WORKERS' COMPENSATION.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 13 October 1922, Page 5

WORKERS' COMPENSATION.

AN AMENDING BILL*

EXTENDING THE BENEFITS.

(BY TELEGRAPH —PEEBS ASSOCIATION.; VVJi;L»LIJNCi'IOxN 3 Oct. 12. In the House to-night the Hon. G J. Anderson, as lyLimster tor .Labour inoveu tiiat, tne \VorKers1 Conipensatioi i>iii, as amended by tne Jjaoour Billf committee, oe considered in committee lie explained tnat tne Bill was a consolidating one and was prepared for th« last session by Mr. Justice Chapman lr his capacity as compiler of statutes, and with the exception of minor amendments it remained as settled by him. The Minister explained the amendments made by the Labour Bills Committee, the principal of which was increasing the amount recoverable by a worker under common employment from £750 to £1000. The weekly payment during any period of total incapacity now proposed is 58 per cent, of the average weekly earnings at the time of the accident, as against 55 per cent, formerly, and during the period of partial incapacity 58 per cent, of the difference between the amount of the average weekly earnings before the accident and the average weekly amount the worker is earning or able.to earn in some suitable employment after the accident. The first schedule of the Bill was amended, providing compensation to a domestic worker who was only employed for half a day. This, he-thought, was going too far, and.he proposed to ask the House to agree to a further^ainendment that no compensatioif^can |be claimed unless a worker is '•• employed for three days. It would be found that the benefits of the Bill were generally the most liberal of any measure in any part of the world. Mr. H. Poland (Ohinemuri) declared that the Bill was disappointing.. It showed no material advance for the ! benefit of the worker. Time was when ! l^ew Zealand led in legislation of this {kind, but now, we were far behind what other countries were doing, and it was idle if or the Minister to say we were now giving the highest- benefits in the world. The concessions given in recent ; legislation were small and infinitesimal, i There had been no attempt made to i comprehesively amend and improve the law. The only way in which compen&a-. tion to, workers could be put, on a proper footing was to make accident ■ insurace a State monopoly. There were !at present some 37 accident insurance I companies carrying on business in the Dominion, with the result that premiums were -being1 * consumed in expenses and the benefits to workers' were being proportionately reduced. Mr.'L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) maintained that casual domestic employment could be covered, and he did riot understand how the committee's proposal would affect^ the employment of charwomen. He supported the idea ox a State monopoly accident insurance. ..;■■.• . ■•■■;.• i ■•. ■;. The House went into committee and passed the first clause, when the Premier moved to report progress. Mr. E. Masters (Stratford) commented on the uniformity of the rates •charged by the Government Accident Insurance Department and.those charged by proprietary* There seemed to be a complete understanding between them, with the result that people were not receiving the protection from the State Office they ought to* be receiving. These companies were making huge profits out of accident insurance, and the premiums could well be reduced. The State Office made a profit of £10,000 last year, and it was a question whether some of that pTrofit should not have gone in larger benefits ta injured workers. He favoured a State monopoly for accident insurance. Sir John-Luke (Wellington North) appealed to the Minister to let the first schedule remain as it came from the Labour Bijls Committeee, in order that domestic labour might be covered irrespective of the period of employment. He warned the House against overload-

ing accident" insurance with / "benefits, j otherwise the premram must be increased to such an extent as would become an exceedingly heavy tax on employers. I Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland) argued , i in favour of accident insurance being

made a State monopoly.