Same Regulator, Same Purpose—So Why Do CTP and Workers’ Compensation Treat Injured People So Differently?
In New South Wales (NSW), two major insurance schemes exist to support people injured due to no fault of their own:
Both systems are regulated by the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) and are supposed to ensure that injured individuals receive fair compensation, medical care, and income support. However, despite having the same regulator and purpose, the way injured people are assessed, who approves the assessors, and the level of support available differ drastically—often to the detriment of injured workers.
Different Rules, Different Assessors - Same Regulator, Why?
One of the biggest disparities between these two schemes is who is allowed to assess an injured person and determine their entitlements.
?? In CTP, medical assessors must be authorised by SIRA before they can conduct assessments, provide medico-legal reports, or give evidence in disputes. This ensures that medical practitioners meet strict standards, qualifications, and competency requirements before they can influence a claim outcome.
?? In workers’ compensation, there is no such approval process. Instead, insurers can hand-pick any specialist to act as an Independent Medical Examiner (IME) without SIRA verifying their credentials or ensuring they meet any standardised level of expertise.
This lack of oversight means that injured workers may be assessed by unqualified, insurer-friendly IMEs who issue biased reports that favor insurers. It also means that there is no uniform standard for how workers' injuries are assessed, leading to inconsistent outcomes and unjust denials of treatment.
If SIRA requires strict approval processes for CTP medical assessors, why not for workers' compensation IMEs?
Why Do Benefits Differ?
Even though both systems exist to compensate injured individuals, the level of financial support and medical coverage varies dramatically:
? CTP claimants can receive:
? Workers' compensation claimants face:
This raises serious questions: ? Why do road accident victims receive more comprehensive support than workers injured on the job? ? Why is there a time-based limit on recovery, as if all injuries magically heal within an arbitrary time frame?
Who Manages These Schemes, and Why Does It Matter?
Another key difference between CTP and workers' compensation is who administers the policies and manages claims.
?? CTP uses licensed insurers, and policies are purchased directly by vehicle owners from these insurers. This means there is competition in the market, and insurers operate under strict guidelines set by SIRA.
?? Workers' compensation, however, operates under icare, a government-run scheme that acts as a Clayton’s insurer essentially performing the role of an insurer without true competition or accountability. Businesses pay premiums directly to icare, which then outsources claim management to agents like EML, Allianz, and QBE.
This creates a conflict of interest, as icare is responsible for both collecting premiums and limiting payouts, leading to underpayments, delayed treatments, and poor service for injured workers.
Who Benefits From This Disparity?
It’s clear that the current system favors insurers at the expense of injured workers. By:
...the system ensures that insurers pay out less and protect their own bottom line.
If the CTP scheme demands SIRA oversight on medical assessors, why doesn’t workers' compensation? If both schemes exist to help injured people, why are workers being treated as second-class claimants?
It’s time for real answers and accountability. Injured workers deserve the same protections, oversight, and fairness as those covered under CTP.
#WorkersComp #WorkersCompensation #Insurance #CTP #InjuredWorkers #SIRA #InsuranceIndustry #NSWPolitics #NSWPol #Icare #Scandal #Fairness #Compensation #Workplace #Injuries #Medical #Bias #Systemic #Failure #Accountability #Rights #HumanRights