ANOTHER MESSAGE TO THE PRIME MINISTER.

Otago Witness, Issue 2862, 20 January 1909, Page 81

ANOTHER MESSAGE TO THE PRIME MINISTER.

SIR J. G. WARD STANDS FIRM. TIM ABU, January 13. The Prime Minister, who arrived here to-day from Oamaru, handed the following to the Press Association agent, with a special request that it be sent to the principal papers :—: — From Mr S. Free, mine-owners' representative at Reefton :—": — " We have to thank you for your telegram of yesterday, which was exhaustively considered by a meeting of the mine-owners last 4 night and again this morning. We have already stated our reason for not giving evidence against the bill when before tho Labour Bills Committee, and v. c think the member for the district treated us ■ unfairly in not advising us of the inclu- I sion of the diseases clause in the act, i and so we do not think ourselves entirely to blame for our ignorance. We realise { that the burden of pioof Ties with the worker claiming compensation to show that he comes within the provision of the ! act, but death from phthisis or pneumo- I coniosis is always prpceded by a considerable period of incapacity, ?r.d the right to compensation aris3s immediately on in- i capacitation, consequently every diagnosis must of necessity be largely based upon ' statements by claimant, which it would j be ""mpossible to refute. Already our mines are largely manned by Australians, ■ and if it becomes known that owners in this Dominion insure their woikers against [ incapacity and death from pneumoconiosis j without examination we shall be inundated with undesirables from other parts. "vv"e are very strongly of opinion that if pneumoconiosis is to remain in the act some form of examination must be adopted ; and, further, we think that had '

the Government allowed your telegram to Mr Semple of the Bth inst., in which you suggested medical examination by a Government officer to be the last word on the subject, matters would now be in a fair way towards settlement. As we understand your telegram, if we can convince Parliament that the burden cast upon us by the act is unbearable it will be brought into line with the Imperial Statute, otherwise pneumoconiosis must remain in the act with the provision added to make it workable. Is the alternative to be .coercion applied to workers to compel them to submit to medical examination or to the employers to force them to employ those seeking employment no matter how undesirable their I physical condition may be? Either alternative means trouble of a serious character. If Parliament blocks medical examination it cannot prevent employers , refusing to engage all workmen deemed j physically unfit, and such action would cause industrial trouble more difficult to remedy than the present. If mine-owners are compelled to insure workmen to the extent of £500 they would exercise their right to select employees either by medical examination, which is the only just I method, or by guesswork, which would j undoubtedly work injustice in many cases. ; We are anxious to promote a settlement ' of the present difficulty, but the . possiI bility of doing so has not yet been made clear. " The following reply was telegraphed by the Frime Minister this afternoon :—: — I " In reply to your wire of yesterday, I have no desire or right to be a critic of the reasons why the mine-owners did not give evidence before the Labour Bills Committee and urge their objections to clause 10 before it became law. I was only concerned in my last to have it clearly understood that the Government was in no way responsible for the mineowners not giving evidence, and that the fullest opportunity was afforded to those affected by the bill of stating their objections. The omission of the mine-owners to urge any objection naturally led us to assume that the mine-owners did not oppose the clause as passed. Your reference to Australians does not seem to be at all relevant to the present situa- | tion. You suggest that Australians may be attracted to New Zealand by the favourable conditions of the pneumoconiosis clause, but surely the answer to this is that you need not engage Australians, or if they come to New Zealand an 3 seek employment from you you can impose such conditions within the law as will protect you, as you are under no obligation to employ these people. The fear you express is surely groundless. I note that you think that had I allowed my telegram to Mr Semple of the_ Bth inst. regarding a medical examination by a Government officer to be the last word from the Government on the subject matters would now be in a fair way to_ settlement. While your opinion is, of course. entitled to respect, I am confident that it is entirely wrong. I acted in this matter with srreat deliberation aand after obtaining information of a reliable nature, which probably, if seen by you, would convince you of your error. Apart from this, the 'northern coal mine owners were communicating with me, declaring unanimously that x-uination stared them in the face, and irreparable injury to their mines would result unless prompt action was taken by the Government. Apart also from which numbers of the owners of the industries dependent upon coal were communicating to a similar effect. Either they were entirely wrong in their assumption, or you are wrong in yours. Both of you, ?ou will Teoognise, cannot be riaht. " Then yon are adopting the extraordinary course of endeavourin? to obtain from me the definite outlines of legislation before the whole matter is investi'^t'ed. I have gone as far flfi I am nreirared to The last part of your telegram is confuse-d either in thouerht or transmission. The otopomls made by the . Government are that the mine-owners •Vould l % f in=iire<] by the Government "Life Tn.=»uranrp Department witliout medical examination of the miners until Parliament meets and deals with this lesrisla-

tion. As coon a 6 Parliament meets a ful? inquiry will be held, and the facts reliablf established. Upon these facts any ne* legislation will be based. If the mineowners show that the inclusion of pnetimoconiosis in the Workers' Compensation; Act will be fatal to the best interests o£ the industry. the law will be amended and workable safeguards provided. If, how* ever, it appears that what is required ii . more ''stringent protection against boguc j claims, that protection will be devised ancf ' made law. You ask whether the alternative to passing such legislation is the coercion of workers to compel them £o submit to the medical examination or to fore« employers to employ those seeking em< ployment, no matter how undesirable their physical condition may be. As far as 1 know, no one has suggested coercion, iot, coercion in either of the cases you men^ tion would be not only unjust, but ridicui lous. The Government can do no mcr( than I have outlined, and if the mineowners are not prepared to accept, tha friendly relief of tbe present situation offered by the Government, the responsibility for acting other-wise must rest with . the mine-owners themselves."