Attwood Marshall Lawyers Compensation Law Associate Yasmine Chalvatzis examines what Queensland’s mandatory workers’ compensation review means for injured workers, and what lessons can be drawn from the legislative reforms across the border in New South Wales.
The Queensland Government is reviewing the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, the legislation that governs how injured workers in this state access support, treatment, and compensation.
The review is mandatory under the Act and takes place at least once every five years. Findings will be delivered in late 2026.
On the surface, a routine statutory review may not sound like a cause for concern. It will consider emerging trends and national development relevant to the scheme’s operations. But for anyone who works in personal injury law, or who has ever had to navigate a workers’ compensation claim, the timing and scope of this review should be closely monitored.
In New South Wales, workers’ compensation legislation has undergone significant reform in recent years – reform that was similarly framed around modernisation, sustainability, and efficiency.
The outcomes, particularly for workers with psychological injuries, offer a useful reference point as Queensland considers its own direction.
What has changed in NSW?
Workers’ compensation claims
Workers’ compensation claims in NSW are governed by the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and related legislation, with significant amendments introduced through the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act in 2025 and 2026.
The most consequential change affected psychological injury claims. From 1 July 2026, common law damages will not be payable unless the threshold for the degree of permanent impairment is at least 25 per cent for a primary psychological injury. The NSW Government has also introduced a minimum threshold of “more than 26 per cent” from 1 July 2027 and “at least 28 per cent” from 1 July 2029.
Similarly, workers with primary psychological injuries will be restricted from accessing weekly compensation beyond 130 weeks unless their impairment is 21 per cent or greater.
If the workers impairment exceeds the maximum threshold, they will be able to access compensation for up to 182 weeks.
Other changes included stricter requirements for evidence, amendments to the reasonable management action defence and a new Return-to-Work Intensive Support Program that provides additional vocational support and rehabilitation for workers with psychological injuries. Workers such as police, paramedics, and firefighters were also excluded from some of the new provisions, ensuring that their entitlements remained unaffected by the reforms.
A 25 per cent permanent impairment for a psychological injury is a very high bar. Many workers with genuine, work-caused psychological conditions will not meet it. The threshold is expected to create financial uncertainty and stress for individuals who are already dealing with the challenges of psychological injuries.
Many people don’t understand how percentages of medical impairment are applied to injuries. On the face of it, you would think that 25 per cent is not that hard to beat, but in reality, very few psychological injuries exceed this threshold. To give some context, a quadriplegic (i.e. someone who has a spinal injury and cannot use their limbs) is usually deemed to suffer from a strict percentage of medical impairment of about 33 per cent!
Psychological injuries do not resolve on a fixed timeline, and workers who exhaust their entitlements before they are fit to return to work will be left without support.
And while the new Return-to-Work program is a positive step, its implementation may not be sufficient to address the unique needs of individuals with psychological injuries.
Motor accident claims
If you are injured in a car accident, the last thing you want is to be caught in a maze of technical rules and procedural roadblocks.
Most people assume that if they are hurt in a motor vehicle accident, they will be able to access treatment, income support, and compensation without unnecessary delay.
But in New South Wales, the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 dictates that before some medical disputes can be assessed, injured people may first need to go through an internal review of the insurer’s decision. For those already coping with pain, ongoing medical appointments, financial stress, and uncertainty about the future, this additional hurdle can be incredibly frustrating.
In Stephen John Kewin v AAI Limited t/as GIO Insurance NSWSC 1425, the Supreme Court of NSW also confirmed that the Personal Injury Commission has the power to decide whether a medical dispute exists in the first place – effectively closing off that part of a claim before it can be properly considered.
It must be said that not all recent amendments have been negative.
The law has also been clarified so that people injured in no-fault accidents – for example, swerving to avoid obstacles – may now be entitled to loss of income, ongoing treatment and care benefits for life if their injuries are serious enough. That change is a meaningful improvement and offers greater protection to people injured through no fault of their own.
However, the broader concern remains the same: when compensation schemes become too complicated, injured people can face additional stress and delays at a time when they should be focused on recovery.
How Queensland compares, and what’s worth protecting
In Queensland, no equivalent threshold regime applies to motor vehicle accident claims or workers’ compensation claims. Claimants must prove their injuries and losses to access damages, but they are not required to clear procedural hurdles before their claim can even be assessed.
Queensland’s workers’ compensation scheme operates differently in several important respects. Once a claimant’s injuries are assessed as stable and stationary, the insurer refers the worker for a permanent impairment assessment.
For psychological claims, this involves an initial assessment by a psychiatrist, then a referral to the Medical Assessment Tribunal, a statutory body with a panel of three psychiatrists that provides an independent and impartial assessment of whole-person impairment. The Tribunal’s findings are binding, and you need the subsequent Notice of Assessment to pursue a common law claim.
Using an independent tribunal rather than an insurer-appointed assessment means the process should be structurally impartial. And the fact that the findings are binding provides certainty. The absence of injury thresholds as a gateway to the system means claimants are not filtered out before their injuries have been assessed at all.
Queensland also does not impose a threshold degree of permanent injury requirement for common law claims, which provide injured workers with the opportunity to recover damages for pain and suffering and loss of earnings if an employer’s negligence caused the injury.
Those who practised or pursued a claim through the Newman Government era may recall the impact of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2013, which introduced a permanent impairment threshold of greater than five per cent before a worker could pursue a common law claim – shutting out many genuinely injured workers.
It also raised the bar for compensable psychological injuries. Those restrictions were partially wound back in 2015, but not before thousands of injured workers lost access to rights they would otherwise have had.
What the review should focus on
The current review is an opportunity to reflect on how the scheme is performing and identify areas for improvement. From our experience representing injured workers, we offer the following observations as issues worth considering.
Psychological injury claims are growing, and it is worth being precise about what that trend reflects. Not all psychological injury claims are the same. Some involve clear, work-caused primary conditions.
Others involve complex overlap between pre-existing vulnerabilities and workplace factors.
A third category involves workers whose psychological conditions have been significantly worsened – or in some cases primarily caused – by the claims process itself: the delays, the disputes, the administrative burden.
A review that engages with these distinctions, rather than treating psychological injury claims as a single category of concern, is more likely to produce recommendations that improve outcomes.
Giving a client early certainty over whether a claim is accepted or declined goes a substantial way to supporting their recovery. So too does timely access to treatment, fewer administrative touchpoints, and faster decision-making. Workers left in limbo suffer worse health outcomes and take longer to return to work.
We need to make sure this is where the focus of our work continues to lie.
Clearer and more consistent causation assessments would also reduce the disputes that drive up costs and delays on all sides.
Potential fraud can exist in insurance systems and should be identified and addressed. But blanket tightening of access – such as by raising thresholds, adding procedural barriers, or limiting payment duration – tends to increase disputes and downstream costs.
The evidence from jurisdictions that have pursued this approach, including NSW, suggests that over-correction creates its own significant costs.
The aim of any review, surely, is fewer prolonged disputes, faster claim resolution, improved health and return-to-work outcomes, and a meaningful reduction in the secondary psychological harm that the claims process itself currently generates.
We will be watching these developments closely and will publish a detailed analysis once the findings are released in late 2026.
Attwood Marshall Lawyers – supporting injured workers through every stage of a claim
Engaging an experienced compensation lawyer is important to protect your rights and ensure you receive the treatment and support you’re entitled to. When you lean on a compensation lawyer, you can take comfort in knowing they are there to handle day-to-day interactions and negotiations with the insurer, allowing you to focus on healing and your immediate priorities.
Attwood Marshall Lawyers offers a free case assessment to review your claim and explain what you can expect so that you know where you stand from the start. We also operate on a No Win, No Fee basis for all compensation claims.
For a confidential discussion about your specific circumstances, please call our Compensation Law Department Manager, Tyra Hanson, on direct line 07 5506 8261, email thanson@attwoodmarshall.com.au or call our 24/7 phone line on 1800 621 071.
Unrepresented claimants in motor vehicle accidents are staggeringly financially disadvantaged if they don’t use a lawyer
More than just compensation: the real journey after a catastrophic injury
Why reporting a workplace injury immediately to your employer can make or break your WorkCover claim
