COMPENSATION BILL

Grey River Argus, 16 August 1934, Page 5

COMPENSATION BILL

Miners’ Disease HON. MR FAGAN'S PROPOSALS.' (Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, August 15. Several amendments to the law governing Workers’ Compensation are proposed in. the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Bill, which Hon Mark Fagan intends to introduce in the Legislative Council. The chief I roposal is that pneumoconiosis. or miners’ phthisis, should be included in flie diesases which are classified as arising out of workers’ employ merit. Should this amendment be adopted it would mean that any miner contracting tkp disease would be eligible ton compensation. Hon. Mr Fagan states that New Zealand is the only major mining country in the world in which aff’icted miners receive a pension from the Consolidated Fund, instead of compensation paid bv the industry. I’he countries in which miners' phthisis Is acknowledged a* an accident arising out of the mining industry include Great Britain, Germany. South Africa, Denmark Belgium. Sweden. Bolivia, Bulgaria, Canada New Soutn Wales and Western Australia.

The Bill also provides that any worker who. having previously tost the sight of an eye. whether by accident Oi>» otherwise, loses the sight of his second eye as the result of injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his e mp’oyment, Miall be entitled to compensation as tor permanent total disablement.

The measure also seeks to make th* compensation payable for the loss of ‘he left arm or left hand the san* as that for the loss of the r ght hand ot right arm.

Mr Parry’s Bill

ADEQUATE COMPENSATION. FOR ALL CASES. (Special to Argus.) WELLINGTON, August 15. “The worker cannot give more than his life, and if he gives that, there should be no difference in the amount of compensation at death, no matter what his earnings may be,” Mr W. Parry (Labour) declared, while moving the second reading of the Work ers’ Compensation Amendment Bill in the House this evening. When a married unemployed man was killed, said Mr Parry, his widow received £3OO, because the Act provided that not less than £3OO should be paid. It did not matter how large the worker’s family might be, his widow had to manage with £300; and it was clear that a woman left in that way would have a hard struggle to keep her home going. The compensation for the loss of the breadwinner should be the same, no matter what his earnings had been, Mr Parry said, because, whether he had been earning £3 a week or £6 a week, the loss was the same. All of the for the home were gone. Under the present Act, he said, compensation for accidents was based on the average weekly earnings, and that meant that a single man receiving 10s a week would receive about 6s 6d per week as compensation. It was obvious that a man could not live on that amount. It was not the fault of the worker that the depression had come about, and as he was forced into the position he was in at the present time, he was entitled to compensation based on his daily earnings irrespective of -whether he worked one day or six a week. The, object of the Bill was to make compensation payable on a basis computed from the daily earnings. If a man were working one day a week for 10s, he would receive compensation as if he were earning £3 a week.

Mr Downie Stewart: What happens if he is not an unemployed man—if he is simply in casual work? Mr Parry: It makes no difference. This applies to all workers. The Pill would make the unemploved worker’s position much better, Mr Parry added, and it would provide much fairer treatment than was received under the present Act.