Action on Woodhouse report this year?

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32521, 3 February 1971, Page 14

Action on Woodhouse report this year?

“The time has surely come when consideration of the rights, problems and needs of the injured person are more important than apportioning blame,” the National member of Parliament for Riccarton (Mr E. S. F. Holland) said yesterday at a luncheon meeting of the Christchurch Rotary Club,

Discussing the Woodhouse report, Mr Holland said he hoped that legislation for personal injury compensation would be introduced this year and that a scheme would be in operation next year. “Chancy business” Relying on the commonlaw remedy of suing for damages after accidents was “a pretty chancy business,” Mr Holland said. He said he believed that adequate compensation for injury should not depend on proving fault or negligence and that the degree of fault or negligence could have very little relationship to the amount of damage or injury suffered. It had been said that the changes envisaged were not the sort of changes one expected from a conservative government, but he did not accept that, Mr Holland said. He hoped that when the legislation was brought down, employers would not see it just as taxation. “It is clear to me,” said Mr Holland, “that the Woodhouse report is the brainchild of the commission rather than the result of evidence that was put before it.”

Nevertheless, the Government had accepted the report in general terms. At this time he could see no reason for not commenting on the various reactions to the report, said Mr Holland. The legal profession had been very divided. Some members felt the proposals, abolishing claims for accident compensation, would put many lawyers out of work.

Surprisingly, the trade unions had been suspicious of the whole thing, although their attitude might have been influenced by their legal advisers. They appeared to want the best of both worlds—guaranteed compen-

sation and the right to claim for more. Insurance companies were not against the scheme, but very intent on preserving their own interests. The State services were generally in support, particularly of the idea of having another State department to administer the scheme, said Mr Holland. Committee’s view

The Parliamentary Select Committee, in its report on the Woodhouse report, had recommended reducing the degree of entitlement to all wage and salary earners at all times and to all persons injured in road accidents involving vehicles, Mr Holland said. The Woodhouse report had recommended universal compensation for injury of any kind from whatever cause. Now it was over to the Government.