I.— 9a.

14

J. H. RICHARDSON.

14. The Chairman.] Do you think this provision of £1 per week will cause an extra number of claims to be put in?—l think it might to some extent, but we might give it a fair trial, with from 10 to 12J per cent, extra premiums. It is bound, I think, to a slight extent to bring in a few. 15. But not to any great extent? —I do not think so. 16. Is it likely to increase malingering?—l think it would a little, but not materially. 17. Hon. Mr. Millar.] Have you many cases disputed?— Only a few. We only go to Court where it is a barefaced case or where the claimant is not entitled to compensation. We try to settle these matters out of Court if possible, as we do not think it pays any company to go to Court. Charles Alfred Ewen examined. (No. 7.) 1. The Chairman.] You are?—l am speaking as chairman of the Accident Underwriters' Association of New Zealand. I have not consulted the whole of the members of the association, but only the committee, and I have written just a few notes with a view to stating where the Amendment Act is likely to increase the rates of premium. We have come to the conclusion that it will mean an increase in premiums of 15 per cent, to 20 per cent 2. Irrespective of this Act? —We would like to get them up 10 per cent, irrespective of this Act. With regard to clause 2of the Bill, we think that in every case where a man receives an injury, however slight, he will seek medical aid; and there are medical men in New Zealand who will take care that the worker is laid up for more than seven days, so that he may get his £1 for medical attendance. Including the Government Department, there are twenty-two companies transacting accident business in New Zealand, and we have averaged the number of claims made last year (for the twelve months ending 31st December), and, although we cannot get the exact figures of each company, we find that there have been 600 claims for each company upon an average : this would mean £13,000 in medical fees on the actual claims the companies would have to pay. There are a great many claims made now where we ask for no medical certificate. We are quite prepared to settle a claim between the employer and the employee, so that medical certificates are not required by the company. We really think that medical men are quite capable of taking care of themselves, and that it is not necessary therefore to put the clause in the Act. In reference to section 3, this as printed appears to give compensation to workers earning over £5 a week, and workers under the Act are not only manual workers, but clerical workers, and there is no limit. Ido not know whether it is intended to put any limit in. If the amount is limited to £2 10s. per week, the increased claims would not be very numerous, but, of course, if a man receiving £8 a week is to receive half wages as compensation for an accident, there must be an increase in the premium. Slaughtermen, for instance, get large wages, and therefore there must be an increase in connection with freezing companies.' Clause 5 provides for additional benefits, and that is another reason why we should have to increase the rates. With regard to clause 6, at present under the Act the agreement only applies to infants or workers under age, and apparently this brings in all workers. I do not know that this affects us with regard to rates. Clause 9we certainly think will necessitate a slight increase in rates. 3. Hon. Mr. Millar.] As chairman of the Underwriters' Association, you said it would require an increase of 10 per cent, to cover the existing risk : can you give us any figures with regard to the premiums collected by the twenty companies?—No, we have no means of ascertaining that. In England the companies have to give a return under the Employers' Indemnity Act and to separate the premiums; but here in New Zealand we do not, and the returns to the New Zealand Government include personal accident premiums. 4. What means has this Committee of ascertaining your reason for increasing the premiums if it cannot get the total premiums and claims? —I could apply to the companies to supply them if necessary. 5. It seems to point to the necessity for an amendment in connection with the returns, so that the workers' compensation shall be kept absolutely separate. We want to know whether in our legislation we are unduly a burden on the employers they cannot very well bear, while at the same time we are desirous of giving the fullest protection to our workers. By what means are we going to check the figures? —I could apply to the companies for the figures, and I could give you my own figures. 6. If you can give us the total premiums and number of claims it would assist us. It would not be unduly prying into your business. We do not want by legislation to unduly put a burden on an industry it cannot bear, and the only basis we could take is the number of accidents on which compensation is paid each year? —I can give you my figures —the total premiums and total losses under the Workers' Compensation Act. You want a comparison? 7. We do not want the details : we only want something approximately to give us some idea of the position ?—The companies will probably willingly supply them, because they would prove that the rates are too low. 8. Do you consider that if we adopt the English clause your risk will be minimized to a certain extent, because under the English Act it does not apply to clerical workers at all? —That is so, but is the compensation to be limited to £2 10s. per week? 9. Yes; that is, we do not want to go beyond £250 a year. Make the limit £250 and the maximum compensation per week £2 10s. ? —lf you keep them all in, yes. From the employer's point of view I think they would rather have it limited to manual labour; but from the insurance company's point of view we would rather get them all in. 10. The only point I want to know from you is whether, if we adopted that, by reducing the number of hands insured by the employer we would not reduce the number he will have to pay on ?—From our point of view we should like to see all workers, as defined in the present Act, brought in, because we would get a larger income.