ACT CRITICISED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 277, 22 November 1934, Page 10

ACT CRITICISED.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

REPLY BY PRIME MINISTER

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, Wednesday

Reference was made by the Prime Minister, Mr. Forbes, to-day, to criticism of the Workers' Compensation Act by Mr. E. J. Howard, M.l'., in endorsing a statement attributed to Mr. Justice Rood to the effect that New Zenland was "miles behind England" in certain* phases of the legislation.'

Mr. Howard's criticism, said Mr. Forbes, appeared to be directed toward that portion of the legislation which abolished the rule as to common employ>mcnt and might give the impression that the law in New Zealand was less beneficial to tiie worker in this respect (hail was the law in England. That was not correct. In fact, the true position was the very opposite.

Mr. l'orbes explained that tlie rule as to common employment was originally the rule laid down by English judges-, the effect of wiiieli was that ail 0111 - plovee who was injured by the negligence of a fellow employee had no right to recover damages from the employer. In 18S0 certain exceptions to this iule were made in England by statute, and the position of the worker in England had not been improved since then as far as actions for damages, as distinct iroin claims for workers' compensation irrespective of negligence, were concerned.' The law 111 New Zealand as to exceptions to this rule of common employment was the same as in England from 1882 until the passing of the Workers' Compensation Act, 100 S. Section 02 of that Act was now replaced by section (i 7 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, which completely abolished the nile as to common employment in New Zealand. There was, of course, a limit of £1000 to the amount that an employee injured through a fellow servant's negligence could get by way of damages at common law, but even with this limit, the position in New Zealand was more advantageous to the worker than it was in England. The result therefore was, concluded Mr. Forbes, that instead of being "miles behind" England in this aspect of its legislation, New Zealand was ''miles ahead."