Story: Workplace safety and compensation
Page 4 – Workplace conditions, 1990s and early 2000s
In the early 2000s office workers easily outnumbered people in tough, dangerous physical work – but they were afflicted by injuries such as occupational over-use syndrome (OOS). New Zealanders tended to work long hours compared with other industrialised countries: 50 or more hours per week. Some occupations, such as farmers, fishers and truck drivers, were likely to work long hours and also work outside normal working hours. Lengthy work periods without rest added to their risk of workplace accidents. Workplaces were far safer, but workers continued to be killed, injured and infected with disease in their jobs.
One cause of work-related illness and death identified in the late 20th century was asbestos poisoning. Asbestos was widely used in New Zealand for most of the 20th century as a building and insulation material, but was banned in 1991. People exposed to asbestos do not usually suffer ill effects for at least 20 years, and this time lag helped to conceal the risks of using the material.
Improving workplace safety
As well as the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) injury prevention campaigns, workplace safety was promoted by the Department of Labour’s occupational safety and health inspectors in the early 2000s, who could take employers to court for breaches of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. This act required employers to eliminate, isolate and minimise hazards in the workplace. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 set special requirements for handling explosive, toxic or other dangerous materials at work.
ACC
In 2009 the ACC system continued the basic principles outlined when it was set up, but it has been altered over time. The Accident, Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 introduced experience rating, which set employers’ levies based on the amount of previous claims they had made. It reduced the level of payments that could be made for rehabilitation and compensation.
Changing the ACC scheme
Since its introduction in 1974, the ACC scheme has been criticised at various times by trade unions, politicians and employers. A few ACC claimants have taken advantage of the scheme by claiming compensation after they are able to resume paid work. Critics think that because New Zealanders no longer have the right to sue for compensation, there is less incentive to prevent workplace accidents.
ACC’s monopoly on accident compensation has been claimed to be financially inefficient, and critics have queried whether the government should own an insurance scheme. In 1998 the Accident Insurance Act opened part of the scheme to commercial competition, but it was repealed following a change of government the following year.
An independent evaluation by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in 2007 found the ACC scheme achieved a level of benefits and performance comparable with Australia and other countries, at a lower cost, but political parties continued to campaign to reform ACC, and reintroduce private sector participation in accident compensation insurance.
