WORKER'S INJURIES.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 14 October 1922, Page 7

WORKER'S INJURIES.

INCREASE IK" COMPENSATION

BILL BEFORE THE HOUSE

(BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 13. Tne House wenc into committee on trie woods' Compensation Bill tomgnt. Un clause 4 3 Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland moved an amendment uuic a deceased worker's dependents should receive compensation equal to the amount of the deceased's average .vfcelcly earnings tor hve years. He denned to see the dependents of the small wage-earner benefited by the increased compensation provided for higher-paid persons under the existing legislation. Air. T. M. Wilford (Leader of the Opposition) said the basis, of compensation should be a weekly allowance for widows and dependents, and not on lump sum payments. He cited the pensions system as the fairest basis. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) said that if an increase in compensation in the case of a higher-paid man was justified, surely a. proportionate mI crease in the case of a lower-paid man' ' was equally justified. Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labour Party) said the increase asked! for need not entail any addition to the ' premiums, as insurance companies now | received twice as much in premiums as they paid out in claims. ' He thought' the amendment was extremely moder-' ate. -- I Dr. H. T. Thacker (Christchurch East) urged that in the case of younger widows and dependents the compensa-' tion for young dependents should be allocated and secured to them by statute, and not left to be disposed of at the will of the mother, who might, not always act in the children's best in- ' terests. The Minister said the proposal would mean an addition of 20 per cent, to premiums, and the Government could not ask for this from employers in th© present condition of business and industry. The Bill as it stood made the best provision of any compensation in the worl<3. Mr. D. Munro (Dunedin North) stressed the position of women workers in the industrial field earning small wages. The House should surely see that these received just treatment for themselves and their dependents. The Hon. Downie Stewart said the increase given in the 1920 amendment was designed simply to see that each case of compensatioM intended to he

given under the original Act should accrue in every case. ' I Mr. Holland thought the amendment so moderate* thai it did not meet the position, and he' appealed to the Minister to hold tfos clause' over until he had time to go into the' whole position. On a division the arfiendnient was defeated by. 35 votes to 24. On clause 5, Mr. Wiliord 1 moved to delete from sub-clause 10 the words

"but not exceeding one pound," which : would mean that an injured person would, in addition to the compensation payable, be entitled to reasonable expenses incurred in respect of. medical j or surgical attendance. , ! The Minister said he-was.- unable to _ accept the amendment, because in. 1920 ! the percentage was increased from 50 ■to 55, the intention being at that tinse ; that the additional 5 per cent, was to assist an injured person, to meet- Ms I medical expenses. In this Bill the percentage was again. being, increased 'to 58, which still further ass-istect an irt- • jured person. Further, the.' amendment ] , left the amount for medical services j too "open. It- would amount to* £2®, and that would: become a serious mat- ■ ter, - - .. ■ ! Mr. Wilford said' expenses still had! ' to be reasonable, but if the Minister wanted a definite amount they might | substitute £5 for the; £1 he proposed ! to strike out. " ' The amendment was defeated on. the voices. The- remaining clauses were passed as amended by the Labour Bills Committee: « . ■ ■ In the second schedule* Mr. Parry moved an amendment to include compensation for the total loss- of a big toe. It; was pointed out that, timber workers were specially liable^ to this class of accident. I The Minister said he recognised the / merits of the case, and if it could be 1 done without undue expense he would1 I have the' amendment inserted in the Legislative Council. On this understanding Mr. Parry ), agreed" to withdraw his amendment. The Bill was then reported, read a third time and passed. I'