W. T. YOUNG, j

8

I.—9a.

What we wish to do is to benefit the workers generally, and we see in the clause a benefit in that direction, therefore we are in agreement with it and are quite prepared to support its adoption. Clause 4 says, " Section eleven of the principal Act is hereby amended by omitting from subsection five thereof the words ' in any harbour thereof within the meaning of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1908, or within the marginal or other waters,' and substituting the words ' within the outer boundary of the territorial waters.' " The Chairman: Subsection (3) of section 11 of the principal Act reads —" For the purposes of this Act an accident shall be deemed to happen in New Zealand if it happens in any harbour thereof within the meaning of the Shipping and Seamen Act,, 1908, or within the marginal or other waters of New Zealand, and shall be deemed to happen out of New Zealand if it happens elsewhere." 8. Mr, /.v/.i;.] How many miles is that?— That is the three-miles limit off the coast —territorial waters. The Act at present is confined within the marginal or other waters of New Zealand. The Bill specifies within the territorial waters of New Zealand. The words in the Bill are evidentlyput in to meet cases of accident that occur on board ship within the territorial waters. 9. Mr. Frater.~\ Within the three-mile limit? —Yes; that is what it is done for, and we are in agreement with the clause. Clause 5 of the Bill says, "Section fifteen of the principal Act is hereby amended by omitting the words ' or killed,' and substituting the words ' unless the injury results in death or serious and permanent disablement.' ' We are in agreement with this clause, for the reason that the existing law confines the matter to tin ease of death, and the amendment proposes that it shall operate in the case of death or serious and permanent disablement. Clause 6 : This propeses to a nd section 18 of the principal Act by repealing subsection (3) and substituting what is in the Bill. Subsection (3) of section 18 is repealed, and the following substituted : " Any such agreement as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection shall, if made in writing and approved by a Magistrate or an Inspector of Factories (hut not. otherwise), be binding on the parties thereto, and any such agreement entered into by the representative of a deceased worker shall, if so made and approved (but not otherwise), be binding on the dependants of that worker." " (3a.) A Magistrate or an Inspector of Factories shall not refuse his approval to an agreement under this section if he is satisfied that the terms of the agreement are on the whole us favourable to the worker or to his representatives or dependants as are the provisions of this Act." We are in agreement with this, with this one exception—that the power proposed to be conferred upon an Inspector of Factories should be struck out, so that the matter shall be left entirely to the Magistrate. We are also in agreement with paragraph (h) with the same exception, that the words " or Inspector " in the 33rd line be struck out for the same reason. 10. That is consequential? —Yes. 11. Mr. Ell.] You have not given any reason? —This is a matter where an agreement is entered into between an employer or the representative of the worker in the matter of compensation. The agreement is not to hold good under the Bill unless it is approved by a Magistrate or an Inspector of Factories. We consider this practically a judicial function and one that should not be placed in the hands of an Inspector of Factories. We declare, rightly or wrongly, that such a power of approving or disapproving such an agreement should be entirely confined to the Magistrate. Section 7: " Section twenty-two of the principal Act is hereby amended by inserting the following subsection : ' (la.) Any money payable under this Act in respect of the expenses of the medical or surgical attendance on an injured worker may be recovered by action in the Magistrate's Court in accordance with this Act at the suit of that worker, or at the suit of any person by whom the said expenses or any of them have been incurred, or at the suit of any person entitled to receive any payment in respect of the said attendance.' " We are in agreement with that. 12. Mr. Fraeer.~\ Does that differ from the existing law?— There is no provision in the existing law for a matter of this kind, and we take it that this clause purposes to meet the deficiency. Clause 8 : " Section twenty-seven of the principal Act is hereby amended by omitting from subsection two thereof the words 'by any other person,' and substituting therefor the words 'other person.' ' We do not quite understand what the intention here is. We are inclined to think that it is merely a grammatical alteration, because it simply strikes out the words " by any other person " and substitutes the,words " other person," and so far as we can see it comes to about the same thing. We think it is merely a grammatical alteration. 13. Do you mind reading the clause in the principal Act?—lt is section 27, subsection (2): " Every such action or application for a review may be brought or made by or against the worker entitled to the compensation, and against or by the employer or any other person liable to pay that compensation, or to indemnify any other person against it, whether by way of insurance or otherwise." 14. If you strike that out and substitute " other person," how would it run?—lt would then read " and against or by the employer or other person." 15. That is quite a different thing. It is not " by," you know? —We did not see any material difference in it. We thought it was merely a grammatical alteration. Hi. Just now it is "every such action may lie brought or made by or against the worker entitled to the compensation, ami against or by the employer or any other person " ?—Yes. 17. The alteration is that you strike out "by any other person," and substitute the words " other person." It has quite a different meaning. Striking out the word "by" makes a great difference. Clause !'■ reads, " The Second Schedule to the principal Act is hereby amended by omitting the words ' For the purposes of this Schedule an eye, hand, or foot shall be deemed to be lost if it is rendered permanently and wholly useless,' and substituting therefor the words ' For the purposes of this Schedule the expression " loss of " includes " permanent loss of the use of." ' " This is a technical alteration. I understand that the lawyers invariably do their best to pull the law to pieces. They have done so on this particular point. The amendment here is to overcome the difficulty, and we are in agreement with it. That is all I have to say in regard to the Bill, except one point more. It is not provided for in the Bill. I understand, Mr. Chairman, we are to confine ourselves to the Bill, but prohahh- T might be at liberty to place this suggestion before the Committee for their consideration. It wns unanimously carried at the Christchurch Labour Conference this year, " That the Act be amended to provide for country workers an