INJURIES TO WORKERS.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 October 1922, Page 5

INJURIES TO WORKERS.

COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS. EXTENDING THE BENEFITS. AMENDING LEGISLATION By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. In the House, to-night, the Hon. G. J. Anderson, as Minister of Labor, moved that the Workers’ Compensation Bill, as amended by the Labor Bills Committee, be considered in committee. He explained that the Bill was a consolidating one and was prepared for the last session by Mr. Justice Chapman in his capacity as compiler of statutes, and with the exception of minor amendments, remained as settled by him. The Minister explained the amendments made by the Labor Bills Committee, the principal of which was increasing lhe amount recoverable by a worker under common employment from £750 to £lOOO. The weekly payment during any period of total incapacity now proposed is 58 per cent, of the average weekly earnings at the time of the accident, as against 55 per cent, formerly; and during the period of partial incapacity 58 per cent, of ihe difference. between the amount of the average weekly earnings before the accident and the average weekly amount the worker is earning or able to earn in some suitable employment after the accident. The first schedule of the Bill was amended, providing compensation to a domestic worker who was only employed for half a day. This, he thought, was going too far, and he proposed to ask the House to agree to a further amendment that no compensaiton can be claimed unless a worker is employed for three days. It would be found the benefits of the Bill were generally the most liberal of any measure in any part of the world. Mr. H. Poland (Ohinemuri) declared the Bill was disappointing. It showed no material advance for the benefit of the worker. Time was when New Zealand led in legislation of this kind, but now we were far behind what other countries were doing, and it was idle for the Minister to say we were now giving the highest benefits in the world. The concessions given in re cent legislation were small and infinitesimal. There had been no attempt made to comprehensively amend and improve the law. The only way in which compensation to workers could be put on a proper footing was to make accident insurance. a State monopoly. There were at present some 37 accident insurance companies carrying on business in the Dominion, with the result that premiums were being consumed in expenses and the benefits to workers were being proportionately reduced. •

Mr. L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) maintained that casual domestic employment could be covered, and he did not understand how the committee’s proposal would affect the employment of charwomen. He supported the idea of a State monopoly in accident insurance. The House went into committee and passed the first clause, when the Premier moved to report progress. Mr. R. Masters (Stratford) commented on the uniformity of the rates charged by the Government Accident Insurance Department and those charged by proprietary companies. There seemed to be a complete understanding between them, with the result that people were not receiving the protection from the State Office they ought to be receiving. These companies were making huge profits out of accident insurance, and the premiums could well be reduced. The State Office made a profit of £lO,OOO last year, and it was a question whether some of that profit should not have gone in larger benefits to injured workers. He favored a State monopoly for accident insurance.

Sir John Luke (Wellington North) appealed to the Minister to permit the first schedule to rwnain as it came from the Labor Bills Committee, in order that domestic labor might be covered irrespective of the period of employment. He warned the House against overloading accident insurance with benefits, otherwise the premium must be increased to such an extent as would become an exceedingly heavy tax on employers. Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland) argued in favor of accident insurance being made a State monopoly.