COMPENSATION INSURANCE

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25328, 30 October 1947, Page 8

COMPENSATION INSURANCE

PARLIAMENT

LONG DISCUSSION IN HOUSE

SECOND READING CARRIED 39 TO 35 (P.A.) WELLINGTON. October 29. Government members withdrew from the second reading debate on the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Eill this afternoon, but came back into it in the early part of this evening. Then they left it to the Opposition again. \ The Opposition ended its attack on the second reading at midnight and the Minister of Labour (Mr McLagan) replied. The House divided on the second reading, which was carried by 39 to 35, at 12.35 a.m. and adjourned immediately without going into committee on the bill. Mr T. L. Macdonald (Opposition, Wallace) said the Government’s desire was less to give more efficient service than to find something else to nationalise. The Government was being driven by doctrine at the expense of efficiency and that trend would continue into other sections of industry unless a halt was called. Mr R. G. Gerard (Opposition, Ashburton) said that successful business after successful business had disappeared into the capacious maw of the Government, .which was achieving its objective step by step. The Government’s policy was leading to more bureaucracy and less political freedom, and it was inevitable that that policy would go along the red road to the completely Socialist. Mr J. K.. McAlpine (Opposition, Selwyn) said that when competition was withdrawn it would be interesting to see if increased benefits could be paid to workers without an increase in premiums. Premiums Under State The inference to be drawn from the statement by the Minister of Labour that there would be an increase in workers’ compensation premiums was that management would not be as good as management under private companies and that expenses in administration would be higher, said Mr A. J. Murdoch (Opposition, Marsden). If the Government had taken more precautions in the prevention of accidents and had left the monopoly clause out of the bill the measure would have been more enthusiastically received. Mr Mathison (Government, Avon) said public control of the workers’ compensation branch of insurance would be as effective as public control of utilities and the only disadvantage in the bill was that to a small group of shareholders. Mr A. E. Armstrong (Government, Napier) said the bill would do no great harm to insurance companies. Mr A. S. Sutherland (Opposition, Hauraki): It will eliminate some of them altogether. Mr Armstrong: If it does eliminate them altogether, I am quite sure the Government will be only too pleased to take over the whole of their responsibilities. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland): That’s the next step. Mr Armstrong said that in the main insurance companies had been very fair, but he could quote instances where private companies ran away from their responsibilities after the Napier earthquake and also where the State department measured up foursquare. Certain companies declared the fires which followed the Napier earthquake were caused by an “act of God.’’ Mr R. M. Macfarlane (Government, Christchurch Central) said he thought the day would come when the Government would provide for the payment of 100 per cent, of wages during the period of an injured worker’s disablement. The issue of “ultimate Socialism” was fought at the last General Election, and the Government had a mandate for its advanced legislation. Government’s Profits

Mr J. R. Hanan (Opposition, Invercargill) said that’ if the State office was capitalised on the same basis as the companies it would be paying even greater dividends. Private enterprise might well take a lesson from what was happening under the bill. Mr.W. A. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago) said the bill was a frank admission that Socialism could not survive if faced with the competition of private enterprise. An insurance policy was nothing more than a contract of indemnity and the rights of workers were determined by statute Employers would go where they could get the best cover at the lowest cost. If the State was able to give the service the Government claimed it did it would have cleaned up the insurance business long ago. The bill was really to enable the Government to obtain additional revenue, and it might be described as a system of indirect taxation. . . Mr W. H. Gillespie (Opposition, Hurunui) said the idea of the bill was not to give better service but to ob- , tain greater profits Tor the Government. One had only to refer to the earthquake and war damage insurance scheme, in which the Government had built ud a fund which now stood at £5.000.000. He wondered if the real object of the bill was to enable the Governmept to unload some of the huge social security payments on to employers. Mr McLagan, m his reply, said many members of the Opposition had talked about aid to the British. He thought they were more concerned about the South British. There were many interjections during Mr McLagan’s soeech, and Mr Sneaker (Mr R. McKeen) called the House to order three times. _