare
1999-00

Seacare
2000-01

% change 

Seacare
2001-02

% change

Aust Av
2001-02

Average raw premium rate

3.48%

4.12%

+18.39%

3.56%

-13.6%

2.40%

Average 5 day deductible
premium rate

6.43%

6.64%

+3.27%

6.19%

-6.8% 

2.48%

Average premium rate —
standardised for industry mix
(excluding GST)

2.42%

4.61% 

+90.50%

3.95% 

-14.3% 

2.47%

Average premium rate —
standardised for industry mix
(including GST)

NA

5.07%

NA

4.38%

-13.6%

2.67%

Wages pool

$6 951 000

$8 636 000

+24.2%

$9 730 000

+12.7%

NA

Premium collected

$199 843 000

$209 679 000

+4.9%

$273 328 000

+30.3%

NA

Source: Taylor Fry Pty Ltd reports to Seacare Authority of March 2001, March 2002 and May 2003;4th CPM report August 2002 and 5th CPM report 2003

Table 24 shows a fall in premium rate between 2000–01 and 2001–02of 13.6%. The key explanation for the fall in the premium rate is that the premium rates on offer by insurers have not been fully adjusted by insurers to match the increased wages pool (remuneration) which increased by 12.7% over the year, i.e. the insurers have apparently been able to recoup required premium income using a lower premium rate given the increase in the wages pool. Improved data arising from the Teekay consolidation of its insurance arrangements upon gaining responsibility for former BHP Billiton ships may also have a slight impact on the premium result reported in this report. In addition, some employers are accepting higher excesses as a means of reducing or maintaining premium rates, while more employers are taking burning cost policies, i.e. they are demonstrating confidence in their own prevention strategies to minimise injury and hence claims costs, which is being reflected in the premium rate.

TOP

<missing "ormiston.jpg">

The nature of shipping and the unpredictability of operating conditions will continue to influence the insurance riskand the cost of workers' compensation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

Table 25: Numbers of policies in premium rate bands 1999–00 to 2001–02

 

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

Premium
band

Number
of policies

%

Number
of policies

%

Number
of policies

%

<1%

2

6.45

2

4.88

3

6.25

1-2%

1

3.23

4

9.76

4

8.3

2-3%

5

16.13

3

7.32

4

8.3

3-4%

6

19.35

5

12.20

7

14.58

4-5%

6

19.35

8

19.51

7

14.58

5-6%

4

12.90

4

9.76

3

6.25

6-7%

1

3.23

3

7.32

5

10.42

7-8%

2

6.45

0

0

2

4.17

8-9%

1

3.23

0

0

3

6.25

9-10%

0

0

2

4.88

2

4.17

>10%

3

9.68

10

24.39

8

16.67

Total

31

 

41

 

48

 
Source: Taylor Fry Pty Ltd reports to Seacare Authority of March 2001, March 2002 and May 2003

The data in Table 25 shows the number of policies in each premium band from<1% to >10%. It indicates that in 2001–02 the majority of policies fall in the zero to five per cent range (52%), while 48% of policies are in the six percent to 10%+ range. This contrasts to 2000–01 where the majority of policies (58%) fell in the zero to six percent range, confirming the fall in the premium rate over the year ending 30 June 2002.

Taylor Fry also obtained comprehensive data on the excesses negotiated by Seacare scheme employers in seafarer workers' compensation insurance policies, and on the extent of identified burning cost policies. A summary of the range of employer excesses and policies based on burning costs is contained in Table 26.

TOP

Table 26: Seacare scheme - employer insurance excesses 1999–00 to 2001–02

 

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

 

Excess range

Policies 

Cost
burners

Total 

Policies 

Cost
burners

Total 

Policies

Cost
burners

Total

0

4

0

4

7

1

8

4

2

6

$2 500

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

$5 000

2

1

3

2

1

3

1

1

2

$10 000

10

1

11

10

2

12

13

2

15

$20 000

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

$25 000

4

1

5

4

1

5

4

1

5

$35 000

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

$50 000

0

0

0

2

0

2

8

0

8

$70 000

1

0

1

2

0

2

2

0

2

$75 000

2

0

2

2

0

2

3

0

3

>$100 000

2

0

2

2

0

2

3

0

3

Total

28

3

31

36

5

41

42

6

48
Source: Taylor Fry Pty Ltd reports to Seacare Authority of March 2001, March 2002 and May 2003

Table 26 shows that of the 48 policies reported in 2001–02, 24 or 50% contained an excess of $10 000 or less, while 16 or 33% contained excesses of $50 000 or more. Table 26 also shows that there are a higher number of policies with an excess of around $50 000 relative to the previous year. The median is in the $10 000 band. The relatively high excesses in the Seacare scheme appear to be reducing the actual premium paid by employers because in many cases, claims are being met directly by the employer with no call on the insurance policy, i.e. the risk is being shifted to the employer.

This proposition is supported by anecdotal evidence from Seacare scheme employers which indicates that the principal mechanism utilised by employers to reduce the cost of their workers' compensation insurance has been to progressively increase the employer excess. The result is that only a small percentage of accepted compensation claims are being referred to insurers for payment against a policy. Taylor Fry consider that some characteristics of the Seacare scheme are similar to self-insurance.

TOP

4.6   Seacare scheme OHS and workers' compensation performance relative to other schemes/industries

4.6.1 Comparative OHS

To better understand the relative performance of the Seacare scheme, this annual report contains data from the 5th national CPM report which provides a comparative analysis of OHS, workers' compensation and return to work performance across Australian and New Zealand schemes. While the main comparison is with other schemes, such as NSW Work Cover, some industry comparisons are also available. Comparing the Seacare scheme, which covers only one sector of industry, with other schemes which cover a wide range of industry sectors and occupations has its limitations, but nevertheless provides a useful national picture of Seacare scheme comparative performance.

Comparing the Seacare scheme with other high-risk industries such as mining and construction, and with the transport and storage industry as a whole, provides strong indicators of comparative performance.

Readers should note that compensation claims data used in CPM reports until the 2003 report exclude disease related claims as classified using the National Data Set (NDS) data specifications for workers' compensation statistics and coding of claims under the Type of Occurrence Classification System (TOOCS). However, the 5th CPM report includes both injury and disease claims for years 2000–01 and 2001–02, for the Seacare scheme, for the first time.

Disease covers a wide range of ailments including diseases of the nervous system, diseases of the respiratory system (e.g. asthma), diseases of the skin (e.g. dermatitis), diseases of the digestive system (e.g. hernias), infectious and parasitic diseases, neoplasms (i.e. cancers and benign tumours) and psychological illness. Also, the CPM report does not include claims involving less than one week being compensated. Even though off duty claims are included in CPM claims data used in this section of the annual report (the Seacare scheme covers seafarers when on board the ship but off duty), such claims represent approximately 10%of claims and make little statistical difference to the performance reports.

Seacare scheme injury claim numbers used for CPM reporting purposes distinguish injury and disease claims. Claim numbers in the 5th CPM report, for years 2000–01 and 2001–02, include disease claims, whereas claim numbers used in other sections of this annual report include disease claims for all reporting years. The CPM and Seacare claim numbers are reported here (Seacare figures in brackets): 1997-98: 232 (356); 1998-99: 154 (211); 1999–00: 105 (157); 2000-01: 101 (180); and 2001–02: 76 (147).In 2001–02, 76 claims represent 51.7% of all accepted claims.

TOP

Figure 21: Incidence of injury and disease (number of injuries/diseases per 1000 employees) resulting in one week or more days compensated (off work), by jurisdiction 1997–98 to 2001–02, CPM data

<missing "figure21.jpg">

 

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

NT

ACT
Private

ACT GS

Cwith

Seacare

Aus Av

NZ

2000–01 Injuries

17.3

10.7

15.2

11.5

14.7

13.7

11.3

12.5

16.8

9.8

24.1

14.1

10.8

2001–02 Diseases

4.0

2.0

2.1

1.3

5.2

3.2

1.8

1.2

5.1

3.2

6.7

2.9

0.3

2001–02 Total

21.3

12.8

17.4

12.8

19.9

16.9

13.1

13.6

21.9

13.0

30.8

17.0

11.1
Source: 5th CPM Report 2003

Figure 21 shows that the Seacare scheme incidence rate for both injuries and diseases (and combined) is the highest of any scheme in Australia in each of the five years of CPM reporting, though the dramatic fall in the injury incidence rate has continued in 2001–02. Whereas the injury incidence rate was over twice the national average in 2000–01 it is now only 70% higher. The rate of decline in the Seacare scheme injury incidence rate is unmatched in any other Australian scheme, noting that it was more than three times the national average just four years ago. Section 2.5.2 in Chapter 2of this report outlines initiatives taken by the Seacare Authority to reduce injuries, and hence the injury and disease incidence rate.

TOP

Figure 22: Frequency of injury and disease (number of injuries/diseases per 1 000 000 hours worked) resulting in one week or more days compensated (off work) 1997–98 to 2001–02, CPM data

<missing "figure22.jpg">

 

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

NT

ACT
Private

ACT GS

Cwith

Seacare

Aus Av

NZ

2000–01 Injuries

10.1

6.6

9.2

6.9

9.1

8.6

6.3

7.6

8.5

5.4

11.6

8.4

6.0

2001–02 Diseases

2.4

1.3

1.3

0.8

3.2

2.0

1.1

0.7

2.6

1.7

3.2

1.7

0.1

2001–02 Total

12.5

7.8

10.5

7.7

12.2

10.6

7.4

8.3

11.2

7.1

14.9

10.2

6.1
Source: 5th CPM Report 2003

Figure 22 shows that the Seacare scheme frequency rate for injuries is also the highest of any scheme in Australia. Although the Seacare disease frequency rate is equal highest with South Australia, and the combined injury and disease frequency rate is the highest of any scheme, the dramatic fall in the injury frequency rate has continued in 2001–02. Whereas the injury frequency rate was 65% higher than the national average in 2000–01 it is now only 38% higher. Section 2.5.2 in Chapter 2 of this report outlines initiatives taken by the Seacare Authority to reduce injuries, and hence the injury and disease frequency rate.

TOP

Figure 23: Trends, incidence of injury and disease resulting in one week or more compensated, by industry, 1997-98 to 2001-02, CPM data

<missing "figure23.jpg">

 
Transport
&
Storage
Maritime
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Agriculture
Forestry
&
Fisheries
Personal
& Other
Services
Health
&
Community
Services
Aus
Average
Whole
sale
Trade
2000–01
Injuries
28.0
24.1
25.1
25.1
24.0
24.3
14.5
14.9
14.1
14.4
2001–02
Diseases
5.0
6.7
5.5
4.9
5.1
2.7
4.5
3.2
2.9
2.3
2001–02
Total
33.0
30.8
30.6
30.0
29.1
27.0
19.0
18.1
17.0
16.8

 

 
Accom
modation
Cafes &
Restaurants
Cultural
&
Recreation
Services
Electricity
Gas &
Water
Supply
Govern
ment
Admin
&
Defence
Retail
Trade
Comm
unication
Services
Education
Property
&
Business
Services
Finance
&
Insurance

2000–01
Injuries

13.1

12.4

9.8

9.5

9.4

8.9

7.3

8.1

2.9

2001–02
Diseases

2.0

1.8

3.5

3.2

1.4

1.5

2.6

1.7

1.5

2001–02
Total

15.1

14.2

13.3I

12.7

10.8

10.4

9.9

9.9

4.4

For the first time since CPM reporting commenced, the maritime industry (as represented by the Seacare scheme) does not exhibit the highest injury incidence rate of any industry in Australia. In 2001–02 the maritime industry shows a better injury incidence rate than transport and storage, mining and construction. However, the disease incidence rate remains the highest of any industry.

Source: 5th CPM Report 2003

TOP

Figure 24: Trends, frequency of injury and disease resulting in one week or more compensated, by industry, 1997–98 to 2001–02, CPM data

<missing "figure24.jpg">

 
Transport
&
Storage
Maritime
Mining
Constru
ction
Manufac
turing
Agriculture
Forestry
&
Fisheries
Personal
& Other
Services
Health
&
Comm
unity
Services
Aus
Average
Whole
sale
Trade
2000–01
Injuries
14.6
13.0
12.5
11.6
12.4
11.1
10.5
9.3
9.6
8.9
2001–02 Diseases
2.6
2.5
2.7
3.2
1.4
2.5
2.2
2.9
1.4
1.3

2001–02
Total

17.2

15.5

15.2

14.9

13.8

13.6

12.7

12.1

11.1

10.3

 

 
Accom
modation
Cafes &
Restaurants
Cultural
&
Recreation
Services
Electricity
Gas &
Water
Supply
Govern
ment
Admin
&
Defence
Retail
Trade
Comm
unication
Services
Education
Property
&
Business
Services
Finance
&
Insurance
2000–01
Injuries
8.4
7.5
6.9
5.4
5.2
4.5
4.6
4.7
1.6
2001–02
Diseases
1.7
1.2
1.0
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.0
0.8
0.8
2001–02
Total
10.2
8.7
7.9
7.2
7.0
6.1
5.6
5.5
2.4

For the first time since CPM reporting commenced, the maritime industry (as represented by the Seacare scheme) does not exhibit the highest injury frequency rate of any industry in Australia. In 2001–02 the maritime industry shows a better injury frequency rate than the transport and storage, construction, manufacturing and agriculture, forestry and fishing industries. However, the disease frequency rate remains the highest of any industry.

Source: 5th CPM Report 2003

TOP

4.6.2   Workers' compensation premiums

Table 27: Australian schemes — 2001–02 average premium rates1

Jurisdiction

Insured2

Exclude
super3

5 day
deductible4

Include
self-insurers5

Standardised6
(excluding GST)

Standardised7
(including GST)

Change in
standardised
rates 2000/01
to 2001/028

NSW9 10

2.96%

2.96%

2.96%

3.00%

3.06%

3.29%

6.03%

Vic

2.25%

2.45%

2.49%

2.38%

2.43%

2.65%

-0.07%

Qld9 11

1.55%

1.55%

1.55%

1.60%

1.48%

1.61%

9.71%

WA12

2.63%

2.63%

2.60%

2.59%

2.42%

2.63%

-4.26%

SA

2.58%

2.82%

2.84%

2.37%

2.21%

2.37%

-6.72%

Tas

3.13%

3.13%

3.13%

2.82%

2.53%

2.76%

-3.21%

NT9

3.10%

3.10%

3.07%

2.55%

2.46%

2.68%

1.45%

ACT Private9

3.07%

3.07%

3.04%

3.03%

3.59%

3.94%

24.57%

ACT GS9

3.06%

3.06%

3.03%

3.03%

3.89%

4.36%

5.77%

C/wealth9

0.91%

0.91%

0.88%

1.09%

1.44%

1.56%

-6.64%

ADF9

–

–

–

4.08%

4.71%

4.86%

-7.19%

Seacare9

3.56%

3.56%

6.19%

6.19%

3.95%

4.38%

-14.30%

Australia

2.40%

2.47%

2.48%

2.47%

2.47%

2.67%

1.66%

NZ

0.92%

0.92%

0.92%

0.93%

0.86%

0.94%

-24.32%

Source: 5th National Comparative Performance Monitoring Report

Notes:
1. For policies that were issued or provided coverage during 2001-02.
2. Average premium rate for insured employers only, excluding GST.
3. Average premium rate for insured employers only and excluding superannuation from remuneration and GST.
4. Average premium rate for insured employers only, excluding superannuation and GST and adjusted to a common five-day deductible rate.
5. Average premium rate for insured employers only, excluding superannuation and GST, adjusted to a common five-day deductible rate and including self-insurers.
6. Average premium rate including self-insurers, excluding superannuation and GST, adjusted to a common five-day deductible rate and based on standard industry mix.
7. Includes GST paid on premiums by insured employers. Self-insurers do not pay a premium and therefore, no allowance for GST paid on premiums is included for self-insured employers.
8. The change in standardised rates from 2000–01 to 2001–02 reflects changes in the cost of premium, but also the effect of changes in industry mixes within each jurisdiction.
9. Includes journey claims.
10. Revised 2000-01 data. The NSW average premium rates also include the dust diseases levies which are not part of the Work Cover NSW scheme but are payable by employers in that State.
11. Includes stamp duty levied at a rate of 5% of the premium including GST.
12. Includes stamp duty levied at a rate of 3% of the premium including GST. A small number of large employers will pay stamp duty at a rate of 5% of the GST inclusive premium. Prior to 2001/02, stamp duty was levied at a rate of 5%.

Table 27 indicates that the Seacare scheme average raw premium rate of 3.56% and five day deductible premium rate of 6.19% is the highest of any workers' compensation scheme in Australia. However, the Seacare standardised premium rate of 3.95% is below that of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and compares favourably with the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) public and private sectors and with New South Wales (NSW).

However, Seacare also recorded by far the highest reduction in the average (standardised) premium rate compared to 2000–01 of any Australian scheme (a 14.3% reduction). Another interesting observation is that the Seacare scheme standardised premium rate of 3.95% is only slightly higher than the standardised premium rate for transport and storage as a whole (3.77%), noting that this industry sector as a whole contains all occupations, eg white collar or low risk occupations. Also, the standardised average premium rate is increasing for the transport and storage industry as a whole (from 3.41% in 1997-98 to 3.77% in 2001–02), while it has reduced in Seacare.

Standard industry mix — the standardisation factor — based on 2000–01 data

The standard industry mix identified in column six of Table 27 above and footnote six above is a statistical adjustment method used to account for particular characteristics of statistical populations so that valid comparisons can be made across particular populations. In the case of premiums across different workers' compensation schemes, some of which have higher proportions of high risk occupations, for example, large mining industries, or a high proportion of low risk occupations, for example, Commonwealth employment, the standardisation process evens out known variations to enable valid comparisons.

The standardisation method applied to the Seacare scheme compares the transport and storage industry premium rate for the Seacare scheme (which is also the unstandardised rate for the Seacare scheme) to the Australian average in the same industry, as follows: the Australian average premium rate in transport and storage is 3.48%. The Seacare premium rate in transport and storage (and hence the unstandardised Seacare scheme premium rate, in 2000–01) is 6.64%. This is 1.91 times the Australian average rate in the transport and storage industry (the same industry division). Therefore, it is assumed that on average Seacare scheme premiums are 1.91 times the Australian average premium rate in the same industry division. Hence, the standardised rate for the Seacare scheme is 1.91 times the Australian average rate over all industries ie 1.91 times the Australian average of 2.42% = 4.61% (3.95% in 2001–02).

TOP

4.6.3   Workers' compensation – disputation

This is the first year that the Seacare disputation data has been included in the CPM report. The key observations which can be derived from this section of the CPM report are that the Seacare scheme:

has the highest disputation rate (a dispute against the employer decision which is referred to a formal review tribunal, i.e. the AAT) of any scheme (28% compared to the Australian average of 14%). Comcare, which operates under similar legislative arrangements, has a dispute rate of 27%;

has the second highest legal cost per dispute, at $21 470 per dispute (ACT private sector is higher at $23 650), which compares to the national average of $10 360; and

has the highest legal costs as a percentage of total claims costs of any scheme(32%, compared to the Australian average of 10%).

These outcomes are illustrated in Figures 25, 26 and 27 below.

Figure 25: Disputation rate — Australian compensation schemes 1998–99 to 2001–02

<missing "figure25.jpg">

1998–
99

13%

11%

6%

8%

10%

24%

5%

20%

–

–

10%

–

1999–
00

15%

11%

5%

10%

11%

32%

8%

23%

13%

–

11%

–

2000–
01

15%

11%

5%

12%

12%

32%

8%

24%

13%

–

12%

–

2001–
02

20%

13%

6%

10%

15%

23%

9%

27%

15%

28%

14%

2%

Source: 5th CPM Report 2003

TOP

Figure 26: Average legal cost per dispute — Australian compensation schemes1998–99 to 2001–02

<missing "figure26.jpg">

 

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

NT

Ccare

ACT
Private

Seacare

Aus Av

NZ

1998
–99

12607

7811

12720

5401

3067

6962

20974

10890

–

–

10106

–

1999
–00

12741

8097

13275

6714

2775

4887

16711

9705

29106

–

10337

–

2000
–01

14493

8839

10805

5894

3220

4635

19637

10031

26343

–

10907

–

2001
–02

14013

7690

6370

5979

3050

5154

13863

7745

23656

21476

10363

1023
Source: 5th CPM Report 2003

TOP

Figure27: Average dispute overheads — Australian compensation schemes 1998–99 to 2001–02

<missing "figure27.jpg">

 

NSW

Vic

Qld

WA

SA

Tas

NT

Ccare

ACT
Private

Seacare

Aus Av

NZ

1998–99

1307

1206

586

647

1112

413

–

–

1074

–

1057

–

1999–00

1107

1088

387

783

972

337

135

–

1099

–

953

–

2000–01

1272

1151

440

811

904

357

146

1709

1086

–

1065

–

2001–02

1096

1303

667

1073

938

482

–

1517

949

14817

1076

3175
Source: 5th CPM Report 2003

TOP



Contact Us  | Site Map | Copyright | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | Feedback