H.—35

medical and surgical treatment, as well as the rehabilitation of the injured worker, should be provided for in our own industrial law. The report of the committee will carry throughout New Zealand a message to the workers that this Conference did at least give the injured workers every consideration. lam of the opinion that industry can bear this cost quite easily. I also believe that this proposal will, if applied in the proper manner, help the workers to get back to industry and work more quickly than they can under the present system. lam further of the opinion that this last recommendation in our report will be of benefit to the employers and workers alike. With reference to the third recommendation, we are of the opinion that all the dependants of a worker, where a lump-sum payment is made, should be provided for. This applies particularly in the case of death by accident. We want to see the children provided for, whatever else may happen. I believe everybody here will agree that the committee acted wisely in bringing down a proposal of that kind. Mr. Chairman, Ido not desire to say any more at present in regard to these recommendations. I will conclude by saying that the members of the sub-committee, in giving consideration to this question, were actuated mainly by the desire to do justice by the workers who operate industry. We believe we express the unanimous opinion of members of this Conference when we say that those who operate industry and provide for us the very necessaries of life are worthy of the most serious consideration and the best treatment that the nation can give them. I have pleasure in moving the adoption of this section of the report. Mr. Bishop : I have very much pleasure in seconding Mr. Roberts's motion, that the report of the sub-committee in respect of the Workers' Compensation Act be adopted by the Conference. As Mr. Roberts has said, the sub-committee gave a great deal of consideration to the Ontario system of workmen's compensation. The fundamental difference between the Ontario and similar systems which are in operation to-day in many American States, on the one hand, and our New Zealand system, is that in the days when our Act was first passed the whole conception was that of compensating the worker for his disability, whereas the principle underlying the Ontario and other American and Canadian systems is that of re-establishing the injured worker in productive employment as early as possible. It is true, I think, that New Zealand led the way in this matter of workers' compensation, but your sub-committee has recognized that to-day an advance has been made in other countries which is quite worthy of our consideration. In the systems of some other countries one of the principal functions of the organization controlling workers' compensation is the prevention of accidents, and another principal function is the rehabilitation of the injured worker. Now, under our system the prevention of accidents has no relationship whatever to the organization dealing with workers' compensation, nor has the rehabilitation of the injured worker. But it was easy for Ontario, coming into the field at a much later date than New Zealand, to frame legislation on sound lines, because they had the benefit of the experience of other countries to guide them. It would be difficult for us to-day to suddenly switch over from our system, which is based upon insurance companies' participation, and to substitute for it the Ontario or a similar system, in which the insurance companies play no part. We therefore had to content ourselves with the recommendations which are before you, while we recognize that there is a case to answer, and that investigation into the respective merits of the various systems is necessary, and is likely —almost certain, I should say —to lead to improvements in our own system. Those were the motives which guided the sub-committee to the findings which we now submit to Conference. We feel sure that the present New Zealand system can be improved without an increase in the cost to industry, and that the benefits to the workers will be more practical, more real, than they are to-day. We hope that the Government will accept the recommendations of this Conference, and undertake immediately a thorough and careful investigation, with a view to improving our system so as to place New Zealand again in the proud position that it once occupied, of leading the world in this very important phase of social legislation. Ido not wish to add anything more, sir. I think that this recommendation is so clear-cut and so definite, and so calculated to bring about the results which are hoped for, that it should require very little discussion, and the Conference can safely endorse it. Mr. Smith : Mr. Chairman, the remark made by Mr. Roberts during the course of his speech in moving the adoption of this recommendation was to the effect that he was satisfied that industry could bear the cost. That remark may raise in the minds of some —especially the employers—that we anticipate that the result of the adoption of the Ontario system, or any amendment of it, may involve an increase in premiums, and therefore place an increased burden upon industry, which at the present time it is ill able to bear. Personally, I do not think that the recommendation, if adopted, should involve any increase in the cost of insurance, and for these reasons : First, we have provided that insurance shall be compulsory, and as the insurance companies will not, therefore, have to incur expense in chasing business —the business will have to come to them —there will be a very considerable saving in overhead charges in that respect. Then, again, if the insurance companies see fit to pool the workers' compensation insurance business, and divide it among themselves, either in the proportion in which they now obtain it or in some other proportion, a further saving will be obtained, and that should lead to a reduction of premiums instead of involving any increase. I make that suggestion bearing this in mind : that if the Ontario system is adopted its great blot, from the employers' point of view, is the fact that it involves State management. To that, as a principle, we as employers are opposed, and if the insurance companies by means of pooling the business can get together they may be able to lay the foundation upon which when the time comes for the Ontario system to be adopted—if it is adopted —they can build machinery for the administration of that system, thus avoiding a further incursion by the G-overnment into industry. We have always been looking forward to the redemption of the promise made last election that there will be more business in Government and less Government in business, and we do wish to see that pledge carried out, instead of the adoption of any scheme which will involve a further incursion of the Government into purely commercial matters. One otherjpoint made was with reference to lump-sum payments, and Mr. Roberts referred to the case of a worker

208