Accident compensation ‘not! using its nest egg’

Press, 8 July 1976, Page 3

Accident compensation ‘not! using its nest egg’

Safety in industry is something to be promoted and encouraged—by low cost loans and “good record” rebates—rather than just have passive payments into a compensation fund, says a Christchurch industrialist. The money paid each year to the Accident Compensation Commission by Lane Walker Rudkin, Ltd’s parent' [company is “the greatest industrial rip-off in history,” according to Mr M. A. Stevens, a director of the company. . He said that in 1973 his company paid $24,000 for priIvate insurance. Now the bill [was $56,000, “and mark you,” [he told the Accident Com(pensation Commission’s second national safety forum [in the Christchurch Town

(Hall yesterday, “we also pay the first week of lost time.” He did not want to be considered a smart Alec, but said it was the commission’s duty to make either .low-cost, or no-cost loans to industry for safety engineering—out of a reported surplus of about ssom. | “But what actually hapipens?” he said. “Take the [hypothetical example of aj [small company. The Labour] [Department inspectors tell, [the proprietor that he must! [have a small spray booth for; [painting purposes. He tells; 11 hem the cost would put him] [out of business. [ “Then what happens? He [is told to take all [precautions, such as keeping; ’his staff away from this area (while spraying is in progress.

“There’s not much engineering done here,” he said. “But we can understand the dilemma of both the proprietor and the Labour Department. Surely this is a case for loan finance.” Basically, however, accident prevention was a matter of attitudes, said Mr Stevens, and managers and supervisors were the obvious persons to [have the direct responsibility [for implementing a safety [policy. I He said there was provision for a 50 per cent • rebate on the compensation [levy if a firm’s accident [record was well below the (industry as a whole. His firm had a remarkably good .record, yet it had been told [that, there would be no rebates for at least three to (five years.

Tn spite Of this, he said, hel would urge firms with a good: accident record to apply for; The rebate. He said he did not like! (safety committees and safety! officers, because people! should not be taught to see safety in isolation. Some people set up safety or training as an industrial god, to jbe worshipped from afar. Rather, it should be a simple, basic business activity. “Tea-’h your management! the four basic universals,! planning, leading, organising. and controlling. Then; teach them the 19 activities that make up these functions 1 and they will see safety! emerging as a ncessary func-i tion of good management, of cost awareness, and as one of the management human! ties.