On the whole, the amendments are improvements on the existing Act. The category of employees covered has widened and the compensation limits have gone up.
However, I would like to seek clarifications on 2 aspects of the Bill.
The first aspect concerns death cases, specifically who is to claim the compensation where the worker has died. Under the existing Act, compensation is to be paid to the worker’s dependants, defined as his immediate family and other relatives. Under this Bill, the Commissioner for Labour is to be empowered to decide not to pay dependants but instead to make payments to the estate of the worker i.e. if the worker left a will, the compensation can be paid to the beneficiaries named in the will.
Sir, I can see why this change could be useful in some situations e.g. there may a worker who has been estranged from his family from young, and has willed away his property to someone else dear to him e.g. a foster parent. In such a situation, it may be fair that the estranged family should not get a windfall from his death.
However, what if the worker is supporting his family, and yet has willed away his possessions to a non-family member? In such a situation of competing claims, what is the Commissioner supposed to do? The amendments say that he cannot give the compensation to both dependents and the estate, but must choose between the two. Is the Commissioner supposed to make a value judgment based on who needs the payment more, or who is more deserving from a moral standpoint? This amendment introduces a possible contentious angle to the Act, and is of concern.
The second aspect relates to compensation for the costs of medical treatment. Under the existing subsidiary legislation (WC Hospital Charges Notification), the worker can claim expenses related to hospital treatment subject to caps per item e.g. ward charges of $9,000, operations may be claimed at $4,800 per admission, and X-Rays at $1,500 per examination. There is no limit to the number of operations, X-Rays or other treatment. Implants and artificial limbs are paid in full.
Clause 37 amends the Third Schedule (at para 5) to now set absolute limits for the costs of medical treatment, being the cost of 1 year’s treatment, or $25,000 per accident, whichever is lower.
As the Minister of State mentioned in his Second Reading speech earlier, there are cases where workers require prolonged treatment or multiple operations exceeding $25,000. We are also not sure how possible means testing for hospitalisation in future will affect the amounts payable. While caps on compensation may be understandable, we are talking here about reimbursements for expenses which have to be paid out. I am told by some lawyers who practice in this area that the current legislation is fair and works well. Could the Minister of State elaborate further on why there is a need to change it?
Finally, I have a comment on the drafting of a provision concerning occupational disease. This concerns Clause 8(b) of the Bill. Clause 8(b) amends S 4(3) of the Act which provides for a situation where a worker contracts an occupational disease some time after leaving employment. Though one can make out the intention of the paragraph, I believe the wording of the section can be re-ordered for clarity.
