WORKERS' COMPENSATION.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 12588, 19 October 1911, Page 5

WORKERS' COMPENSATION.

(From our Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, thiß day

The Workers' Compensation Act Amendment Bill, with new clauses inserted by the LalSor Bills Committee, was put through the coriimittee stagelast night. The Hon. Mr -Millar,- in ■explaining the new provisions, .-.pointed^out that, whereas men like' slaughtermen, for instance, who m the season made over £5 a week, but did not average it for tlie"; year, were excluded under the present. Act. Provision had now been inserted to enable them to come within the benefits of;. the Act, but the benefits m question u were limited to £2 10s' a- week. Among other things newly provided for were that m the case of permanent dis-. .iblement the loss to the worker would be regarded as total. Sir Joseph Ward said that he proposed to have domestic .servants placed under the benefits of the Act. Employees need not be alarmed, for the cost of obtaining the full benefits would not exceed 10s a year, and it was full time that this large class of employee should be considered under the Act.

Mr Poland, while expressing satisfaction with the new provisions giving ex tended benefits to the worker, said he could not understand why the Minister wanted, the same as other countries having Acts similar to our own, before the question of reciprocity could be considered. At present the family of a man m Tasmania or New South Wales, who was killed or injured while working i;i New Zealand, could not benefit under our Act, although they might be dependent on his earnings. He contended that we should lead the way, md live up to our claims m that direction. He also maintained that the limit of earnings clause, as it appeared j did not meet ths requirements as did the English Act, but he looked forward to the time when a national insurance fund would enable the inclusion of many benefits not yet available under our Act. .

The Hon- Mr Millar said that if the other countries refused to reciprocate with us, why should we lay ourselves liable to people .living m those countries? Queensland, Great Britain, and West Australia were already m reciprocity with us, and South Australia was considering reciprocity m view of this question. - ' ■ . ■,