Compensation law defended

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33454, 8 February 1974, Page 10

Compensation law defended

f.X.Z. Press Association' I WELLINGTON’, February 7. The chairman of the Accident Compensation (Commission (Mr K. L. Sandford) today replied to an attack made last night on some aspects of accident compensation legislation by the chairman of the Medical Association of New Zealand (Dr M. D. Matich). Speaking at the opening of the first conference of-the New Zealand College of General Practitioners, Dr Matich had said the philosophy behind the legislation was great, but the thought 'that had gone into Its impleI mentation was “hasty and ill- , conceived.” Mr Sandford said those iwho knew all the facts about :the scheme would not accept 'all the remarks attributed to' Dr Matich. i “If his comments have!: been correctly reported he. ihas overlooked some impor-j I tant matters. j

I “Dr Matich claimed that 'the thought that has gone into he implementation of the accident compensation philosophy is hasty and illconceived,” Mr Sandford said.

| INFORMED STUDY The leaders of the medical profession knew that the philosophy set out in the Woodhouse report of 1967 had been studied by informed groups and experts ever since. In no sense had it been hasty consideration, said Mr Sandford. "If he is referring to implementation of the act itself, he will confirm that the commission has had numerous conferences with representatives of the medical profession and the commission has met doctors throughout the country, and amicable and constructive views have been exchanged. To describe all this process as hasty and ill-, conceived is ridiculous.” Mr Sandford said Dr ! Matich referred to, the commission as comprising a j lawyer with two laymen. . “If a commissioner can be [described as a layman, who

possesses the highest accountancy qualifications, who is' an acknowledged author and lecturer on matters of man-! agement and administration, who has been appointed a. consultant by the Inter-! national Monetary Fund to I advise overseas govern-' ments, it will require me to find a different definition fori the term ‘layman’,” said Mr! Sandford. PAST-PRESIDENT “Dr Matich said that the medical profession had no voice at the top level in the commission. The chief medical adviser to the commission, and the director of its medical division, is the immediate past-president of the Medical Association, and the immediate past deputy chairman is also in that division.” Mr Sandford said Dr Matich said an unacceptable anomaly between sickness land accident had been introI duced. ! “From the time workers’ compensation was introduced in 1880, and from when injured people were first allowed to sue for negligence. I the anomaly has existed. The

anomaly certainly remains, but in a much reduced form. “Referring to the doctors’ workload, he claims that in each case the general practioner will have to decide if the case before him is one of accident or sickness. In the great majority of cases the doctor can very simply say if it is an accident or sickness case. “But the commission has written to every doctor in the country saying that the doctor is not expected to make any such decision in a difficult case, and that if he is in any doubt he is not to wrestle unduly with that difficulty. The responsibility to decide is the commission’s, not the doctor’s,” Mr Sandford said. “The new compensation schemes have been adopted Iby both political parties in | New Zealand, because they ' represent a removal of many past anomalies and injustices, and will provide benefits for every' New Zealander. It seems a "pity that the remarks attributed to Dr Matich suggest such an incomplete commentary on the legislation,” Mr Sandford said.