COMPENSATION BILL

Timaru Herald, Volume CLIV, Issue 22671, 26 August 1943, Page 6

COMPENSATION BILL

Provision Of Light Work After Injury (N.Z.P.A.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 25. Moving the committal of the Workers Compensation Amendment Bill, in the House to-day, the Minister of Labour (the Hon. P. C. Webb) said the need for the Bill had been long felt and the measure been asked for by a number of persons. He did not think it was contentious, but it was certainly necessary. The Minister said he had intended to bring down a comprehensive Compensation Bill, but this measure may have proved too contentious at such a time in the session, and he thought the present Bill a very fair one. Mr C. G. E. Harker (National, Waipawa) expressed general agreement with many of the provisions in the Bill, but he contended that clause 3, dealing with workers who were able to perform light work after injury, might do more than the Minister intended. He would ask the Minister to examine it closely and make provision accordingly. Mr W. A. Bodkin (National, Central Otago) said the clause mentioned by Mr Harker imposed on the employer the responsibility of finding light work in the case of injury. With an employer owning a large factory alternative light work would be comparatively easy to find for a worker who had suffered injury, but there were hundreds of other employers who could not do so, and their only way out would be to accept full liability, with the result that the burden would fall on the insurance companies. He was sure that as the result of the passing of this clause there would be a substantial increase in premiums. Leads the World The Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland) said he thought all were agreed about workers’ compensation and that the consolidation of the compensation laws was necessary. He knew the Minister of Labour would agree with that. New Zealand led the world in workers’ compensation and compensation had become part of the industrial system. He was not sure that Clause 3 would be a burden upon employers as compensation was part of the costs of business and eventually must be passed on in the cost of the product, and consequently be borne by the public. The onus of finding lignt work was being placed on the employer, and he might not be able to provide light work. He suggested that j the clause could be held over until the first session of the new parliament so that something better might be framed. It was not a question of opposition to the clause, merely of getting something better than the somewhat complicated and far-reaching proposals. Mr D. W. Coleman (Government, Gisborne) said the clause was objected to because it would be difficult for an employer to find light work for a partially disabled man. That indicated the need for the clause, because it would be even more difficult for a worker to find work, and as the man was injured in his work it should be the duty of the industry to make provision for him. This contention was supported by the Hon. W. E. Parry and the Hon. R. Semple. The latter quoted cases from his own experience. Replying. Mr Webb said no doubt insurance premiums would be slightly affected, but insurance authorities had assured him the difference would be very slight. He did not see any need for the adjournment of the clause as the provision was long overdue and was only justice to an injured worker. The Bill was set down for committal.