M. J. BEABDON.j

5

I.—9a.

during the period of employment. If the period is too short to get a fair estimate, then they base it on what some other worker has earned in that employment for twelve months. 13. Mr. Luke.] Say a man is injured just at the commencement or after a week or two of the beginning of the busy season, is the compensation based on his earnings in front of him or what is behind him?—lf the employers say, " We base his average on the weeks during which he has been employed," then the man will probably find that he is outside the Act altogether. If, on the other hand, it is based on the average amount a man has earned who has been employed since December of the previous year, then the winter months pull his average down. 14. Mr. Fraser.] I do not see how you can improve it by the provision you made reference to : how is it going to benefit them if the limitation of £5 be not applied to manual workers?— Their average would be based on their earnings without any limit such as is contained in the present Act. 15. Supposing a man has been at work for a fortnight—l am taking the Act as it is now — what is the amount he can claim under the Act if he had an accident? —If you employ a man for a fortnight and he earned £6, under the Act he could not claim anything at all. But if you accept my suggestion he would get £3 per week then while he was ill. He would get one-half of what he had earned even if he were earning £6 a week. 16. What you contend is that it is not fair to average the whole of the earnings of the previous year, because this is the period during which a man hopes to make extra money, and therefore the compensation should be calculated during that particular period rather than at the other period ?—Yes, that is so. I am rather sorry, Mr. Chairman, you limited me to the Bill immediately before the Committee, because there are other very important points that have actuallycropped up in this industry. For instance, the question whether the State should not be given the exclusive right to cover employers. Our experience is that where a company does not take its own risk there is more money spent in legal proceedings than the claim amounts to. The insurance companies are more inclined to fight a case than the employers are. 17. Mr. Luke.] Do I understand that you think the State should be the only vehicle that should deal with insurance? —That is so —that there should be no competition outside. We submit that the Act is a humanitarian Act, and should not be used by private companies for moneymaking. During the last year a man employed by the Wellington Meat Export Company had his little finger slightly cut: blood-poisoning set in, and he lost his finger. He asked me what he was entitled to under the schedule, and I put a claim in for £41. A fortnight after he wrote to me that the company had offered him £28 in full settlement, and as he was hard up he had to accept it. I submit that that insurance company deliberately robbed that man. They took advantage of the mail's misfortune. lam quite satisfied, if the Committee were to examine into the matter, the\ would find that it would not amount to a greater risk to the State than it is at present, because the Gear Company —another meat company here —takes its own risks, and finds that it pays better than to insure with insurance companies. The Canterbury Meat Company, a very extensive company operating as far as Burnside in the South Island, not only takes its own risks, but it covers all the contractors in connection with its works. 18. That has a large capital: you could not do that with small companies?—We say that if companies like these find it pays, then the State should take all the risks required, and our experience is that the State is less disposed to go into litigation. They are more disposed to settle matters than to go to law, and that is the proper position. Another point we would like the Committee to agree to is that the compensation should be payable from the first day instead of the seventh d&y. In our trade an injury does not generally last more than fourteen days. If a man loses ten or twelve days in the busy season it is a very serious loss to him. This will be more apparent in a trade of this sort, where we depend entirely upon a season, than where a man's earnings are £2 or £3 a week all the year round. If our men, as they do in many instances, lose the best part of their season, then, of course, their recovery financially is almost impossible 'Ihe members of this organization are mostly travellers. It is a seasonal trade, and they have to follow the sheds round. The majority have to travel to Australia—to South Australia, NewSouth Wales, Victoria, and' Queensland. Now, some of these men have their families in Australia, although some have their- families here. Those who have families in Australia, if a serious or fatal accident happens, are in this position : that their families are deprived of the benefits of the Act. 19. The Chairman.] I do not think we can open up the question of domicile?—l should like the Committee to take this point into consideration, because these men are very seriously affected by it. 20. The Committee understand, I think, with regard to the question of domicile, that it is a very important point in connection with the workers; but they have decided to remain within the four corners of the Bill so far as possible. What I fear is that, in connection with the additional time the Committee will have to give if we open up the whole matter of compensation—the evidence having to be printed and placed before members of Parliament —the debate will cover everything, and in all probability the Bill will not pass this session ?—The view I take of the matter is that, if the Bill is going to be amended at all, essential features could be placed before the Committee, and they would be the best judges, and the Bill might be of more value. Mr. Fraser: I think there is no harm in stating succinctly what are the salient points the witness's organization would like in the Bill, providing it did not take too long. Witness: On the question of domicile I would like to refer to a case we have before us at the present time. Three men were killed in an accident at Nydia Bay, Pelorus Sound. Two of the men are stated to have knocked off work for the day. This is the statement of the employers, and which we have to go to Court to disprove. Having knocked off work for the day, they were not entitled to compensation under the Act, and as it was 3 o'clock in the afternoon we have to go to considerable trouble to prove something different. The third man could not be proved to have knocked off work, because he was working the engine; but as his dependants are living in Tasmania they could not get any compensation. Here we have three fatal accidents, and the employers hold that the dependants are not entitled to compensation in any one case. Clearly,