STATE AND INSURANCE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 418, 28 July 1928, Page 14

STATE AND INSURANCE

LABOUR’S DEMAND FOR MONOPOLY MR. VEITCH JOINS IN (THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter.)WELLINGTON, To-day. Presentation of the State Insurance Department’s report yesterday afternoon gave Labour members the opportunity to air their views about socialisation, particularly as applied to workers’ insurance, whidh they contended should be a State monopoly. The discussion yielded interesting exchanges, with Mr. D. Jones (Ellesmere) remarking that Mr. Veitch, who contributed to the discussion, was on very thin ice.

Mr. W. E. Parry quoted the balance sheets of insurance companies to show that only 3S per cent, of the money they received in premiums was returned in benefits, the rest going: in commissions and profits. This furnished an argument for making insurance a State monopoly. Year after year, however. Labour’s appeal fell on deaf ears. It was a matter of immense importance to workers. Mr. Parry said that it was time accident insurance was made a State monopoly. If that were done workers would get a much greater return for the premiums paid. He believed the time would come when the State would tJmost be compelled to take the step, and he trusted the Minister would take the suggestion. Under the scheme he proposed it would be compulsory for all to insure their employees, and there would be a great deal of saving in expenses, and profits and commissions could be absorbed in added compensation payments. A State scheme would be of benefit both to employee and employer. Other Labour members spoke in a similar strain. SMALL ADMINISTRATION COSTS The Hon. F. J. Rolleston, in reply, said that only 22 per cent. of the revenue of the department went in administrative charges ?nd 78 per cent, j was paid out in compensation. These figures could be confirmed by insurance statistics in 1926, in which year 61 per cent of revenue was paid by all offices in the Dominion in prem- j

iums. When these facts were known the position was not nearly so bad as critics of the department would make it appear. The State Accident Insurance Department was not run by other, and rival, offices. It was entirely independent, and the present Government should be given the same credit for the increase in tne business of the office. Mr. T. W. Rhodes (Thames) asked the Minister what were his intentions as to third party insurance, and Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) dissected more insurance figures in support of the Labour socialisation policy. Forty insurance companies operating in New Zealand, ho said, were making large profits out of the misfortunes of others. It was a charge which had no right to be imposed. “ON THIN ICE” Mr. W. A. Veitch drew attention to the heavy legal costs incurred by workers in their claims for compensation. In many cases where workers believed injuries due to employers’ carelessness they were deterred from going to Court with their claims by the knowledge that after paying legal costs, even were their actions successful, there would be very' little left for themselves. In view of the United—or dis-United —Party’s slogan of non-interference with private business, said Mr. D. Jones, Mr. Veitch was skating on very thin ice when discussing insurance. Mr. D. G. Sullivan said he was sorry to see Mr. Jones and Mr. Veitch emulating Heeney and Tunney. Mr. J. A. Lee: They would be disqualified. It would be no fight. Mr. Sullivan went on to say that it appeared to be questionable whether legislation was put on the Statute books to yield dividends for private business or to assist the people. Mr. j. a. Lee said the cry of the injured fell on deaf ears, but the cry of the dividend hunter fell on ears attuned to catch it. Sir Heaton Rhodes, and even Mr. Coates at one time, as well as the Hon. F. J. Rolleston, had advocated that the State should take over all insurance. But perhaps in Mr. Rolleston’s case the receipt of a portfolio liad softened the fibres.