In the Issues Paper we ask a number of important questions which arise out of our terms of reference. The questions are intended to offer guidance to people and organisations who wish to make submissions to us. Our purpose in doing this is not to limit the scope of submissions and we recognise that there will be further questions which we should consider. Some of the questions asked in the Paper are set out below.

A. General Questions

1. What are the basic principles which should underlie compensation arrangements in respect of accidental death and injury?

2. What is the justification, if any, for distinguishing between the entitlement of different categories of accident victims, as occurs under the current compensation arrangements?

3. Which sections of the community should bear the cost of compensating accident victims?

4. If it is shown that resources are insufficient to establish an ideal scheme for accident compensation, what objectives should be given priority? For example, should preference be given to providing full compensation to certain classes of accident victims, or to providing some compensation (beyond entitlement to social security) for a wider class of victims?

5. To what extent do existing compensation arrangements serve the goals of safety and rehabilitation?

B. No-Fault Accident Compensation

A new scheme?

1. Should a new no-fault scheme (or schemes) be introduced in New South Wales to provide compensation in respect of accidental death or injury?

Effect of existing systems

2. If so, what should be the effect of any new scheme on existing compensation systems, specifically the common law negligence action and the workers' compensation system?

Coverage of the scheme

3. What should be the coverage of any new scheme? For example, should it apply to death and injury arising out of

(a) motor vehicle accidents;

(b) work-related accidents (including journey injuries and occupational diseases);

(c) specific kinds of accidents such as those caused by criminal violence or those occurring during sporting activities;

(d) accidents to earners (including the self- employed) whenever and wherever occurring; or

(e) some combination of these?

4. Alternatively, should the scheme attempt to provide coverage for all accidents suffered by any member of the community, 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Is such a scheme feasible, given the limited resources of the State?

Benefits

5. What benefits should be provided under the scheme in respect of:

(a) pecuniary loss;

(b) non-pecuniary loss such as pain and disfigurement;

(c) injuries suffered by people who are non- earners, such as students and housewives;

(d) death and permanent partial incapacity?

6. In what form should benefits be provided under the scheme?

Financial arrangements

7. How should any new scheme be financed? What should be the relationship, if any, between the financing of the new scheme and compulsory third party and employers' liability insurance? Are there any sources of revenue, other than existing compensation schemes, which can and should be utilised for any new scheme? Should any portion of the scheme be financed from Consolidated Revenue?

8. What steps, if any, should be taken to integrate any new no-fault scheme with Commonwealth taxation, social security and health care arrangements? Should the Commonwealth be asked to contribute to the cost of any new no-fault scheme and, if so, on what basis and in what matter?

Administration

9. What body or bodies should be responsible for administering the scheme? What procedures should be followed in determining claims?

10. What measures should the scheme take to promote safety and rehabilitation

11. At what stage should disputes be referred to a court or tribunal Should a separate tribunal be established to hear and determine disputes or should this be a matter for the ordinary courts?

C. Existing Systems - The Common Law

1. Should the common law negligence action be retained in whole or in part?

2. If the common law negligence action is to be retained (whether in whole or in part) should it be modified, for example, by

(a) amending any principle of law which governs liability in negligence;

(b) introducing periodic payments to replace lump sum awards, whether partially or wholly;

(c) imposing restrictions on the award of compensation for non-pecuniary loss (for example, by abolishing damages for pain and suffering in relatively minor cases);

(d) altering the principles on which damages are assessed, with a view to reducing the size of awards?

3. Should changes be made in the way in which common law negligence actions are conducted, for example in relation to deciding disputed medical questions?

D. Existing Systems - Workers' Compensation

1. Should any new no-fault scheme replace, in whole or in part the workers' compensation system? If so, to what extent?

2. If the workers' compensation system continues, should there be an attempt to integrate the benefits available under any new no-fault scheme operating in relation to non-work accidents with those available through the workers' compensation system? What problems arise in determining the relationship between a new no-fault scheme and the workers' compensation system?

3. If workers' compensation should be retained as a separate system, should the system be changed, for example, by

(a) extending the coverage provided by the legislation to self-employed people suffering work-related injuries or diseases;

(b) replacing private insurers by a single governing authority;

(c) establishing new procedures for processing claims to replace the adversary procedures now used;

(d) changing the benefits available to injured workers (for example, in cases of long-term incapacity);

(e) curtailing or abolishing the Workers' Compensation Commission’s power to approve lump sum redemptions of the insurer’s liability to pay future compensation?

E. Existing Systems - Criminal Injuries

1. Should any new no- fault scheme replace, in whole or in part, the existing criminal injuries scheme?

2. If the scheme is to be retained, should there be changes in the benefits available and in the means by which claims are processed?