The Waipa Post. Printed on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1926. COMPENSATION FOR WORKERS.

Waipa Post, Volume 32, Issue 1788, 29 July 1926, Page 4

The Waipa Post. Printed on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1926. COMPENSATION FOR WORKERS.

IT would appear, from reports emanating from the press gallery of the House of that the Workers’ Compensation Bill, introduced by the energetic representative of Christchurch South (Mr E. J. Howard), and discussed by the 'House a few evenings ago, has little or no prospect of faring better this session than on previous occasion's of its appearance. It proposes a considerable liberalisation of the main Act, and leads off with a clause to the effect that the compensation payable to the dependents of the worker whose death has resulted from accidental injury shall be the round sum of £IOOO in every case, instead of, as the Act provides, “ a sum equal to one hundred and fiftysix times his average weekly earnings, or the sum of £2OO, whichever of those is the larger, but not exceeding in any case £750.” Another clause in the Bill provides that during any period of a worker’s total incapacitation he shall be paid the equivalent of his average weekly earnings at the time of the accident, whereas the existing law prescribes that he shall receive 5S per cent of his earnings. It is further proposed, that the limitation of weekly compensation payments to a period not exceeding six years shall be abolished. The criticism upon Mr Howard’s Bill

during t p ne discussion on the second reading was purposely brief, as the Minister of Labour has a Government measure in hand dealing with the same subject, but it was, perhaps, sufficiently to the point. It is recognised as desirable that the worker who meets with an accident in the courfee of his employment shall be placed in such a position as to be relieved of the fear of actual want and distress. But it is necessary to realise that, however simple a matter it may appear to be to extend the benefits under the Workers’ 'Compensation Act, this cannot be done without increasing the cdst of the conduct of the industry or without a corresponding increase in the cost of products and services to the public. This consideration has been well expressed in the Australian Insurance and Banking Record, in reference to the New South Wales Workers’ Compensation Act of the present year, which has had the effect of increasing the liabilities of the employers so materially as to be prejudicial to, industry itself. “ While humane provisions of this kind must commend themselves it must not be forgotten that the cost involved, which in the fiiist place is borne by the industry, must in many caries be passed on to the public as part of the cost of production,” remarks the Regord. “ This is comparatively easy in the case of secondary industries; but those lengaged in primary production, wbo sell their commodities at prices determined by world markets, cannot obtain the same relief. They cannot pass on to the piirchaser of their produce the cost of insurance against workers’ compensation liabilities, which remains an additional burden on the employer in the farming and pastoral sections of the community.” There is an argument to be advanced, also, unpopular though it may be, on the score that the exercise of independent thrift is to be encouraged, and that it is better for the individual character, and the nation at large, than automatic provisions for compensation to which the beneficiaries make no contribution.