A.C.C. critics are wrong — Minister

Press, 27 November 1980, Page 7

A.C.C. critics are wrong — Minister

Many critics of proposed changes to the Accident Compensation Act, 1974, are wrong, according to the chairman of the Cabinet caucus committee reviewing the act (Mr Quigley). In considering about 200 submissions tht committee had tried to recommend changes that would bring the scheme more into line with the original concept of the Woodhouse report. Changes to streamline procedures, increase efficiency, reduce abuses and re-emphasise the original principles had been recommended.

Few of the critics had been concerned with the practical application of accident compensation, concentrating most on the scheme “in an ideological or impractical sense.” The committee accepted that some criticism was inevitable, most of it had been predictable and not difficult to rebut. But the critics should stand back and look at the scheme in its entirety, and try to divorce themselves “from the narrow perspective of a sectional interest group.” Then they might better appreciate the committee's task, Mr Quigley said.

The sei f-employed would be better off under the proposed changes. They would be able to opt for a minimum cover of 80 per cent of the average ordinary time wage for 13 weeks, without having to prove loss of income. The committee had been surprised that the Law Society seemed to favour excluding from accident compensation those involved only in crimes of violence. In the main there had been a favourable response to the proposal to exclude, under certain circumstances, criminals from lump sum and earnings related compensation. The committee proposed that first-week earningsrelated compensation for work accidents be reduced from 100 to 80 per cent. Since the beginning of accident compensation, reported injuries in the freezing industry for periods of 1 to 7 days had increased by 224 per cent, whereas numbers employed had increased only by IT per cent.

Obviously something was wrong and change was needed to combat abuses, Mr Quigley said. Under the proposed changes employers would be liable for two weeks earnings-related compensation when the accident happened at work, instead of one week. This should improve work-place safety and encourage a more responsible altitude amongst employers with an unsatisfactory accident record. Many of the critics had not realised that the proposal to require accident victims to meet part of the cost of the first two visits to a doctor applied only to non-work accidents. Those receiving treatment for work accidents would be able to claim the amount back from their • employer.

It was not unreasonable to expect a person to meet part of the costs of an accident that happened outside work. The committee did not think that more people would go to a public hospital to avoid paying a small doctor’s fee.

The idea of some indiv i d u a 1 responsibility underlay the proposal to extend the waiting period from one to two weeks before earnings-related compensation for out-f--work accidents was received.

The work-related part of the scheme was designed to impose variable levies on employers based on wo r k-p 1a c e accident records. A flat rate levy was imposed to fund employees’ non-work accidents.

The committee proposed to keep the provisions for lump-sum payments only for more serious permanent loss or disability cases and for cosmetic disfigurement. Under the present act much time and money was being spent on minor claims. This was not the original intention of the act and the committee recognised that clear guidelines had to be set to differentiate between minor and more serious claims and to minimise the opportunity for legal disputes to arise, Mr Quigley said. The committee’s proposls in this area reemphasised “just and fair” compensation.