WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 11 August 1928, Page 9

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

BILL TO AMEND THE ACT “THREE MAIN POINTS” (From “The Parliamentary Reporter). WELLINGTON, 9th August. No .objection was raised by tho Government to the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Bill of Mr E. J. Howard (Christchurch South) being read a second time when, it came up for consideration in the House of Representatives last night, and the measure was ; referred to a Select Committee. | Mr Howard said that tho Bill con- : Gained three main points, but it did not goi so far as Labour would like. To 1 avoid the Bill being thrown out as involving an appropriation, tho Grown had been exempted from tho scopo of its operations. For all that, he would like tho Crown to bo bound by tho Bill and to make a monopoly of that class of insurance. Tho Bill provided that an injured worker should receive full wages and medical expenses from tho date of accident. Labour would continue to press its demands until they wore granted. The late Mr Justice Salmond, who hud drawn the first workers’ compensation Jaw, had never intended that an injured worker should be treated differently from an animal which had been injured in the service of that worker’s employer. Men injured on the industrial field were entitled to equal treatment to soldiers wounded on the battlefield, who rightly received the best surgical attention. The Bill also proposed that all workers should he paid alike, regardless of occupation, in cases of total disablement or partial total disablement. He could never understand why a worker should be compensated according to his rate of wages. Anyone suffering total disability should bo paid £IOOO instead of 100 per cent, of his total weekly earnings. All workers would then be placed on the same footing. He was also asking for the removal of the last remnant of the bad old system known as “common employment” under which the amount a man could sue for was limited to £IOOO. It had never been intended that the limitation of “common employment” should go into the workers’ compensation law. No worker could proceed under the common employment cause except in the case of wilful negligence on the part of the employer. A worker could only sue for damages on the ground that the employer had been wilfully negligent and the damages were limited to the amount of £IOOO. The doctrine had been described by a former Judge as bad and pernicious, and Mr Howard said h« would be satisfied if he succeeded in altering that alone. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) said that the amendments sought had long been asked for by tho industrial workers. Tho common employment clause was taken advantage of most unfairly by some employers and insurance companies. It would be argued that the passage of the Bill woijld result in increased premiums, but he believed , the premiums paid by the employers would not bo affected to any great extent. Mr W. Parry (Auckland Central) submitted that death levelled all ranks, and that the widow of a worker killed in the course of his duty should be compensated irrespective of the amount of his wages. If a worker met with an accident, industry should ensure him full wages while ho was incapacitated. The Minister of Lands (the Hon. A. D. McLeod) said he did not think anyone in the House would object to the sentiments of Mr Howard in regard to pension increases, knd the Government had had a large amount of data prepar-

od iii connection with the matter. An ’ ollicer had been sent overseas, and tho Minister of Labour himself was inquir- j 'mg into tlio matter whilo lie was abroad. , The Government would offer no objection to the second reading of tho Bill, and tho Minister suggested that the mover move to liavo it referred to tho

Labour Bills Committee. Mr McLeod paid a tribute to Mr Howard’s persistence in regard to improvement of the workers’ compensation law. After Mr Howard had replied, the Bill was read a. second time on the voices and referred to the Labour Bills Committee.