PARLIAMENT State Monopoly Debated In House

Greymouth Evening Star, 24 October 1947, Page 3

PARLIAMENT State Monopoly Debated In House

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, October 23. Government spokesmen in the House of Representatives this evening claimed that the State monopoly proposed in the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Bill would give a more economical and efficient service. Opposition speakers, opposing the Bill as an attack.on private enterprise, predicted that premiums would 'be increased. The House was still debating the second reading when the House adjourned. Mr W. Freer (Government, Mount Albert) said the State Fire Office began from scratch in 1908 and today had assets of £1,500,000. It had reduced premiums for most insurance risks in this country, some by 10 per cent., others by 33 per cent., and private institutions had mostly been compelled to fall into line. Attitude To Minority

It was unfortunate that progressive legislation usually could not be intro-, duced without affecting a small minority, said Mr Freer, and the minority in this case consisted of those employees of insurance com-panies-who were engaged exclusively in workers’ compensation insurance work.

Mr W. Sullivan (Opposition, Bay of Plenty) said the Bill should be called the “Private Enterprise Liquadation Bill” for its purpose was to wipe out private insurance competition. For 50 years private companies had given good service and in his own experience he had never had any difficulty in obtaining a quick and reasonable settlement of every case. More than 85 per cent, of the insurance against employers’ liability was done through private companies, indicating a lack of support for the State insurance office. . “More Important Things To Do” . Mr Sullivan said the Government had far more important things to do “than' mucking about with legislation of this sort.” ‘There were questions of housing, of production, of aid to Britain, and of supplies and materials, which could more profitably engage the Government’s attention. Mr Sullivan said workers had better and more protection under the system of competition than would be possible from a monopolistic State department. The policy of take it or leave it would be adopted as with all monopolies.

Mr Sullivan said he would like some member of the Government to deny that it was intended to take control of oil importations and retail distribution. Perhaps there would soon be a State fire insurance monopoly.

A Government member: I hope so.

Interests Of Workers

Mr Sullivan said that without competition charges would increase and ultimately the workers would be worse off. The sooner the workers “turfed out this Government” the sooner would their interests be protected.

The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr W. E. Parry) said the Government believed that, if workers’ insurance was made a State monopoly and all duplication was cut out, the service could be run more economically and premiums would be less. He reiterated that money which was paid to meet workers’ insurance should go to the benefit of men and women whom it concerned. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland): Would you say the same about fire. v Mi* Parry: Let us deal with one thing at a time. Mr E. B. Corbett (Opposition, Egmont) said the Bill had been brought down to placate the Leftists who uttered tirades against banks, stock and station agents, and insurance companies. Clause 8, by which any deficiency might be made good out of the Consolidated Fund or by borrowing, or by utilising the National Development Loans Account,

was a case of the people’s being shot with their own ammunition.

Mr D. W. Coleman (Opposition, Gisborne) said any person who had been in public life knew that at diferent times certain insurance companies had endeavoured to evade their responsibilities. He was'minus a thumb, but a certain insurance company had contended that he was not—that another three-quarters of an inch would have to be lost before he could claim that. He had also claimed for the loss of a finger, but was told he was one-eighth of an inch off justifying this claim. DIRECT BLOW TO FREEDOM, FORMER SERVICEMEN SAY (P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. Objection to the Government’s proposal to make workers’ compensation insurance a State monopoly was expressed yesterday by a meeting of about 60 former servicemen employed in insurance businesses in Christchurch.

“We feel that this monopoly is a' direct blow at the freedom for which we gave our services to our country 'and for which many of our profession gave their lives,” said a resolution passed by the meeting. “Any compulsion by the Government is a betrayal of the promises of freedom made to us as servicemen. This freedom has already been restricted, in that former servicemen are compelled to plade their insurances on rehabilitation loans with the State Fire Office. We therefore urge that the monopoly clause in the Bill before the House of Representatives be deleted.”

The resolution will be sent to the Minister of Rehabilitation (Mr C. F. Skinner).

INSURANCE WORKERS OPPOSED TO STATE MONOPOLY

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, October 23. Opposition to the “monopoly sections” of the Workers Compensation Bill was expressed last evening by the general secretary of the New Zealand General Insurance Industrial Union of Workers (Mr P. j. Doogan), who also replied to criticism of his union by the Canterbury Trades Council.

Mr Doogan said that the members of his union wholeheartedly supported increased benefits to workers, but opposed the monopoly to the State Fire and Accident Office. There were nearly 5000 employees of private and mutual co-operative companies and those handling workers’ compensation would either lose their training and experience or have to accept employment in the State Fire Office where the prospects of advancement were poor.

On the present Public Service scale, Mr Doogan said, only four employees in the Auckland State Fire Office received more than £535 a year, but private companies in Auckland had 96 positions carrying more salary than that. In the whole of the State Fire Office throughout New Zealand only 47 employees received more than £535 a year.

Superannuation benefits with private companies also compared more than favourably■ with the State office, as the worker Who never rose above £5OO a year could draw as much as £5OOO upon retirement. Mr Doogan added that the union considered the limits proposed in the Bill were still too low and he suggested that the Canterbury Trades Council might protest about that instead of abusing the insurance workers for opposing a monopoly against the interests of the workers in general.