QUEENSLAND'S leading trainer Robbie Heathcote has come out swinging in response to the protests by country trainers that the proposed changes to Workers' Compensation Premiums will discriminate against the smaller operations.
Heathcote has written a blog and distributed it to many of his fellow members in the Queensland branch of the Australian Trainers' Association, which has been consulted by Racing Queensland to the anger of many in the country who claim this organisation is certainly not representative of the majority of the more than 1,000 trainers in this state.
Below is the Robbie Heathcote response, which we run in fairness to objectivity on the issue and please note the change of stance by RQ that he refers to at the bottom of his blog:
'I note in the 'racing media' there has been plenty of recent comment and opinion from a number of trainers concerning workers compensation and the proposed changes to the way Work Cover is implemented. It’s probably all pretty boring stuff unless it directly involves an individual, but with so much opinion being bandied around it does seem worth a comment.
Without getting into the real nuts and bolts of it all, the model adopted in Queensland under current legislation is that the overall policy of about $1.2 million per year is met by employers based on a percentage rate of the wages.
This rate can vary according to the claims record of an individual employer, which can work as a form of incentive for a trainer to maintain a high level of work place health and safety.
The model adopted in NSW is different to Queensland with the cost of insurance levied onto each individual runner right across the state.
Of course working with highly tuned and, at times, volatile thoroughbreds can be very dangerous. Accidents can … and quite often do … happen!
Unfortunately people, usually the track riders, do get hurt and the medical costs are often very high. That's just a fact of life, but the problem of course is who should pay for this and what is the best model to calculate the risks and share the burden of this expense in a fair and equitable manner?
The chance of a track rider getting hurt on a country track is arguably the same as a track rider at Eagle Farm.
I don't know exactly what the best model is, but I do know the present system arguably allows for too much ‘avoidance of responsibilty’, or whatever you would like to call it, with some trainers possibly able to dodge their appropriate burden of risk.
To better explain this, have a quick look at my current work cover premium.
I had about 650 runners last year in this state where there were some 45,000 runners. Because I am a larger stable with a higher number of employees my premium is calculated on a percentage of the wages paid.
In my case the premium came in at about $61,000 dollars for the year. That's about five percent of the whole state policy and yet only a small percentage of the state's actual runners … and that is with a very high level of duty of care with no claims last year, about $4k the year before and $15k the year before that.
If I took a blinkered view like a lot of others, I would certainly argue that is not fair.
There is apparently an instance of one country trainer who had about 150 runners last year and yet supposedly declared no wages and therefore paid a very low work cover premium. If that is true … again, is that fair?
There has been plenty of noise from many in the country about the fact that any changes to the system would be wrong.
There are those who would argue this system would not work or be fair as it would mean some who pay very little or nothing now would have to pay more!
I certainly do not wish to get into any argument with other trainers in this state, but the risk of injury to any worker in this industry will always be there and the burden of that responsibility should be met by us all in the industry in a fair and equitable manner.
Workers comp is necessary in our dangerous industry but to simply regulate and calculate on wages paid is not, in my opinion, the best way for go. Having said that, I do not pretend to have the solution to what is the best model for premium calculation.
I certainly do not want any new system discriminatory against small trainers in the sense they have to subsidize big stables. I just want a system that is fair to all … simple really!
Is it not fair to simply want the burden of risk to be shared by all in the industry? If the bigger stables pay more than the smaller stable, well and good but EVERYONE has to take some share of the industry risk … not just those who are doing the right thing!
*****************************************************************************************
The ATA were notified on Wednesday after I had written my blog from Adam Carter (acting CEO RQ) that Racing Queensland were not proceeding with any changes to the Work-Cover premium calculations at this stage. Apparently “due to not having the support of all trainers” was the reason behind shelving the concept.
They advised that they were going to implement an audit process, working closely with Work-Cover Qld, to ensure trainers all trainers are all contributing fairly to the system. Yeah….like that is going to happen ? Disappointed is an understatement to see RQ roll over so easily but hopefully this issue can be revisited at some time in the future.
RQ advised they will be putting a notice on their website in relation to this tomorrow. Little doubt there will be those who feel they have had a big win over the larger stables in this state who do the right thing under the current model. Still, something I have long learned in this industry is any change that affects anyone no matter how big or small will always bring plenty of condemnation . This instance is a perfect example. Maybe down the track there will be issues that will directly affect the smaller stables in the country and provincial regions…..Just maybe they will need the support of the larger stables in the state….we will see!'