I.—9a.

12

["W. PBYOB.

limitation with regard to manual workers. It was suggested that this Bill should be altered so as. to exclude manual workers? —Do they provide that only the time worked shall be reckoned, or do they take it over the whole year 1 31. Do you think the provision in the English Act a fair one?—l have said that many of these provisions, from a humanitarian point of view, appear to be very fair ones. 32. You admit that many companies have been carrying on the business during the last five years?—l say they are going out of the business owing to the strain on them. 33. Have you any proof as to the number of companies which have gone out of the business? —No, but I think you will probably be able to get it from some of the insurance witnesses. 34. With regard to the average earnings of men who would be affected by the £5 limit under clause 3 of the Bill—that is, the shearers, slaughtermen, and harvesters —that is the class you referred to?— Yes. 35. Do you suggest that those men average £8 a week?—l said I should not be at all surprised if many of them did, from what I know of their earnings here. 36. Have you any exact data with regard to their earnings throughout, both here and elsewhere?—l said the difficulties under this clause were such that it would be impossible to prove what those men were earning in Australia, but I should judge from what many of the men were earning here that their earnings in Australia would be similar to what they earned here. 37. It is a rough estimate of your own —£8 a week? —I said so. 38. Hon. Mr. Millar.] I believe you have given evidence that the Bill would mean an increase in premiums of 15 per cent. ? —Yes. 39. I cannot see for what reason this Bill would do that, because the insurance people told me the Bill of last year meant no increase at all?—I think you must have got them at a very soft moment. 40. They told me they could stand £1 then without any increase at all, but the £10 they could not stand without an increase of about 30 per cent. ? —Well, they must answer for their sins. [Vide letter from Mr. Pryor correcting figures quoted in appendix.] J. H. Richardson examined. (No. 6.) 1. The Chairman.] You are?— Commissioner of the Government Insurance Department. 2. You have considered this Bill?— Yes. 3. And you are prepared to make a statement with regard to its application to your Department?— Yes. I should like to premise what I have to say with regard to the Bill by mentioning that I express no opinion with regard to the questions of policy involved in the Bill. I only wish to point out in what respect the Bill might be improved from a working point of view; and, of course, I shall be glad to answer questions with regard to the effect of the proposed increased benefits on fhe rates of premium. The most important change is contained in section 2, which makes the employer liable for medical or surgical expenses up to £1 in addition to the usual compensation. Under the present law no compensation is payable unless the incapacity lasts for seven days or more, and I think it should be made quite clear that this limitation also applies as respects the proposed medical expenses of £1. If the amendment applies to all accidents, whether compensation is payable or not, there will be a multitude of small claims for medical expenses arising, perhaps, from trivial accidents which merely cause absence from work while the the injury is being attended to. The Department pays about a thousand claims every year. The proposed medical expenses (£1), if limited to accidents which disable the worker for not less than seven days, will therefore add at least £1000 to the outgo and increase the rates of premium by about 10 per cent., or slightly more —say, 12J per cent.; but if medical expenses are payable for all accidents, however short the duration of the incapacity, and wdiether the worker is entitled to compensation or not, the rates will have to be increased by considerably more, so as to meet the increased number of claims and the extra expenses of administration. I might mention that I have had calculations made in the office to see if we could arrive approximately at the actual addition necessary if medical expenses for all accidents were paid for at the rate of £1, whether the worker was entitled to compensation or not, and we have come to the conclusion that it would require from 20 per cent, to 25 per cent, extra on the premiums if all accidents were included. As I have said before, it would take from 10 per cent, to 12£ per cent, if the only accidents included were those where the worker is entitled to compensation. With regard to subsection (1) of section 3, this alteration is apparently for the purpose of reducing the wages of such classes of labour as shearers. While at work shearers, as a rule, earn over £5 a week, and are therefore excluded from the benefits of the Act, although their average earnings throughout the year may be considerably less than this amount. The section involves a reference to the Court in each case to ascertain how the average weekly earnings are to be computed. On the whole, I believe it would be better to definitely include manual labour under the Act independently of the £5 wage-limit, as is done in the English Act (see section 13, definition of " Worker "), and fix the maximum weekly compensation at £2 10s. This arrangement would be more simple, and, although it would probably give the workman a larger claim, would be preferable to the delay and expense of an application to the Court. Under the English Act, section 13, " workman " is defined in this way—"'Workman' does not include any person employed otherwise than by way of manual labour whose remuneration exceeds £250 a year, or a person whose employment is of a casual nature, and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employers' trade or business, or a member of a police force, or an out-worker, or a member of the employer's family dwelling in his house; but, save as aforesaid, means any person who has entered into or works under a contract 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." In my opinion it would be a decided advantage to definitely include all those people who are engaged in manual labour once and for all, limiting the compensation to £2 10s.