Mr Sullivan Slams “Private Enterprise Liquidation Bill”

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 11, Issue 95, 4 November 1947, Page 5

Mr Sullivan Slams “Private Enterprise Liquidation Bill”

A strong protest over the pro- . vision of the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Bill relating to the establishment of a State monopoly was voiced by Mr W. Sullivan (National, Bay of Plenty) during the second reading debate of the measure in the House of Representatives.

The State Fire and Accident Insurance Office was not a socialised department—it was a department which was now in competition with all the other accident insurance offices; but once the Bill became law it would become a State department with a monopoly of the accident insurance of the Dominion, he said. “We support the increased benefits provided under this Bill,” added Mr Sullivan. “Our quarrel starts and finishes when it comes to the proposal of the Government to establish a monopoly.”

Mr Sullivan contended that there was no greater form of conservatism than establishing monopolies. Where competition was rubbed out no standard could be set as a gauge for State efficiency. “I would say that this Bill should have been called the “Private Enterprise Liquidation Bill,” he remarked. For fifty years private insurance companies had given good service to New Zealand, and surely the proof of the pudding was in the eating when more than

85 per cent, of the accident compensation insurance was done through the private companies, and less than 15 per cent, by the State. There were far more important problems warranting Government attention than “mucking about with legislation of this kind,” such as production, housing, aid to Britain, and- the problem of inflation. “I would say the workers have had better and more protection under a system of competition than they will ever get under a monopolist State accident scheme,” he said. “I am certain it will not be so efficient as free and private enterprise concerns can be.” One could not bargain with the Government, but if there were other companies the employer could go to the one that would give him the most favourable treatment so that his employees should get the fairest treatment. Once that position was wiped out there would be a policy of “take it or leave it,” and it was that policy that was part of the trouble in New Zealand today. Increased benefits were timely and justified, said Mr Sullivan. “We agree that they are long overdue, but our quarrel with the Government starts when it sets out to monopolise the insurance business. Industry and the State should do everything to ensure that injured workers get the maximum benefit, but we object to the State liquidating insurance companies that are in competition with the State department.”