H.—35

being killed and a lump sum being paid to his dependants. But our suggestion goes further than that. It refers also to lump-sum payments made to an injured worker ; and for this reason : that when some men are paid a lump sum they fritter it away, instead of investing it wisely for the benefit of themselves and those dependent upon them. It is not only in the case of deceased workers that control of lump sums paid is desirable ; we hold that it is also desirable in the case of lump sums paid to living workers. Hon. Mr. Weston : There is just one point in regard to the Ontario system which I think should be made clear to the general public, and that is that under the Ontario system all remedies that an injured worker has at common law are abolished, which means that he has to rely entirely upon his claim under the Workers' Compensation Act. That, no doubt, accounts for the fact that the premiums paid under the Ontario system compare so favourably with those paid in New Zealand. It is just as well, seeing that this Ontario system will be the subject of public discussion, that the people should know that that is the underlying basis of the system. It practically abolishes all litigation, either at common law or under the Workers' Compensation Act. Everything is left to the Board, and the Board decides matters purely in an administrative, not in a judicial, capacity. That is one of the merits of the Ontario system ; but, at the same time, the worker injured through the negligence of an employer, either through a wrong order or wrong methods, or by the negligence of a fellow-servant, is deprived of his rights under our present system. I would like to pay a tribute to the mover of the motion for the very, very sympathetic and tactful way in which he put his case before the committee. His remarks to us had a great deal to do with our adoption of the three clauses in this report. Mr. Cornwell: Mr. Chairman, I also wish to congratulate the committee on its report on the Workers' Compensation Act. I welcome the clause stating that "it is desirable that medical, surgical, and hospital services necessary as a result of the injury, and for the rehabilitation of the injured worker, should be provided for." Such an extension of medical benefits has long been desired by the workers. We have asked for that from the Government for many years. But when we were discussing this question on the Secondary Industries Committee we went fairly fully into the question of industrial diseases, and a resolution was passed by that committee recommending that this Conference or the special committee should take into consideration the question of industrial diseases. At the present time, under section 10 of the Workers' Compensation Act, which controls these diseases, to a very large extent the workers are prevented from getting the benefits intended by the Act. There is a clause stating that you must meet with your injury, or become incapacitated or die within twelve months of contracting an industrial disease. But many people know —or the majority of people know —that to contract some industrial diseases takes considerably longer than twelve months. Often it is a number of years that a worker must be engaged in a particular trade before contracting a disease that will lay him up, let alone be. the cause of his death. We have had cases brought to our notice where workers have been laid up and have died, knd a post-mortem examination has shown that the worker has been suffering from such a disease for eight to ten years, and that puts him entirely out of Court for getting the benefits provided by the Act. All that time his employers have been paying premiums to an insurance company for the benefit of that worker, and on account of this very defective clause in the Act the dependants of such workers are deprived of the intended benefits. There are quite a number of industrial diseases covered by that clause. We also suggested that another industrial disease, dermatitis, be added to the list. Dermatitis is a disease which affects quite a large number of workers in different classes of work, including those engaged in some food occupations. It affects, too, cement-workers, french-polishers, and a lot of other workers. A number of such cases have been brought before the Ministers of Labour in the past, but so far we have been unsuccessful in getting that particular disease added to the list of occupational diseases. The matter was well discussed in the Secondary Industries Committee, and some harrowing stories were given to the committee in regard to the experiences of some persons in connection with that particular disease. We are, therefore, surprised, some of us, to find that there is no report from the special committee in respect of this matter. I hope that the question will not be overlooked. It is an exceedingly important one. The employers have been paying for years and years into the insurance companies of this country for the workers to receive the benefit of the Act, and yet by this defective section the workers are debarred from getting the benefits their employers have been paying for. I think that if the employers fully realized that, they would assist us in getting that section 10 amended. The other clauses of the report represent a decided advance, and I have much pleasure in congratulating the committee on the report. But I regret the committee did not bring down a recommendation in regard to occupational diseases. Mr. Purtell: Sir, I did not intend to speak on this question, but owing to the remarks of my friend Mr. Smith I feel compelled to say something. I would like to call the attention of the Conference to the insurance premiums paid in Queensland in respect of workers' compensation. I understand that the premiums there are much smaller, and that they had a big surplus in the first year and were able to cover one or two classes of workers without contribution of premiums by the employers. I cannot for the life of me understand why even employers should endorse private enterprise in insurance when it is going to cost them more money. It is on record that the New Zealand Government's enterprise in respect to insurance has saved the country a considerable amount of money not only in regard to fire insurance, but in connection with all classes of insurance. I would suggest that the attitude of the employers in this matter, besides being a question of private enterprise, is a question of business in business as well as of business in Government, or, rather, Government in business. If it were possible to put actuaries on to it, I think the employers would find that they would save a considerable amount of money by our proposal, because in the last analysis private enterprise in this matter simply means that the insurance companies have to make substantial profits, and we know from the reports of the different companies that they do make considerable profits ; therefore the employers will have to pay higher premiums than they previously have done.

27— H. 35.

209