Accident Compensation In New Zealand: A Comprehensive Insurance System
| Published date | 01 July 1974 |
| Author | D. R. Harris |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1974.tb02388.x |
| Date | 01 July 1974 |
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
~~ ~
Volume
37
~~ ~
July
1974
No.
4
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION
IN
NEW
ZEALAND
:
A
COMPREHENSIVE INSURANCE
SYSTEM
THE New Zealand legislature, on October
20, 1072,
adopted a radi-
cally new approach towards compensation
for
death or personal
injuries suffered in accidents.
It
was originally intended that the
new Act should come into effect on October
1, 1978,
but the Labour
government, which took ofice shortly after the date
of
the Act
decided to widen the scope of the compensation scheme before it
was implemented. On November
23, 1973,
a long amending Act
was passed, and
it
was announced that the amended scheme would
come into effect on April
1,
1974.
This article attempts
to
sum-
marise the main provisions
of
the Act as it reads in its amended
form; but as the Act runs to
185
pages, and the amending Act to
another
50,
this summary cannot be expected
to
cover every detail.
The original Act set up two compensation funds, one for earners;
who were covered for all accidents whenever and however they
occurred, and the other for all who suffered personal injuries in
road accidents. Non-earners injured in accidents not involving
motor vehicles were therefore originally left without cover; by the
provisions of the
1973
amendment, however, these are now to be
covered by a third scheme to be named the Supplementary Scheme.
The result is that everyone injured in any type of accident in New
Zea1and,2 irrespective
of
the cause, will be entitled to claim com-
pensation from the new Accident Compensation Commission.
The new schemes are the result of the Woodhouse Report-a
Royal Commission known by the name
of
its chairman,
Mr.
Justice
Woodhouse 8-and subsequent reports by a government commit-
1
This amendment is in fact the second amending Act, and
is
entitled the
Accident Compensation Amendment (No.
2)
Act
1979.
(The first amending
Act
deals
with relatively unimportant points about levies.)
2
And some earners
who
are injured
in
accidents outside New Zealand.
s
Report
of
the
Royal
Commission
of
Inquiry into Compensation for Personal
1nlur-y
in
New Zealand
(1067).
Comments
on
this Report ‘are
by
Msthieson
(1968)
91
M.L.R.
544;
a
Panel
Diecussion
“691
N.Z.L.J.
297;
Matheson
361
VOL.
37
(4)
362
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
VOL.
37
tee and a select committee of the New Zealand Parliament.5 The
Bill implementing the schemes was supported by both political
parties, and was introduced by a National Party government,
whose outlook is broadly similar to that of the Conservative Party
in England. More recently, the Federal government in Australia
has set up a Committee of Inquiry to report on a National Rehabi-
litation and Compensation Scheme; its chairman is again Mr.
Justice Woodhouse of New Zealand. The Australian report is
expected in March
1974,
and
it
is likely to accept the generdl
philosophy behind the New Zealand schemes. As the legal and
insurance situation in New Zealand, before the Act came into opera-
tion, was basically similar to that
in
England, the
new
schemes
should be
of
direct interest
to
EngIish readers. In New Zealand,
legal liability for accidents has depended mainly on the ability of
the injured person
to
prove the fault
of
the defendant; there has
been compulsory liability insurance for both users of vehicles and
cmployers, and industrial accident victims have been covered by
workers’ compensation. There are of course differences between
New Zealand and England, in particular the size
of
the population:
New Zealand has about three million people, with about
1.12
million wage earners. The concept of the Welfare State has been
widely accepted since
1935,
and the social security system is very
extensive
e;
welfare services already account for
48
per cent. of
government expenditure.’ Besides the State Fire and Accident
Insurance Office, which has competed for many years with the
ordinary insurance companies, there arc numerous other state
agencies whose existence shows that the average citizen has con-
siderable trust in the ways in which civil servants conduct their
duties. New Zealand is an egalitarian society, with a fairly narrow
range of incomes, which has made it easier for Parliament to
fix
ceilings
for
earnings-related compensation under the new schemes.
that no claim, either at common law
or
under
n
statute, may be brought for damages arising out of personal
injury or death suffered by accident in New Zealnnd.8 Before the
introduction of the Supplementary Scheme, the original Act had to
(1969)
18
I.C.L.Q.
191;
Sxakats
(190)
3
U. Tasmania L.Rev. 204.
An
earlier
report
of
an o6cial committee
is
the
Report
of
the Committee
on
Absolute
Liability (1963).
4
l’ersonal
Injury:
a
Commentary
on
the Report
of
the Royal Commission
of
Inquiry into Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand (A White
Paper, 1969). Notes
on
this
report are by McKenzie
(1071)
34
M.L.R.
5.42.
and SZskats
(1070)
4
N.%.Univ.L.Rev.
130.
3
Report
of
Select Committee
on
Compenmtion for Personal
Injury
(1970). The
political history and development
of
the
WodhouRe
proposnls is well recorded
by Palmer (1071) 9 Alberta LRev. 169; Palmer and Lemons
j19721
U.
Illinois
Law Forum
603:
Palmer (1973) 21 Amer..T.Comp.L.
1.
6
For instance, the, first modem criminal injuries compensation scheme
was
introduced by statute
in
New Zealand
in
1963.
s.
5
(as
amended).
This
section
also
abolishe~
the actions
per
quod
seruilircin
njnisit
and
per
quod
consortium
amisit.
6
Or
outside New Zealand, if there is cover
under
the
-4ct
in regpect
of
the
accident.
The Act provides
To continue reading
Request your trial