N.Z. compo scheme ‘working well'

Press, 8 May 1980, Page 29

N.Z. compo scheme ‘working well '

PA ' Wellington The i accident compensation scheme is working well/ — do not change it. the chairman of the Accident Compensation Commission. (Mr K. I. Sanford) told Wellington Rotarians. Careless change in the format of Accident Compensation — “Change, for the sake of change, masquerading as improvement’’ — could spoil the accident scheme for the future, Mr Sanford said. He warned the Wellington Rotary Club that pressure from political circles and from individuals “who leap into print, with their cwn idea of some anomaly or injustice,” could force serious and unnecessary changes to what was a well designed and constructed system. Mr Sanford conceded that the system had had teething problems. “No scheme, such as accident compensation, can hope that its implementation will be perfect. We must be ready to improve but the word I give you is this — Don’t spoil a good thing,” he said. “The scheme is a good one. It is well designed and well constructed. By all means, let it be improved, but do not let change, for change’s sake, masquerade as improvement.

There were three main ways in which accident compensation could be spoiled. The first was through ex ravagance in the level of benefits or the extension of them, Mr Sanford said.

“I believe the benefits now are well conceived and, with one exception, are at fair levels. . . indeed in some respects they are generous. But there is always risk, particularly in the auction room of the political market place for reasonableness and generosity to become extravagance. “New Zealand cannot

afford extravagance in its social programmes.”

Mr Sanford also warned of the danger of “overwelfarisation.”

“Once reasonable needs are satisfied, excessive benefits can do harm,” he said. “We mut never extend welfare, and disability compensation, to such a point that we weaken initiative and resourcefulness. “We must leave room for self-dependence and for a spirit of endeavour.” Second, the scheme could be spoiled if the benefits became so expensive that they imposed too great a burden on those who must provide the funds, Mr Sanford paid. Under the scheme at present, employers provide 62 per cent of the commission’s funmds, motorists 16 per cent the Government 9 per cent and investments 12 per cent. “Again, in spite of occasional protest to the contrary, I claim that the present burden on employers is. not unreasonable, having regard to the great good to which the money is put. If you hear any comment that the- New Zealand scheme is too expensive, forget it. Such a claim is nonsense.

“Every time any higher compensation benefit is suggested, or there is talkof its being extended into other fields, let it be remembered that someone, and. primarily the New Zealand employer, has to pay. The scheme could be spoiled if the burden on him became unreasonable.”

Lastly, the scheme would suffer if its administration deteriorated. “Over the last six years, the commission has steadily developed its specialised expertise, creating its systems and its policies- from literally _ nothing, and has a continuing target of improving its efficiency -whenever possible,” Mr Sanford said.