WORKERS' POSITION

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 147, 19 December 1933, Page 12

WORKERS' POSITION

LABOUR'S OBJECTIONS

A deputation from the New Zealand Alliance of Labour waited on the Prime Minister yesterday to protest against tho provision contained in tho Finance Bill with reference to earthquake risks. The deputation comprised Messrs. A. Cook, J. Roberts, F. P. Walsh; and P. M. Butler. Mr. H. T. Armstrong, M.P., introduced the deputation. Mr. Roberts stated that it was the first time that tho Government had attempted to introduce legislation which, affected the interests of workers without giving tho trade union movement an opportunity of studying tho legislation and giving evidence beforo the Labour Bills Committee. While he realised that pressure was being brought to bear upon tho Government to nullify the judgment. of the Privy Council in connection with the Hawke 's Bay earthquake cases, he was surprised indeed that the Government should submit to that pressure and introduce this legislation during the dying hours of Parliament. In view of tho Privy Council's decision, it appeared to him that the Government was trying to defeat the highest authority in British law. In giving judgment, Lord Atkiu had said that the provisions of the New Zealand Workers' Compensation Act, as far as liability was concerned, wore identical with those of the British Act. Therefore, under British law a worker who was injured as a result of an earthquake, lightning, or other natural causes, would be entitled to compensation. Up till now the same would apply in New Zealand, but apparently the Government were attempting to defeat the decision of the Privy Council by an alteration in the New Zealand law. Tho Prime Minister replied that the Government had no intention of doing so, but if it was found that a law in New Zealand was unfair to industry^ surely the Government had a right to alter it. . Mr. Roberts said that those who desired the law altered at the present juncture were simply tryijg to defeat the decision of the Privy Council. If an 'alteration in tho present law was required, then an amendment should not be passed without due consideration being given by^the Government to tho viewpoints of the employers and the workers. It had been claimed that the Privy Council gave the words "arising out of and in the course of his employment" too wide a scope. The facts were, however, that the Supreme Court and the Appeal Court of New Zealand gaye these words a much narrower meaning than that which was given in any other part of tho world. Mr. Roberts appealed to the Prime Minister to withdraw the legislation, and if an amendment to tho Workers' Compensation Act was desired it could: be introduced next session. That would give an opportunity to all parties to go fully into the matter. ■ Mr. Walsh said that the law was apparently being amended at the request of the insurance companies. There was nothing fair in the proposal. ?t appeared to him that pressuro had been brought to bear by interested parties, and that the Government introduced this measure in the dying stages of tho session in the hope that it would pass into lav without being noticed by the Labour organisations. Ho asked the Prime Minister if it was intended that this legislation should affect the Hawke's Bay earthquake cases. It appeared to him. that this was its purpose. Mr. Forbes Teplied that he did not think so. He understood that the proposal would only deal with future cases.. In that case, said Mr. Walsh, why not hold the matter over until the next session of Parliament? He asked the Prime Minister to drop, the proposed amendment. * The Prime Minister, in reply, said he did not know what was at tho back of the proposed measure. He would go into tho matter fully, and he would let Mr. Armstrong know the Government's Intention in regard to it. Ho did not think that it would affect any of the present-day cases, and he agreed with the deputation that in a law of this kind the- Labour Movement was entitled to consideration. He was very pleased that the deputation had come along and discussed the matter with him, as he liked to obtain their viewpoints. ' . . Mr. Butler asked if the Prime Minister had obtained the viewpoint of the ether side. In reply, the Prime Minister said that he had obtained some opinions, but not very full opinions. He would go fully into the matter and report to Mr. Armstrong later. The Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes) said the Insurance companies had not made representations to him, but the manager of the State Fire Insurance Office had told him that the companies could not carry on in view of the Privy Council's decision. . (Proceeding.)