The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and Echo. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1901. WORKERS. COMPENSATION ACT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 203, 7 September 1901, Page 4

The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and Echo.

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1901. WORKERS. COMPENSATION ACT.

For the cause that lack* assistance For the wrong that need* resistance For the future in the distance And the good that we can do.

Iv reply to a question put to him iv the House of representatives a w;eek or two ago, the Premier declared emphatically that agricultural labourers were not included in the "Workers' Compensation for Accidents Act," but insurance agents, and, he was told, even Government Insurance agents, had created a scare with a view to promoting business. They had gone to farmers and got them to insure. He went on to say: "If it was the case that a scare had been created by self-seeking and interested persons, for the purpose of getting business, what he wanted to do was to get hold of those men, because they were really getting money by means of false pretences—by frightening farmers into insurance by saying that the law was so-and-so, was, he thought, getting money under false pretences." Other members of Parliament, however, were not so sure about the matter. Mr. Flatinan stated that he had obtained a legal opinion, which was to the effect that it was not clear as to whether agricultural labourers came under the Act or not, but that at any rate farmers were liable for all contractors that worked for them. He thought an amending Act was necessary to make its provisions clearer. Mr. Tanner declared that the Legislature intended to include agricultural labourers, but this Mr. Seddon denied. He admitted, however, that a farmer would be liable for a contractor employed by him, and considered that it would be a hardship if a farmer, whose stack would be threshed out in two or three days, should be liable to be mulcted in damages amounting to £300 or £400. That, in his opinion, would be unjust, and if the law was such, then they ought to make that right and clearly so. The man who had the machine and employed the workmen was the raau who ought to bei'esjpdiifeible.''4'

There are other points with respect to w, ich tfcp pre§§!s laW ought to be made clear. The provision which has rendered necessary an insurance by a mortgagee, as well as by the owner of a property, can only prove of benefit to insurance offices? it imposes an unnecessary and,vexatious tax. The mortgagor has now to pay for both policies. An amendment is also needed to cover the circumstances of casual labourers. At present many people are deterred from employing men because they are fearful of being made liable for ruinous damages in the event of an accident.

With regard to agricultural labourers, an Act was passed last year in England extending the protection of the "Workmen's Compensation Act, 1597," to men engaged in agricultural pursuits. This law came into force on the Ist of July last. By its provisions any employer who "habitually employs one or more workmen" in agricultural work, he and ne alone I shall be liable under this Act to pay compensation to any workman employed by him on such work. A workman may not contract himself out of the Act-—unless better terms are offered to him than the Act itself assures— and no compensation can be claimed by any workman whose injury has been caused by his own serious and wilful misconduct. The amount of compensation payable in ease of death and with dependents wholly dependent on the workman's earnings :is an amount equal to three years' wages, or £150, whichever sum is greater, but not exceeding in any ease £300. In the case of partial or total incapacity the compensation is to be half the average -weekly earnings, such payment not to exceed £1 per .week, and to last during the incapacity.

Even with regard to this new Act it is pointed out in the English press that doubts will arise as to its interpretation. The term "habitually employs one or more workmen" is open to diverse constructions. . One journal contends that the law would protect a casual labourer if the employer habitually employs other workmen, but if he does not then the casual labourer would be outside the terms of the Act. On the other hand, a casual labourer who does constant jobbing work, such as a gardener employed regularly two or three days a week, would be "habitually employed." So also a general man-servant, who works sometimes in the garden, wo\ild come within the definition of "agriculture" given in the' Act. '.

The English Act of 1897 has resulted in numerous appeals to the law courts, and many cases have been carried to the Court of Appaal, which recently decided that a ship in dock is a factory. Two months ago between fifty and sixty compensation appeals

were awaiting adjudication in England. It is of the utmost importance that there shall be no unnecessary ambiguousness about a statute so seriously affecting all classes in the community, and we think the Government should amend the New Zealand Act by the light of the English decisions, so that there, may be less opportunity for such misreadings as the Premier lays to.the charge of insurance canvassers.