Higher Compensation For Injured Workers

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 772, 19 September 1929, Page 6

Higher Compensation For Injured Workers

LABOUR MEMBERS’ BILL MINISTERIAL APPROVAL THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter WELLINGTON, Wednesday. The second reading of his Workers’ Compensation Amendment Bill was moved by Mr. E. • J. Howard (Christchurch South) in the House this evening, and after receiving Ministerial approval was referred to the Labour Bills Committee. . Mr. Howard said the Bill did not contain all that Labour wanted In connection with workers’ compensation, but it did meet immediate demands.The Bill contained five principal points. At the present time a worker had to be incapacitated for three days before he was entitled to compensation, and the Bill reduced this period to two days. He hoped that the time would come when compensation would be paid immediately following injury. Another provision sought to grant full wages, instead of the present 66 .2-3 per cent., to injured workers. Another point referred to the present .stipulation that medical and surgical expenses should not exceed £l. The Bill asked for full medical and surgical attention. A fourth principle dealt with compensation for partial or complete Incapacitation and sought to do away with the present basis of payment in accordance with the wages of an injured worker. The Bill asked that compensation should be paid to a worker or his dependants regardless of his average weekly wage. LIMITATION OF AMOUNT The last point was designed to do away completely with the “common employment” principle, under which a worker was restricted to compensation to the extent of £I,OOO. He referred to separate cases in which two men in different places met with similar accidents. One man was killed immediately and his dependants received £2,500 damages. In the other case, where the man lingered in agony for three weeks before death, his dependants were established to be entitled only to payment under the Workers’ Compensation Act because death was not immediate. The limit under this Act was £I,OOO, and in this particular ease the legal costs and other expenses after the case had been taken to the Privy Council reduced the amount which the widow received to a very small sum. The Hon. T. M. Wilford said he was In favour of amending the present Act by removing the limitation of compensation to £I,OOO, and by providing for full medical and surgical expenses in a case of injury. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) said he did not agree that an employer should be called upon to bear all the responsibility in a case of accident. He thought the Bill should go before the Labour Bills Committee. The author of the Bill had apparently only one object, namely, to secure advantages for the workers, and he did not consider the effect on industry. The Bill would have far-reaching effects. INSOLVENT EMPLOYERS Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) complained that there had been cases in which workers or dependants had been deprived of compensation because their employers had not insured them and had become insolvent. He claimed this emphasised the need of compulsory insurance by employers, as provided for in the Bill. The Hon. W. A. Veitch said he thought the Bill, as a humanitarian measure, would receive the sympathetic consideration of the House. He would like to see It go Defore the Labour Bills Committee. He said that the humanitarian proposals at present before the Government would, if all were passed into law, cost the State £1,000,000 a year, and the Government had to keep that fact in mind. Mr. Veitch stated that in conjunction with one other member of the Ministry he had given a good deal of consideration to the question of workers’ compensation, and he anticipated that when the Bill was before the Labour Bills Committee he would receive a number of valuable suggestions. He trusted that the present Bill, after it had passed through the hands of the Labour Bills Committee, would be received sympathetically by the House. The Bill was read a second time on the voices and referred to the Labour Bills Committee.