MINERS’ COMPLAINT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9343, 12 January 1909, Page 2

MINERS’ COMPLAINT.

ASTONISHMENT IN iNSURANOE CIROLBS. , STRONG COMMENTS. “What is your opinion of the action of the Goyarment in deciding to indemnity the State Insurance Department against loss for policies covering pneumoconiosis” was a question put by a Post reporter ; Saturday to a gentleman prominent in insurance circles. “What Government?” he demanded in reply. “There is no Government in this country! The Miners’ Executive is the Government! ‘‘ I would point oat to you that it is not the State Insurance Department that has decided to take the risk, he continued. I have never heard of such a thing. What right has the Government to indemnify the State Department? Why does it not do the same in respect of the private companies or the employers? “It’s all very well to suggest that the provision relating to this disease will be repealed next session, but if the Miners’ Executive is strong enough 1 to force its demands to-day, what possible hope oan there be that the executive will consent to give np something it has already obtiained next year? EXTENT OP THE RISK, “People really do not know the extent of the risk involved by compensation for ‘miners’ complaint.’ I venture to say that at Reefton, alone, the risk oan be reckoned at anything from £BO,OOO to £IOO,OOO. If the Government had stood ifirm for another ten days--and it was officially stated that it would stand firm and could not give a blank cheque : the very thing it has - now decided to do—the miners would have submitted themselves to a medical examination. That would have satisfied the insurance companies. We have no objection to accepting a rise when we know the extent of the risk. But why should a .mining company be responsible for compensation in the case of a man who is found to be suffering from the disease, but who, in all probability, contracted it in some other mine. It would be just as reasonable to say that an employer engaged in any industry should be liable to pay compensation in respect of any disease found amongst his hands. We have no objection whatever to taking risks and paying compensation on oases where the disease has been contracted after a clean bill of health has been obtained. ’ ’