MORE COSTS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 252, 23 October 1936, Page 9

MORE COSTS.

COMPENSATION BILL.

ANOTHER £60,000.

AN OMAUEES POINTED OUT,

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Thursday.

The principal Opposition speaker on the Workers Compensation Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives to-day, during the second reading stage, was Mr. S. G. Holland (National, Christchurch North). He declared that the cost to the people would be £50.000 or £<>0,000. The policy of the Government, lie said, was to increase costs, although that was diametrically opposed to election pledges of Labour candidates. Mr. Holland said that in the present legislation there were many anomalies that called for review, and he appreciated the difficulty of the Minister of Labour in not having sufficient time for a comprehensive measure to be introduced and passed this session. One of the most important provisions of the bill was that employers who employed workers other than for pecuniary gain were made liable for compensation, and casual workers were brought under the bill. A large number of employers would be affected by the bill, and he suggested to the Minister that he might consider advertising it to a reasonable extent so as to make sure that all those people brought under its provisions -were made aware of the fact. It might be possible for a person to be involved in an expenditure of £1000 and not be aware of the fact until a prosecution was launched by the Labour Department. Share-milkers. After approving of certain provisions of the measure, Mr. Holland said that in the case of share-milkers it was possible for the amount of the compensation to be equal to the amount of the wages received, because the compensation was to be based on two-thirds of the basic wage for industrial workers and not two-thirds of the wages provided in the Agricultural Workers Act. Mr. Holland suggested that the provision that compensation" should rank with, wages' in claims against bankrupt estates should be extended to include cases where private assignments were made by firms. The Minister, he said, liad quoted the position in Queensland, but had not told the whole story. When asked if losses had been made under the workers' compensation system in Queensland, the Minister had dismissed the matter by saying that there had been some small losses. Actually in the four years from .1032 to 1035 the total premium income in Queensland was £1,300,000, and the total amount paid out in claims was £1,301,000, while working expenses had amounted to £220,000. The total payout was £1,581,000. and the total lo'ss made on the operation of the Workers' Compensation .Department was no less than £277,000 —an average of £09,000 a year. The Minister, Mr. Armstrong: For 20 years no losses were made but there were substantial surpluses, and the losses of the last four years were paid out of the accumulated profits. Operating Costs. The operating costs in New Zealand, said Mr. Holland, were less than in Queensland, where there was a State monopoly. The Hon. A. Hamilton (National, Wallace): That's the stuff to give them. Mr. Holland said the Opposition did not object to the bill on its merits, but did object to .being misled and told only half the story by the Minister. In New Zealand of each £100 of premium income 71.39 per cent went to the workers, and 25 per cent in working expenses, a large proportion being absorbed in salaries and wages. Mr. D. McDougall (Independent, Mataura): What pays for the big buildings if the money goes in salaries and wages? Mr. Holland: The big buildings are paid for by interest on the investment of capital brought from overseas. With an increase in benefits the natural corollary was that the number of claims would increase, he added. That had happened in Queensland where the per capita cost of workers' compensation insurance was 7/2 as against only 4/0 in New Zealand. The extra cost of the bill would be at least 14 per cent, as estimated bv the underwriters.