133

A.—sa

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE

Hon. W. M. HUGHES : I gave them to you. The CHAIRMAN : I will make a search. Oh! here they are! Captain Chalmers had them. lam so glad, because I feel rather responsible. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : There is another. However, I can repeat that without any trouble, and, if you will allow me, I will get them fixed up for the final session. The CHAIRMAN : I am so glad they have been found. We will get copies made and circulated at once, and will treat them as being on the Agenda, seeing that it is my fault —if the Conference will allow me to repair my error in that way. The CHAIRMAN : Now, Sir William, will you kindly move your resolution ? Sm WILLIAM LYNE : 1 do not intend to say very much about most of these resolutions, because I do not want to delay the Conference. The first resolution is : — 'That a scheme of compulsory insurance for seamen is desirable. In reference to that, I wish to say that the object of this has been given by others as well as by myself, and I think it was considered by the Royal Commission that sat in Sydney. No doubt the dangers to seamen are very exceptional, and we have recognised this principle in our Public Service Law in the Commonwealth, where we have compulsory insurance, and if the individuals do not keep up their premiums or payments, they are deducted from their salaries, and we have also it in another form in New South Wales, where it exists now. That is so far as miners are concerned. The miner contributes I think it is one-third to a fund, the owner of the mines one-third, and I think the government onethird—l am not sure that lam right in the proportion, but I think that is the proportion to meet any accidents that may occur to the men employed. Now, with regard to seamen on ships, there is so far as I know no provision for insurance, and surely there might be some compulsory insurance recognised the same as in recent legislation in Great Britain for servants and employees. Why cannot it extend to seamen as well as to others, especially as their work is perhaps more dangerous than any of those referred to in the cases to which I have alluded ? They are exceptional at the present moment, and I think there might be some measures suggested that shipowners bear a proportion, say half, and the other half be borne by the seamen. Of course, I do not expect the Government here would do as we do in New South Wales —bear one-third of the insurance themselves—but I submit this with a view of trying to put the seaman in as good a position as we have placed our public servants and others in New South Wales, and I think in the other States, having regard to the dangers of the work they are engaged in. Mb. FERNIE : Do you mean the employers on shore? Sm WILLIAM LYNE : Do you mean in the Commonwealth ? Mb. FERNIE : Yes. Sm WILLIAM LYNE : I am not sure the regulations go so far as that, but I put this special provision in reference to public servants. Mb. FERNIE : Should seamen be insured, if others are not? Sib WILLIAM LYNE : We have that in the States. I do not know whether we have it in regard to the Commonwealth, but I think some of the other States have. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON: As regards miners' Seamen are included in the Workmen's Compensation Act by the British Parliament. Sip. WILLIAM LYNE : I do not wish to delay the Conference, and I have just stated baldly what my reasons are for submitting this. I have just got the Act to show what we do in New South Wales. There I see the mineowner pays 10s. per annum, the Government an equal amount, and the miner 4£d. per week. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : Read the first paragraph on the next page. 6 r Sm WILLIAM LYNE : "In the absence of sufficient ( evidence your Commissioners do not feel themselves competent to recommend any of these schemes," &c.

Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : There is no approval. The CHAIRMAN : I think you have to deal with resolutions N os. 1 and 6 together; you will see they are practically dealing with the same subject. Sir WILLIAM LYNE : No. 6 says : " That the adop- " tion of uniform legislation is desirable with a view to " extend the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation " Acts to seamen." Hon. W. M. HUGHES : As a matter of fact, in New South Wales we are rather worse off than you were here before the amending of the Act which included seamen. Our Act hardly at all affects the common law. We have the Employers' Liability Act, I think it is called; but practically the doctrine of common employment is not materially affected by the Act. The CHAIRMAN : You are a long way behind the old country. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : We are—very, very far; and therefore, no doubt, if we got an up-to-date Workmen's Compensation Act it will be a very good thing for us —I may say that one of our judges framed one many years ago, I should say seven or eight years ago. I do not know what became of it. I fancy the Legislative Council of New South Wales threw it out with contumely. Mr. COX : Under the circumstances I think the resolu tion should be made : That Australia should adopt a scheme of insurance for seamen. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : What we might say is this : That it is a very desirable thing that the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended by the Act of 1906, should be adopted in Australia or throughout the Empire. Mb. LLEWELLYN SMITH : We might meet it by Resolution 6, if you tack on the words "as has already " been done by the Act of 1906." Mb. NORMAN HILL : I won't agree to that, because 1 venture to think that the system inaugurated by Sir William Lyne is a far juster one, and is the right one to adopt. The Home Office appointed a Committee in 1904, and on that Committee there were : Sir Kenelm Digby, in the chair; Sir Benjamin Brown, representing employers; Judge Lumley Smith, a Judge who had a great experience; Captain Chalmers, of the Board of Trade; and M . r - Barnes > the Secretarv of tQ e Amalgamated Society of Engineers. Now that Committee made very careful inquiry—there was no wicked shipowner on it—but there was the Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. That Committee made a report that it would be wiser to deal with seamen by a separate scheme of insurance. They pointed out the difference between seaservice and land-service. They pointed out that at sea a man was on risk during the whole 24 hours; they pointed out there were many occasions in which risks had to be run, not in the interests of employers, but in the interests t>f humanity and cargo owners, and they were strongly of opinion that there should be a General Insurance Scheme, and they said they thought a case had been made out for btate contributions. We supported that report. Unfortunately, it was ignored by the Government, and the seamen were included in the Workmen's Compensation Bill, bo tar as I know, no reasons were ever given why that report was ignored, and I believe the system Sir William Lyne has advocated is the right one. I think it would be a mistake for Australia to depart from their present established custom and merely extend the Workmen s Compensation Act to seamen. You must remember we here, and you by your Act, have dealt with all cases of r n a f, tla ' d „ s . b ! em ?, nt alr , a , d y u "der your Merchant Shipping Bill That is all provided for, and what I would like i! that we should agree on a resolution that the Conference u r ?r POrt made in 19M b y the Committee appointed by the Home Secretary in so far as the report advocates in lieu of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the adoption of some system of compulsory insurance which would provide compensation with complete security without imposing an undue burden on contribute WDer ' °° 8t ° f Wh ' Ch the State could wo S u?d ™ = " d ° DOt «W~ *. State sys M to B mm°A ß i_l4i.a HlLL: " "*"»«*. * ™ «-