W. PBYOB.

9

I.—9a.

Wednesday, 6th September, 1911. William Pryor examined. (No. 5.) 1. The Chairman.] You represent the employers? —The New Zealand Employers' Federation, 2. Has your federation considered this Bill? —Yes; it has been considered by the federations throughout the Dominion. 3. And you voice their opinions?—l am speaking now on behalf of twenty thousand employers of labour connected with our federation. 4. Employers who come under the Workers' Compensation Act?— Yes, every employer does except domestic employers. Before discussing the Bill, Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to mention a matter which has been discussed by my Board. Year after year when we get the printed reports of evidence given before the Committees when matters affecting the interests of employers and workers have been considered we find that statements have been made —well, I do not want to say untruthful statements —but statements which we feel, had we been present and known had been made, could have been easily refuted; and lam instructed to urge upon this Committee to give permission for a representative of the Employers' Federation to be present at all times while evidence is being given on Bills of the kind that I have indicated. Of course we realize that a like concession should be given to a representative of the workers. 5. I might say that the matter has been mentioned this morning, and the Committee intend considering that point immediately after the evidence has been taken this morning?— Thank you. It does not require anything more from me except to say this : that in the opinion of my Board and myself it would make more for the getting at the real facts of the case. 6. The Committee will consider that? —With regard to the Workers' Compensation Bill before us, I am instructed to say that, while the federation has to admit that, from a humanitarian or sentimental point of view, a number of the clauses in the Bill appeal to employers of labour as well as to others, and that while we cannot see that any section of itself would mean a large increase in premiums, the employers have been forced to look at the whole effect of the Bill and to ask what it means. In connection with section 2 my federation feels that the Act as it is provides sufficient accommodation for injured workers. They fear also that the clause providing for £1 medical expenses will lead to a great deal of malingering. What I mean is that workers who receive slight accidents which would not necessarily keep them off work for the time necessary to qualify for compensation, would do their best to be off work for that time so as to secure the £1 medical fee as well as the compensation that might be payable under those circumstances. Then, unfortunately—and I want it to be clearly understood I am not making a charge against the medical men of this Dominion—we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there are those who it is feared would take advantage of this clause to secure the fee prescribed. This means, in our opinion, that the small accidents which do not now carry compensation would be made to carry compensation by one means or another if this clause became law, and would in itself mean an increase in compensation payable of many thousand pounds a year, and in the amount which would have to be paid in premiums under the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. With regard to section 3, we understand that this has been put in for the protection of workers such as slaughtermen, shearers, and others. We look upon it as the introduction of a very dangerous principle. It reads, " Provided that if the average weekly earnings calculated in accordance with this section would exceed five pounds, then, in calculating the average weekly earnings for the purposes of this Act, account may, in the discretion of the Court, be taken of any periods during which the worker has been unable to work because of the intermittent nature of the employment, if, in the opinion of the Court, it was impracticable that the worker should be employed at other remunerative work during such absence." It is altering the calculation of the weekly earnings with regard to intermittent workers. As I say, it introduces a very dangerous principle, and you know that very often we have found that a clause like this means the insertion of the thin end of the wedge to make the principle general before very long. And it seems to me there is this objection with regard especially to slaughtermen, shearers, and harvesters : a very large proportion of these men work for a considerable portion of the year at similar occupations in Australia, and come over here after their work in Australia is done. I should judge that altogether a number of these men find work at a very high rate of pay for close on eight months in the year. 7. Where? —Both in Australia and New Zealand. They get the season on rather earlier in Australia, and come over here and take advantage of the season from one end of the Dominion to the other. It is well known also that these men earn anything from £6 to £10 a week while engaged in this employment. 8. Is that in New Zealand?— That is, taking wherever he is occupied. Supposing a worker for eight months averages £8 a week—and I believe there are those who do; I had the opportunity last season of examining the books of one of our large freezing-works, and found that the slaughtermen—the good men —were earning large wages, quite a large proportior> earning over £7 a week —supposing one of these men working in Australia and then working here earns an average of £8 a week for eight months, that would be over £5 a week for the twelve months prescribed by the Act. At the tail end of the season he might meet with an accident. So far as New Zealand is concerned we could find out what his earnings were, but it is quite conceivable that that man would absolutely hide from the New Zealand authorities his earnings in Australia, and it would be almost impossible to ascertain what they were. 9. Has the Court ever decided to take into consideration the Australian wages?— This would make it do so. There is reciprocity in some parts of Australia. The reason for the insertion of this clause, we understand, is an application made by the Slaughtermen's Federation of New Zealand for alteration on these lines. We call it the " slaughtermen's clause," at any rate. Another well-know-n fact is that many of the men who follow this occupation live on their earnings

2—l. 9a.