The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1924. WORKERS AND ACCIDENTS.

Evening Star, Issue 18717, 20 August 1924, Page 6

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1924. WORKERS AND ACCIDENTS.

Workers’ compensation for accidents is a subject which is receiving quite its full share of attention from the New Zealand Parliament. In 1922 then existing legislation on the subject was consolidated and amended. As a result it w r as claimed by those who are most intimate with this specialised branch of business that, with the possible exception of the State of California, the benefits payable in New Zealand are on a more generous scale than those obligatory in any part of the world. Nevertheless, Mr Howard recently introduced a Bill to lift compensation in New Zealand to yet higher levels. It proposes (1) to increase the present compensation from 58 to 100 per cent, of the incapacitated workers’ average weekly earnings, though leaving the maximum payment at the present £5 15s a week; (2) to increase the employer’s maximum total liability for weekly payments in cases of incapacity from £750 to £1,000; (3) increasing the payment to total dependents of a worker accidentally killed from £750 to £1,000; and (4) removing the present limitation of £I,OOO on the sum recoverable by a worker injured through negligence by a fellow employee. At present, in the case of death or total disablement, the maximum compensation is £750, plus up to £SO for medical and funeral expenses, and the minimum is three years’ wages. This Bill has been read a second time in Parliament, but, being a private member’s Bill, its prospects of going much further are not considered good. One of the criticisms passed on it was that its originator had not counted the coat, and might be likened to a man who, accosted on the street by a beggar for alms, gives away his entire substance, leaving bis own dependents hard up, but with this difference: that Mr Howard proposes to give away someone else’s substance. It was actuarially calculated that the alterations would necessitate the payment of accident insurance premiums in New Zealand rising from £900,000 to £1,500,000 $ year, and that our industries would virtually be taxed an extra £600,000 a year in consequence. Evidently this argument has had some weight, for the worker is quite alive to the danger of outside competition with his particular in dusky if the latter were to be so handicapped in the matter of accident insurance. The latest Labor move is to throw tlie burden on the State, Yesterday

a Government measure dealing with another phase 'of accident insurance came before the House. Among other things it provides for rebates from surplus profits to insurers with the State Accident Department. Mr Parry, who had been in charge of Mr Howard’s Bill during its second reading, at once revived its principles by urging that increased benefits to injured workers should be a, .prior consideration to any payment of rebates. He followed this up by moving as an amendment to tho Bill that accident insurance should be a State monopoly under the Workers’ Compensation Act. It was an adroit move, and it was only defeated by -seven votes in a moderately full House, apparently receiving Liberal support on Mr Wilford’s lead. It is more than likely that, if the benefits were increased as urged by Labor, there would be no surplus profits from which to make rebates to insurers (tho employers) unless premium rates were raised, as indicated above. The latter step would bo imperative on insurance companies, despite Mr Fraser’s random statement that “the amount paid out in satisfaction of claims by companies was out of all proportion to the amount paid by employers in premiums.” On the strength of this allegation of exploitation Labor would put all accident insurance offices out of action, and give the State a monopoly of what, run on Labor methods, would probably be a losing business. Labor’s proposals amount to mere juggling. If it is possible for industries to escape the extra burden, it will be quite impossible for the taxpayer to escape. It is with bis money that any department of the §tate engages in business.

The annual report of the State Insurance Department appears opportunely to-day. It may be noticed that the section dealing with the accident branch records that the ratio of claims to premiums was higher than usual, owing largely to the increased scale of benefits under the 1922 Act. This is quite in accordance with the experience of other companies. Claims arc also on the increase with them, being far heavier in the last few years than they were ten years ago. Tho higher benefits may be no incentive to a good tradesman to “lay off” work longer tftan is necessary, but it is stated that they tend to act in that way where unskilled or casual labor is concerned; And it has been remarked {hat it is among the younger workmen that any disposition, if not to malingering, at least to exploiting the benefits of the Act to the full, is more pronounced. The old'type of worker appears to be made of sterner stuff. The natural conclusion is that humanitarian legislation may be pushed to a point which develops a danger of impairing the morale of the worker. It is for the Labor leaders to ask themselves whether this is really in the best interests of their followers, and whether we have not already gone far enough in the matter of accident insurance benefits.