Salient. Official Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 44 No. 9. May 4 1981

Adding Insult to Injury

Adding Insult to Injury

Drawing of injured people outside an ACC building

Accident Compensation Faces Heavy Cuts

Proposed cuts to the Accident Compensation scheme have been heavily criticised and even condemned by many groups who say they are unnecessary and extremely harmful, and could have serious consequences for students.

The Accident Compensation Amendment Bill (no.2) has been condemned by the Combined State Unions (CSU) and the Federation of Labour (FoL). The Labour Party, doctors, lawyers, NZUSA and people involved in accident compensation have criticised the Bill's provisions.

The ACC scheme was set up in 1972 as an agreement between the government and the unions. This agreement meant workers exchanged their rights to take legal action on compensation and common law claims for benefits in the new scheme.

In this respect, the FoL and CSU say the cuts proposed in the Bill break the contract made eight years ago.

The Bill, drawn up by a Caucus Committee chaired by Derek Quigley, proposes that compensation for the first week of injury will be reduced from 100 percent of normal wages to 80 percent. People injured outside work would get no compensation in the first two weeks off work, as opposed to the first week as at present. Accident victims would have to pay for their first two visits to the doctor. Those injured at work could claim the cost back from the employer - though if the employer refused it would be difficult and expensive to force them to do so.

This cut could also have the effect of discouraging accident victims to seek proper medical help.

Students Affected Even more

More importantly for students, this could severely disadvantage the university student health services, which presently derive a significant part of their income from the ACC. If they were to lose the income derived from first and second accident consultations, they would have to charge students directly, increase their annual levies, or apply to their respective university administrations for more funds.

A significant percentage of students who use the Health Services do so because of an injury resulting from an accident so the effect on these services would be a major one if the Bill is passed.

Another cut the bill proposes that will affect students specifically is the removal of the section which deals with "lump sum compensation for pain and suffering and for loss of enjoyment of life". This means that permanently injured people who are not workers, such as students, would receive no compensation except in very limited circumstances. They would only be covered by section 118 which provides for potential earners. Only certain types of students who have a job arranged to start within six months of their accident would receive compensation. It should also be pointed out that removal of section 120 would have the effect that housewives and retired people would not be covered by the ACC scheme at all.

Criteria Tightened

Another proposed cut is that lump sum compensation for permanent injury would not be payable unless the disability is 15 percent or more. The loss of an index finger or middle finger is a 12 percent disability. The loss of a toe or seven to twelve teeth is only a 6 percent disability. No one could disagree that these injuries are serious which as well as causing pain and suffering, could lose someone their job.

The Bill also proposes to abolish section 120 which provides for subjective assessment of accident victims. This would mean that, for example, a concert pianist would receive the same amount of compensation for the loss of a hand as would a radio announcer. The obvious difference in consequences such an injury would have for these two people would not be taken into account if the Bill becomes law.

Wide Opposition

The Accident Compensation Scheme has been described by the Quigley Committee as "the cheapest of its kind in the world today" which makes the proposed cutbacks appear unnecessary, even inhumane. There is no doubt that the Bill has caused the Government severe embarrassment. No one supports the Bill as a whole, not even the employers. It is realistic therefore, that various pressure groups can stop it from becoming law. Students form one of these pressure groups.

It should be made clear to government that not only are these cuts unwarranted and unacceptable, they should really be looking to make improvements to the present scheme. An effective system should be set up for the rehabilitation and retraining of injured people, and funds should be channelled into preventing industrial accidents.

The Act as it stands at the moment is extremely complex and lengthy. Even those who work with it daily don't understand it fully. The Act needs to be completely rewritten and extended before it is workable and it is up to groups like students to ensure that this is done.

Michele A'Court