Early in 2010, Geoff Fary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) made it clear that, when it comes to the push for national harmonisation, the difference between a happy choir and a choir that walks out mid-rehearsal, is consultation.

“Let me make it clear,” Mr Fary said, when announcing that unions were withdrawing from a national harmonisation forum tackling workers’ comp, “that…the ACTU and our affiliate unions will not support the harmonisation of workers’ compensation if it replicates the process undertaken for OHS harmonisation.

“Our support for harmonisation of workers’ compensation would be conditional on…[Government assuring that] there would be a transparent consultation process involving workers through their unions.”

Fortunately when, on July 1st 2010, the national approval framework for rehabilitation providers rolled out across every Australian jurisdiction barring Queensland, the choir was singing the same tune.

This harmonisation initiative, according to Annette Williams, the NSW-based National President of the Australian Rehabilitation Provider’s Association (ARPA), was developed via a genuinely consultative process.

“We were really pleased that we were actively engaged in it. The consultation was real consultation,” Ms Williams told RTWMatters, “and we felt that our views were taken into account.”

The framework is the brainchild of the Heads of Workers’ Compensation Authorities of Australia and New Zealand (HWCA—the acronym is pronounced “Howcar”).

“HWCA thought that workplace rehabilitation providers were a real opportunity for harmonisation and that a national framework would work for us. They also recognise that RTW is very important to the success of any workers’ comp scheme and saw this as an opportunity to improve RTW across Australia,” says Ms Williams.

To get the ball rolling, HWCA formed a working group, with representatives from most jurisdictions and with WorkCover NSW as project manager. Members of the working group met with ARPA and large provider organisations on a regular basis spanning almost two years.
 
According to the HWCA website, the Framework is intended to:

• Provide a robust approval system across participating workers’ compensation authorities;
• Enable the objective measurement of provider performance against the Conditions of Approval; and
• Establish practice principles designed to deliver high quality workplace rehabilitation services to workers, employers and insurers.

The national framework outlines standards for the kinds of services employers can expect from rehabilitation providers, including:

• A focus on return to work;
• Timely intervention;
• Engaging all parties in the RTW process, and facilitating communication between them; and
• Evidence-based decision making.

The framework also establishes principles for quality assurance and continuous improvement, staff management, and organisational and administrative arrangements.

Now, in order to meet the Conditions of Approval for recognition as a workplace rehabilitation provider, an organisation will need to demonstrate that they can conform to the Principles of Workplace Rehabilitation as well as a Code of Conduct.

Comcare, WorkSafe Victoria, WorkCover South Australia, WorkCover Western Australia, WorkCover Tasmania, WorkCover New South Wales, Northern Territory Workers Compensation and ACT Workers Compensation have all signed on.

Whilst largely happy with structure of the national framework, ARPA has reservations about a few matters on which national consensus was not reached.

“Fees were left off the framework,” Ms Williams said, “so that’s something we need to discuss at a jurisdictional level. But the really pressing issue that the national framework does not deal with adequately is that of the professional requirements required to practice as a rehabilitation consultant within a workplace rehabilitation provider.”

The approval framework specifies that providers must have a “recognised qualification” but some jurisdictions have raised the bar by insisting that providers also be eligible for membership, or be registered by the professional organisation relevant to their field of expertise, which for some professions means that they must have either 2 years experience before entering the industry, or serve an internship.

This means that within those jurisdictions it is not sufficient to have, for example, an undergraduate psychology degree and close supervision for your first year on the job, you must have a formal internship, to which your employer will inevitably contribute costs.

In addition to raising business costs, ARPA asserts that such standards also exacerbate an existing skills shortage.

“Rehabilitation counsellors must have two years experience in the industry before they can attain membership of their association (ASORC) and work as a rehabilitation consultant in the workplace rehabilitation industry. This means that there’s no way we can develop our industry at an undergraduate level. We don’t have enough graduates in themselves, let alone people with two year’s experience.”

Such stringent experience requirements are, in ARPA’s view, unnecessary.

“Psychological internships are largely around clinical practice or treatment. We are not about treatment. Our focus is case management. Internships do address case management, but they also address many treatment issues over the two year period, some of which are not directly relevant to our industry.”

‘Nurses are in a similar predicament. If they fail to maintain their clinical hours they risk being ineligible for registration.”

Nevertheless, this choir looks likely to stick around for the performance. Negotiations with the relevant jurisdictions are ongoing—which, given the precedent for harmonisation measures resulting in a breakdown of communication between the parties involved—is a good sign.  
 
For more detail on the framework, see the Guide on the HWCA website.