HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXX, Issue 3863, 5 October 1899, Page 3

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4.. The Speaker took the chair at 7.30. COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENT. Tho .PREMIER (Mr Soddon) moved the second reading of the Workers’ Compensation. for Accidents Bill, which has already passed the Legislative Council. The necessity for tho measure was. ho said, generally admitted by employers and employed, as tho present law on tho subject was somewhat vague-and. also vexatious.. By this measure they had laid‘down the rule that the industry itself Should .bo .responsible for liabilities, both direct and contingent. Tho present uncertainty of the law had the effect of raising' the premium payable for insurance',; and that being tho case it was as well to remove, that uncertainty'and let emplpy3i's and employed know their ex-, act 'position. In the interest of the owners ot coal mines it was necessary that this Bill should pass. As to those working at dangerous occupations the prospect at present or those dependent upon them being thrown on charitable aid in the event of accident was not a pleasant one, and provision ought to ho made for conn pensation to those who suffered and fpr those who ■ were dependent on, them., Ho din not claim ■'dfi&inalUy'' fdr‘*itUi» measure. An Act on similar lines had been patted bj? the Imperial Parliament, and time had proved that the fears in regard to it were unfounded. It had been slated that tho Act had led to .an. increase in tho number of accidents,, but on making inquiry as to the truth of that statement he had como to, the conclusion that the criticism was partial a-nci ntjb'well founded, sufficient allowance not having been made for the extra number of men employed'during the time the Act had been in operation, besides which accidents were not recorded previously to the passing of tho Act. It was not fair to take n one-sided view of such a humane and important question. It was necessary that employers and employed should he placed in such a possition that neither should be dea l' with harshly or oppressively. The bona fide employer was now handicapped as against the careless employer, aiid this measure was really in the interests of those who recognised, that they had a responsibility in respect To their employees. In committee he would move an amendment distinctly defining what trades come under the Act. The want of that would, he thought, have militated against the successful working of tho measure. Mr Bcddon then went into the details' of the Bill, which have already been fully explained. This and the Accident Insurance Bill wont together, and would, he said, result in great benefit to the colony.

Mr J. ALLEN (Bruce) said he. die not want to make this a party question. Ho should be glad to assist in pasting any legislation which would settle this vexed question. The Bill, however, was based on wrong lines, and was entirely different to the English measure. It left the existing law absolutely untouched, and did not alter the master’s liability under the criminal law or common law, which meant that a workman would select the course of action which' would enable; him to got the highest amount of wages.' Ho was prepared to arguo that the lines of this Bill and of the English Act were, wrong ones. Tho English Act for the first time in English jurisprudence cast upon a person responsibility for an accident which' was, not the result; of any negligence or other unlawful act, either of himself or his servant, for whose conduct ho was legally responsible. That, that -was wrong waa an opinion held by /Radical leaders in England. The Bill they said, tended to remove employers’ responsibility' with regard to the prevention of accidents. The proper rule for such legislation was to make tho employer liable with regard to prevention, and then cither to make tho State responsible with regard to compensation, or else to _ provide some means such as wore provided in Germany, by which the employee also boro a portion of the responsibility. ,■ The tendency of insurance to make the employer—and perhaps .also the employes;—less careful. The _ number cf fatal accidents occurring in England during the twelve months since the Act had been in force was fourteen per cent, more than occurred during the previous year. Tho chief ryealcness 61 •>ur. Bill and of cno' English 4ct was that it did not provide for aljl classes of accidents. The Premier’s, amendment would restrict its* operation still further. The Wages Protection Bi 1 was in direct contradiction to the clause dealing with contracting outy," Under this measure.- if a former, employed a contractor to,paint his Inmate, and one of the contractor's men nipt with an accident, tho, farmer was Ifoble. The result would bo that the’, small contractor would not bo employed, arid employers would, in employing men, only engage those who had no dependents. Mr MON'i c-U.ri(!/I?V i (Ellesmere) urged that, i.oms attention of the tor was Eseco'a-ry. It was seated before tho cvrmittce or 1 hi. Bill that tn6re

had been spent in litigation under the Employers Liability Actv than had over been spent in compensation to workers. They ought to have laid down clearly and definitely what was the law on the subject, but instead of --.ciing the tho Government had piled on ; till, another statute to make confusion worse confounded. At ’present there were so many cases in which a workman could be met with technical objections, that men were afraid to face the law and the expense. He believed in nine out of every ten eases no compensation was paid for accidents at al. As to the increase .in the number of fatal accidents in England, he pointed out that tho year before the Act come into force there was a. great number of men out on strike, w,...e m .the year during which it had been in operation there was a. -.cry largo increaseIn the. number of men emu'ovcd. It was only natural, then, there should be an increase in the number of accidents. This Bill would ensure workmen being compensated in case of accident._ D it was right that employees i-Jionld he bo compensated, on general ground*the man who was best able to hear the brunt was' the employer. Tills Bil would have tho effect that every employer would insure, and the cost of insurance would be [and by the employer himself. It would enable a workman to tide over periods of incapacity, or, hi case of death, it ivoiih 1 enable his wife or children to live tor a certain time in the same manner as they had been living before. He thought it would be better for claims (0 be heard before a Judge and assessors than by tbc r’> r. t ■•non Court. Mr SCOBIE MACKENZIE (Dunedin City) said ho had nor, the slightest doubt that if agricultural labourers wore brought under, the Blit it w ould not pass the House. But ho did not see why they should exempt a department of labour in wJiicb atuiticnts were cxtxeiucb’ humorous. He urged that there should be compensation ior every accident that pccurfcd. The Bill shou d specify tho particular industries included in , its operation. As to me liability for cost, the doctrine of insurance made the whole matter very much easier than It was before, but it did not resolve the question, because, even under'insurance, tho individual would be liable for the insurance money who really ought to have no liability for the accident at all. It was really a question whether there should be compulsory insurance or whether they ought- to have tho liability thrown upon tho State itself of providing an insurance fund for every accident that occurred. The cause providing that the amount of compensation should bo a. prior charge on, the properly'of the employer could not bo.allowed to stand, us it would mean that tho small man would never be able to mortgage his property at all. He suggested that they should in- . cludo in the Bid a provision for holding

{inquests into all accidents that occurred. That would bo ■ of assistance to the injured man, and afford him a guide as to which Act he should proceed under. Mr TAYLOR (Christchurch City) said it was a matter for congratulation that the House was approaching the consideration of this Bill tl-ed from party feeling, as it was undoubtedly a question that should bo considered. Tho idea of tho Bill was that a worker should have every protection for l his only capital, namely, his ability to work. At present the worker had to prove that the employer -was responsible, and that he himself was not responsible, hut that was replaced by the rule that the accident itself was sufficient cause for granting compensation. He urged that the scope of tho Bill should be made wider, so that the workers now proposed to be exempted should receive the advantages which it was proposed to give to workers in certain occupations. Tliis Bill provided for compensation for all injuries regardless of the cause, and destroyed thg doctrine' of contributory: negligence. t'hd reason for tho introduction of this measure, In England was tho monstrous ousts, involved in claims for compensation, with'tho result that in thousands of eases the workman had endured the consequences of tho accident rather than face-the cost of an appeal to the law. This measure provided a speedier and less costly means of obtaining redress. : The; argument that it would interfere with friendly societies could not be seriously entertained. He opposed the system of contracting out provided by tho Bill, and ho viewed with suspicion tho proposal to give claims under tho Act a prior charge on property. Mr WASON (Sclwyn) mged that agricultural labourers should be included in the Bill, although he owned that it was dil-oult to say how their interests could be protected. Way, also, should a bushy feller be exempt ? His occupation was much more ■ clangorous than that of a bricklayer or a plasterer, and he was not likely to be so near medical assistance as men working in towns. The Bill was piecemeal and unsatisfactory, and would not give satisfaction to the community at largo. Mr DUTHiE (Wellington City) supported the Bill, as at his election he promised to sunoorb a measure on the lines of the English Act. The fact that a country like Great Britain, dependent on foreign trade, should pass such an Act as this was an example'to New Zealand. It was-a matter for congratulation that the Parliament of tins colony now had before it a measure which was meeting with such general support. As to the scope of the measure, it could not, of course, include casual labour, but it should he widened so as to include all other classes of labour. As to the effect upon employment, some classes of employees might bo affected, but no reform could be instituted without injuring someone. He objected to the Government Accident Insurance Ldl, thinking u was enough for the Insurance Commissioner to look after tho life insurance business. Accident insurance would involve them in a great deal of harassing litigation. Ho did not tnink it would be a goon thing to provide for compulsory insurance, as most large coni-panies-provided their own insurance fund. He hoped the Bill would be passed into law this session. Mr MORRISON (Caversham) said that a certain liability had been admitted by the employers in regard to risks -from accidents. To save themselves from that liability they had insured their workmen. But in a largo number of cases the workmen themselves had. to pay the premium.' This measure declared unit the liability, which was originally intended to lie upon tho shoulders of the employers, was to remain there, ami that the employers could not, by compelling their workmen to pay tljo ■ premium, safeguard themselves, from tho provisions of the Employers’ Liability Act. Mr FRASER (Wnkatipu) said the difficulty of making, the owner’s property liable to a first charge for compensation could bo got over by a compulsory insurance, which would be better for the workman himself and would provide an easy mode for tne employee to recover damages—far easier, indeed, than recovering damages against the- property itself. Tho Government. Accident Insurance Bill was intended to ensure that too Heh premiums should not be charged by outside companies, .Ho thought the Government Accident Insurance Department, should onl lout for business. It j should simply he.there, ready to insure at a reasonable rate if persons were dissatis-, lied with tho premiums charged by other companies. Mr LEWIS (ChristchurchCity)doubled whether ah'employer would know his liability under the Bill. He thought that before' it wn.p vmv.-cd they should sco tho regulations under the Government Accident Insurance Bill. He objected

to the definition of “worker” in the Bill, eh he was of opinion that it would lead to complications and difficuluties, which would not occur if it was maue much tvirl--- <!■'.„ --r riroopiit. Mr JOHN HUTCHESON (Wellingtoi City), m answer to objections raised, said he understood that it was provided that compensation should start from tin date of the injury if tho workman war incapacitated from following his usua. occupation for a- longer period than tw weeks. He was pleased to find that th< ( overument was included in the operalion of the measure, and he was pretty certain they would have had more labour enactments on tho statute book now had that rule been included in the Eight Hours Bill, tho Master and Apprentice Bill and other measures of a like nature lie ira.s heart and soul in favour of thBill. Tho proposal to exclude agrieu 1 tura! labourers was a direct tribute to the hide-hound Conservative followers o the great tjibcral leader. They shou > make the Bill universal. Tho only reason for excluding any class of wage earners was because the Premier coub not get his followers to support it. I! did not think there was much to fca from the clause making an employer; property liable to a first charge for coir, ponsation. It must be .remembered that a. worker’s whole stock-in-trade—-his life and limb—was staked against tie accumulated capita! of the employer Iho Bill had not come before its lime and he would support any portion of it which could be put through, hi the fu’ belief i.mt it would bn ttic precursor o a. fuller measure' when experience showed them that it was desirable, and abov > all, immune. Messrs O’Rogan, Sligo, Crowthcr Moore, McGuire, Carson and Geo. Hut chisou also spoke, and gave a genera support to the measure.

Tbc PREMIER remarked on flu- mi intimity shown in favour of the Bill, am said there was nothing to prevent ii pasting ..s committee stage the nex 1 e> cuing. However, he was afraid tha when tile measure was in committee tin coven hoof would bo disclosed. IT thought of having the committee pro coedings reported in “Hansard,” ant they would then sec who wore in favou of the measure', and who, by frivolou: amendments, tried to prevent its pas sage. The Government party was no' responsible for restricting tho operatici of the Bill to certain classes of employ incut, and it it was extended, as urged by some members, the Legislative Coun i i! would object, and that would be th • last seen of the measure. The second reading was agreed to oi Iho voices, anti the Premier said Ii ■ would .ring it cm in committee the lie;;. du.V. . The House rose at 1.40 a.m.