ACCIDENT INSURANCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 235, 4 October 1928, Page 10

ACCIDENT INSURANCE.

STATE MONOPOLY URGED.

LABOUR PARTY'S OBJECTIVE.

PRIVATE MEMBER'S BILL BLOCKED

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. A plea for State monopoly of workers' accident insurance was made by the Labour Opposition in the House of Representatives to-day, when the Labour Bills Committee reported on Mr. E. J. Howard's. Workers' Compensation Amendment—one of an annual series 'of attempts made by the member for Christchurch South to liberalise the system. Considerable evidence had been taken by the committee, especially on clauses dealing with increased medical and surgical allowances and full wages during periods of incapacity through accident. The committee reported that wide differences of opinion were expressed as to charges which would be entailed upon industry if the bill were passed.

Although recommending that the bill be not allowed to proceed, the committee suggested that the Government 6houJd examine the whole matter, including the Ontario system of workers' compensation, and submit a report to Parliament next session. "I quite expected such a report," said Mr. Howard. For nine years the House had been promised'by the. Minister of Labour that an improved method of insurance under the Workers' Compensation Act should be " considered. An officer of the State Fire Insurance Department was sent to Canada to investigate the operation of the Ontario insurance scheme, which cost only five per ceut for management, but Parlia-; ment had never been allowed to see this important document. In face of the opposition of insurance companies, he realised that the committee's report was the only one he could expect;'

"We stand for a State monopoly of accident insurance because we believe that no private company should be allowed to make profits out of the injuries and- misfortunes of the people who suffer them," said Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central). "On this one particular branch of insurance we wish to make it a State monopoly." "Don't you think it would put a .great number out of work!" queried Mr. T. M. Wilford (Hutt.) Mr. Parry said it would not, because there were no canvassers for workers' [compensation insurance. He maintained that all profits should be for tlie benefit of injured workers. All employers should be compelled to insure their employees. "They .are fools if they don't do it now!" observed Mr. Wilford. Mr. Parry said the Labour party did not s£fck a State monopoly for all insurance. The point was that the whole of the insurance should be used for the object for which premiums were paid— compensation for injured workers. That was a very reasonable proposition. Mr. J. A. Lee (Auckland East) said all the Liberal party supported a proposal to make it a State monopoly m days gone by. It was useless for anyone to argue that it would not be a good scheme simply because a few canvassers would be thrown out of work. If a widow of a man killed in an accident were to get 90 per cent instead of 60 per cent, because the State had a monopoly, the extra money she would receive would circulate among tradesmen and make for more employment than would the continuance of the existing system and the employment of a few canvassers. Tip report was received. j }