TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 11, 13 July 1914, Page 6

TOPICS OF THE DAY

"We are not giving our workers who aro incapacitated "Worse than through accident as Russia!" much compensation! its , is given to disabled workers in Russia," said Mr. Poland, M.P., on Friday, and the Hon. F. M. B. Fisher replied that if the conditions were worse than they were in Russia they were only a legacy from the previous Government. There is cause to behove — as the Minister himself admitted — that better provision should be made for injured workers, but there are alao many reasons for believing that. New Zealand workers, all round, have a much more comfortable life than the Russian toilers. It is true that Now Zealand has much to learn from several older countries in systems of insurance against disablement or unemployment, but visitors from those countries invariably praise the comparatively .happy position held by Labour in this democracy, However, New Zealand is still "worse than Russia" for Bume things, especially in the Red view. During the waterside strike some of the Red Federal froth from the *oap' box included that big bubble "Worse than Russia." For days mob rule wa« supreme at the waterfront. The gates of the wharves were controlled by tho Strike Committee, and rabid rhetoric was roared at the city's main entrance. Yet it was "worse than Russia." So it was — from the viewpoint of the general public, annoyed by the daily clamour of the Tecklese and tho obstrue tion of business. In Russia tjhe autocrats would have been deposed in short order; the noisy disturbers of the peace would not have been allowed so many days' licence to be a grievous nuisance. r H§fS.'a email minojit^—iver^ emalJ,. a* d

events have proved — was Allowed to impose its wild will on the community fov some -days. If the local Rede imagine that New Zealand is "worse than Russia," let them try Russia. The reports of the survivors should be very interesting. A very large subject, in which many . thousands of the pubFire Insurance lie are materially inRisks. terested, was briefly touched by Mr. Buxton, jU.P., last week. Tie complained, in eftect, that companies arrogated to themselves a right to interpret contracts in a manner to suit themselves. "Some companies," he remarked, "accepted premiums for rioks in excess of actual liisurablo values, and said nothing about reducing the amount until a fire took | place, and then they took every possible j means to reduce the amount of the claim under the policy," This statement seems to imply that the companies concerned suspect a tendency to overinsurance, and that, they accept premiums based on excessive valuations, in the confidence that they will 'not bo obliged to pay out in fuil. It. IB necessary, of course, to have the temptation to arson reduced as much as possible, but it is also necessary to have a minimum of injustice or breach of contract in any procedure designed to discourage fire-raising. There must be fairness for each party to the contract, and Mr. Buxton's contention is that the companies have the better of the bargain. It surprising that this old question has not been aired more in these times of agitation for "social justice."