COMPENSATION ACT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 15 August 1924, Page 5

COMPENSATION ACT.

AN AMENDING BILL. A LABOUR MEASURE. (BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 14. The second reading of the "Workers’ Compensation Amendment Bill was moved in the House to-clay by Mr W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central). The Minister for Labour. (Hon. G. J. Anderson) raised the point that this was an appropriation Bill and could not be moved without a. recommendation ol the Crown. The Speaker held that an appropriation clause was only incidental to the Bill, and was not its main feature, and therefore the Bill could proceed. Mr Parry said 'the principle of the Bill was that in the case of death of a worker compensation should be based on the value of the life and not on the earnings of the worker, thus imparting the humane element into the law. MiParry advocated accident insurance being made a State monopoly. If this were done the overhead expenses frould be cut- down and the benefits asked for in this Bill could be paid to workers without increasing the premiums to employers. Profits should not he made by private companies out of sick and suffering humanity. The Hon. G. J. Anderson said he bad hoped to have had a Bill before the House which would have gone into the whole question of compensation foi accidents. Unfortunately this was not possible, but before the session closed he expected to be able to circulate a measure which could be considered during the recess. The Bill before the House was not comprehensive, and it was no use picking out bits here and there. The whole subject must be considered on broad lines. If the Bill were sent to the Labour Bills Committee he would agree to its second reading, but lie did not see now it could get through the committee in its present form.

Mr H. Poland (Ohineinuri) said he agreed with the Minister that the whole subject should be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. This could only he done by the State taking over accident insurance, but he felt that the influence of the insurance companies operating in New Zealand would prevent the present Government taking such a step. No one could say the proposals in the present Bill were unreasonable. If a boiler in a. factory blew up the employer had to nav the whole cost of its restoration. 'Why then should a human being who gets injured at his work not be paid full wages until he is restored to health ?

Mr \\ . D. Lysnar (Gisborne) considered the Bill iinnecessary. A worker still had the right at common law to sue lor any amount of compensation ho chose if he was disabled. The second reading was agreed to.