WORKERS' COMPENSATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19416, 26 August 1926, Page 8

WORKERS' COMPENSATION.

A further substantial increase in the benefits secured to injured workmen or their dependants is proposed by the Government bill introduced this week. In minor respects the compensation law was made more liberal by an amending Act in 1913, the prinoipal provision being to increase from £2O to £SO the allowance for medical, surgical and funeral expenses in fatal accidents. Tihen in 1920 the Government revised the whole scale of compensation. ' The limitation of earnings used in the 4®fi n ition of worker was raised from £260 to £4OO a yoar. The maximum compensation for death was increased from £SOO tu £750, and the maximum .allowance for incapacity from £2 10s to £3 iss a week with an aggregate of £750 instead of £SOO. It is now proposed that the' compensation payable !•"> the dependants of a worker whos* 1 death results from injury shall be equivalent to four, instead of three, years' earnings, with a minimum of £3OO (instead of £200) and a maxi mum of £IOOO. During incapacity the compensation is to be at the. of 6fi|, instead of 58, per cent., with a maximum of £4 a week, and the aggregate is to be raised to £IOCO. These amendments will bring the New Zealand law so nearly up to th«> extreme level of the recent legislation in New South Wales that they probably mark the practicable limit in compulsory insurance against industrial accidents. In respect of compensation for death, the proposal is actually more liberal than the New South Wales Act's maximum provision of £BOO. The Dominion law is, of course, more conservative in its application to incapacity from other causes than accidental injury, only specified disease? being covered, and the agricultural industries were long since excluded.. Nevertheless, extension of the benefits increases the charge upon industry for insurance which must be passed on to the public as part of the cost of production. Popular commendation of such humane legislation .must therefore be regarded cautiously by the Government, for its duty is not merely to ensure ade quate protection for injured workers but also to measure their relief so prudently that its cost will not become an oppressive charge upon those who, not being legally entitled co claim such benefits, must provide own insurance against the risks of injury.