Rise in ‘spurious’ claims at works?

Press, 28 October 1982, Page 1

Rise in ‘spurious’ claims at works?

PA Wellington The freezing industry has had a 73 per cent increase in compensatable accidents since the introduction of accident compensation. a Parliamentary select committee was told yesterday.

In submissions to the Accident Compensation Bill, which consolidates and amends the present law, the Freezing Companies’ Association said the number of reported compensatable accidents had increased at a much faster rate than the total number of accidents or numbers employed in the industry. “The freezing companies contend that this increase in compensatable accidents reflects an increase in spurious claims, encouraged through the ease in obtaining compensation and the high levels of compensation payable under the act.

“Companies note that mal-

ingering is particularly prevalent in the one-day to seven-day period where, under the existing provisions, compensation is payable at 100 per cent of normal earnings."

The association welcomed the new provision in the bill for the first week’s compensation to be reduced to 80 per cent of ordinary-time earnings.

The cost to freezing companies of compensatable accidents was very high, the association said.

In the year to April. 1982, accident compensation levies and first week payouts cost freezing ' companies $l5 million, the equivalent of 27c for every lamb processed. “As freezing companies recover costs of production through their charges, these costs are ultimately. passed on to the farmer.” The association told the committee that it considered

the $6OO maximum weekly compensation for second and successive weeks to be excessive.

“In the freezing industry it is possible for workers to be earning $750 a week and thus be paid $6OO a week in compensation.” the association said. “This level of compensation provides no incentive to return to work and is far in excess of the amount required to maintain basic living standards.”

The Meat Workers’ Union told the select committee it was dismayed at the proposal to reduce first-week compensation. The rising cost of living meant that many families were having “extreme difficulty” making ends meet, the union said, and this reduction in compensation was “an unjust penalty" Cuts backed, Page 6