WORKER & ACCIDENT

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 86, 11 April 1912, Page 7

WORKER & ACCIDENT

1 QUESTION OF COMPENSATION SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS OF THE ACT. - j To-day tho delegates attending the Trades Councils' Conference discussed the question of amending the Workers Compensation Act. Mr. Burgoyne (Canterbury) moved — " That the Act be amended in the direction of nullifying any agreement that may be entered into with any insurance company and any person entitled to compensation." He stated that frequently workers were induced by representatives of insurance companies to sign away part of their rights. Mr. Sullivan (Canterbury) seconded the motion. Mr. Reader (Timaru) moved an amendment — " That all agreements assigning compensation claims be signed by a magistrate or an inspector of awards." In cases oi complete incapacity it was necessary sometimes to have agreements. He had a doubt as to whether any insurance could be effected if the motion were carried in its present form. Mr. E. Breen (Otago) suggested that the conference should pass a. resolution protesting against the recognition of any agreement which, disentitled any worker "to the full benefits of the Act." STATE CONTROL. The president said that no more important question could com© before the conference. The Act was based on a wrong principle. Here in New Zealand there were a dozen or more insurance' companies making profits out of injury to workers. It was the duty of the Government to make full provision for injured workers, and have a monopoly of the business. Nowadays whan any beneficent amendment of the Act was introduced in Parliamont it was vigorously opposed by the insurance companies. He could quote cases where the insurance companies have taken advantage of injured men In precarious positions and even of widows. Some sort of machinery should be devised whereby a, widow would get assistance the moment the breadwinner died. He declared that workers' compensation should not be made a matter for profit. (Hear, hear.) There was not the slightest doubt that premiums could be greatly reduced if the GovernmaQt controlled the whole business. ' A CASE IN POINT. Mr. D. Coleman (Gisborne) supported Mr. Breen's suggestion and mentioned a case which had come under his notice. As the result of an accident a, man was disabled for life. He would never be able to do another day's work and was slowly dying. After he had received about £12, the agent of the company one day when paying an instalment of compensation, eaid "Oh. Mr. sign this." The man was just about to append Ms signature when it struck him that he should read the document which had been placed before him. Had he signed it he found he would have forfeited his right to all further compensation. As it was he had received to date about £200. Eventually the remit was adopted in the form suggested by Mr. Breen -with the addition that all agpreemeats should be subject to tho supervision of a Magistrate or an Inspector of Awards. CONCERNING OPERATIONS AND PAY, It was agreed: — "That the Workers* Compensation for Accidents Act be amended to take away the power from the Judge which allows "im to withhold compensation unless the patient submits to an anaesthetic for an operation." The resolution of the Drivers' Conference affirming that full compensation, instead of half-pay, should be paid in the case of injury, and that the Compensation Act should be amended to provide for this, was unanimously endorsed "with tiie added recommendation that payment should be made fortnightly. MONOPOLY ENDORSED. Mr. G. R. Whiting (Christchurch) moved: — "That in the opinion of this conference the whole of the insurance business in connection with the Workers' Compensation Act should be taken over by the State." Mr. Golder (AncklandJ seconded the motion. Mr. Burgoya© (Christchurch) said he would support the motion, but he wished to point out that the State Fire Insurance unice in its business was dictated to by private companies. In support of this statement, he quoted a case in which he had figured rather prominently some time ago. It was well, he urged, that these things should be remembered. Mr. D. Coleman (Gisborne) pointed out that the influences referred to would not operate where the Vate had a monopoly. The motion was carried unanimously.