I.—9a.

6

;M. J. REABDON.

if the present premiums cover the risk of men during the hours of work, then without any extra cost they should cover the men during the twenty-four hours. The question of domicile is so clear that I shall be surprised if any member of the House does not agree with the abolition of the domicile clause. 21. Mr. Fraser.] Do I understand that you think compensation should be payable although an accident occurs after a man has ceased to work? —We consider the greater risk is during the hours of work. Then we suggest that without any greater expense the worker could be covered during the twenty-four hours. This point was suggested to me by the employer in whose employ these people were. He said that before the Workers' Compensation Act came into vogue cover was taken over the whole twenty-four hours. 22. Mr. Bollard.] The men paid something towards the premiums then? —That is so, but now it is only during the period of work, and you have to establish that the man was actually working. Every other man in the mill was at work in the case I have mentioned, but the employers say these two men were not. 23. Mr. Fraser.] What do you think is the better of the two —cover during the whole of the twenty-four hours or only during the time the man is at work? —There is another point—it arose in connection with a statement I made a few moments ago about a man accepting £28. This man lost his little finger below the second joint. It is quite useless, and there is nothing there but an ugly lump of overgrown flesh. The insurance company argued that because the last joint is still there it is not a total loss of the finger. The schedule says that where a hand is wholly or permanently useless it shall be regarded as a total loss; but as it does not say that a finger is a total loss, we have to go to law because the whole of the finger right up has not entirely disappeared. The schedule refers to an eye, hand, or a foot, but it does not make any reference to a finger. 24. The Chairman.] But the words to be substituted amend that? —It does not include a finger. I should say you should substitute there " any member mentioned in the schedule." 25. I think you will find that the words "eye, hand, and foot " are to be omitted, and it practically includes what you mean, Mr. Reardon? —Those are all the important points which have cropped up. Patrick J. O'Regan examined. (No. 4.) 1. The Chairman.] Whom do you represent?—l am solicitor for the New Zealand Federation of Labour. The point to which I desire to make special reference is the £5-a-\veek limitation, to which, I can gather, reference has been made by Mr. Reardon. Having regard to the fact that the Committee has decided to consider only amendments within the limits of the Bill before it, I take leave to say that that is the most important amendment I can suggest —I mean the modification of that limitation. I may be permitted to give briefly the rationale of the limitation, as I understand it. Under the English Act of 1897 the word " workman " was used in the popular or ordinary sense —that is to say, the benefits of the Act were practically limited to "manual workers," and there was no limitation of this kind. The consequence was that if a manual worker did receive more than £250 per annum he was still within the benefits of the Act. By the English Act of 190G the scheme of compensation was considerably extended, and, inasmuch as it was then made to cover clerical and other workers, many of whom might be receiving salaries in excess of £250 a year, this limitation was imposed; but the rights of manual workers were still preserved. I would quote the definition of " workman " from section 13 of the English Act : " ' Workman ' does not include any person employed otherwise than by way of manual labour " —mark these words —"whose remuneration exceeds £250 per year . . . but, save as aforesaid, means any person who has entered into or works under a contraot of service or apprenticeship with an employer, whether by way of manual labour, clerical work, or otherwise, and whether the contract is expressed or implied, is oral, or in writing." Now, you will see the reason for the limitation imposed by the English Act and followed by our Act. Our Act provides that any person whose remuneration, calculated in accordance with the Act, exceeds £5 is not entitled to receive compensation, but there is no such saving provision as that which has been expressly retained in the English Act in order to preserve the rights of manual workers; and if you will read section 6 of our Act you will find that the hardship is accentuated, because it is there provided that " average weekly earnings " mean the earnings while at work—that is to say. in computing the average weekly earnings you must exclude from the computation periods of idleness. So long as the £5 limit is not exceeded, that is in the interest of the worker, of course, because it enhances the amount of his compensation. But it will often happen in practice that by that very method of computation the earnings will exceed .£5 a week, and consequently deprive the worker of the benefits of the statute. This, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, constitutes a grievance which ought to be redressed for several reasons. One reason which I would emphasize is the desirability of having, as far as possible, uniform legislation in a matter of this kind as between the different parts of the British Empire. On a strict reading of section 53 of the Act of 1908 you will find that it is necessary, in order to enable reciprocal relations to be established between two countries, that there must be practical similarity in the scheme of compensation. Another reason I would advance in favour of this modification is that it cannot increase the premiums under the Act. If you take the opinion of insurance experts, they will tell you that there is much less risk in the hi"her-paid branches of labour, and that, so far as they are concerned, they have no objection whatever to the change I suggest. I will give you two illustrations of the hardship of this limitation in practice? two cases which have come under my notice. Perhaps it is not necessary to mention names, but I will give the illustration. A is the master of a small coasting steamer of 19 tons. He worked as one of the crew, and took his meals with them—was in the strictest sense a manual worker. His monetary salary was £20 per calendar month, or £4 12s. and a fraction per week. In accordance with the rule previously established by the Court of Arbitration, the food obtained on board the vessel had to be taken into account. I might say that the usual allowance is 10s. per week for a seaman and 15s. for an officer. Having regard to the fact that the