STATE INSURANCE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 20 August 1924, Page 5

STATE INSURANCE.

G OVERNMENT 'BILL. EXTENSION OF THE ACT REBATES FROM SURPLUS PROFITS. LABOUR FAVOURS STATE MONOPOLY. (BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION.) rp . WELLINGTON, Aug. 19. lhe second reading of the Government Accident Insurance Amendment Bill was moved in the House to-day by the Hon. Sir R. H. Rhodes. . In doing so the Minister said that in iiddition to the business authorised by the principal Act power is vested in the Accident Insurance Department to insure against accident to, property, including an indemnity for liability. The provision in the 1908 Act limiting the amount, of accident insurance to £2OOO is repealed in .respect of persons. Provision is made for rebates trom the surplus protits to insurers, as is the case with State fire insurance policies in lieu of bonuses. Mr W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) moved an amendment to the title of the Bill that accident insurance should De a State monopoly under the •Workers’ Compensation for Accidents . Act, after several points of order had Wow raised by the Government against the amendment and ruled out by the Speaker. The Hon. J. G. Coates suggested that as the Government Accident Office was working -very well it was best to let well alone. Mr W. I>. Lysnar (Gisborne) said such it change could not be made without further information. Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central) said the amount paid out in satisfaction of claims by companies was out 6f all proportion to the amount paid by employers in premiums. Mr G. Witty (Riccarton) contended that insurance benefits should be in-, creased, but a State monopoly should not be set up. The Hon. G. J. Anderson said the amandment meant confiscation, which was, of course, in accordance with the Labour Party’s policy. Mr T. M. Wilford (Leader of the Opposition) said the amendment did not mean confiscation. Not a single business would be closed up if the amendment was carried. Mr Massey said lie had been over thirty years in Parliament, and had never witnessed such tactics as these.If the amendment was carried it meant that the Bill would he dropped. He was satisfied that if the. change proposed in the Bill was carried into effect it would go a long way to create a State monopoly, because no other office would be able to compete with the State office. Mr 11. Masters (Stratford) said the Premier could not make a State monopoly of accident insurance unless the State Office was taken out of the insurance ring. Mr Massey denied that the office was in any ring. Mr Masters said it was remarkable that there was no difference in the" rates between any of the offices, which indicated there was a ring. Mr Massey said the position was that the Government actually fixed the rates and the other offices followed them. Mr Masters said that was a very good way of getting out of it, but he had his doubts. Continuing, Mr Masters said the Bill as brought down was a good Bill, but he was satisfied that if the amendment was curried it would go a long wav to reduce overhead costs of accident insurance and clear the wav for improved benefits. He thought the State Fire Office was lacking in iniativc and required a little “ginger” put into the administration. lie believed accident insurance should be. a State monopoly, as that was the only way by which the premiums could be made small and the benefits as large as possible. Mr -T. W. Mu tiro (Dunedin North) said there was no sinister motive behind .Mr Parry’s amendment. They simply wanted to put members on side or off side on this question of accident insurance.

After further debate the amendment was defeated by 35 votes to 28, .and the Bill was read a second time.