THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11746, 30 August 1901, Page 4

THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT.

We have had a number of questions put to us by correspondents as to the liability under this Act, and we would appeal to our members to get the Government to introduce an interpretation Act so as to obviate, if possible, the doubt and uncertainty which prevails, and which is causing a huge expense to the country, and the withholding of work from many persons. A lady writes to say that she oeasionally employs" a woman in work about her house, and wants to know whether, if an accident were to occur, she would be liable under the Act. We suppose she would, if the particular job on which she was engaged were " hazardous," and that might be held to be proved by the fact that an accident had occurred. But the great subject of discussion is whether farmers are liable to the risks of the Act, and whether workers on farms can reap any benefit. The Premier says that farmers are not liable, and that it was the intention of Ministers not to include them. We do not see why farmers and landowners should escape liabilities which all other employers of labour have to submit to. And also We do not see why men employed on threshing machines or reaping machines, or in using horses in various Ways, where there is great risk of accident, should not have the same benefits as any artisan employed in a town. But the Premier's reading of the Act is iii the teeth of opinions given by several of our soundest lawyers, and that being so, no farmer is safe unless he injures all who work for him, even if they are only employed casually. It has been said that the question could not be tested unless by a decision in the Supreme Court upon an accident occurring. But that might involve some person being ruined. As pointed out by a correspondent in our columns the other day, the officers of the Accident Insurance Department, which the Government have started, do not share the views of the Premier, because they have drawn up elaborate tables to show how much is to be charged for farmers' risks. But as respects obtaining a judicial decision on the point, that can easily be done. The Premier has denounced the action of insurance agents in taking premiums from farmers, and has stated that some of these agents ought to be had up for obtaining money under false pretences. Let him bring up a Government insurance agent, or any other insurance agent, and charge him with that offence, and then we shall be able to obtain a judicial opinion.