I—9a.

10

[W. PBTOB.

over that period, and do not look for work between the seasons. With regard to subsection (2) of section 3, we realize that this is another proviso that means the payment of increased premiums—that is, the principle of paying one who has been promoted on the basis of the wages he may have been receiving only for a week or two, even though they may be very considerably higher than he received for the rest of the year. Section 5, which proposes to amend section 16 of the Workers' Compensation Act, is very strenuously objected to by my federation. Section 15 of the principal Act reads, " No compensation shall be payable in respect of any accident which is attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of the worker injured or killed." Section 5 of the Bill proposes to amend that clause by omitting the words " or killed," and adding the words " unless the injury results in death or serious permanent disablement." So that if the Act is amended as proposed it will mean that no compensation shall be payable in respect of any accident which is attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of the worker injured unless the injury results in death or permanent disablement. Now I know it might be said that the defence of serious and wilful misconduct is rarely if ever successful. It is almost an impossibility to prove it, and I think a still greater impossibility to persuade the Court to refuse workers compensation on this plea. But what we say is that the clause at present in the Act acts as a great deterrent to carelessness and wilful misconduct on the part of workers in our factories. It is submitted that the workers are not being seriously prejudiced by the Act as it is at present, and that, seeing that section 15 has undoubtedly that deterrent effect, it is in the interests alike of the employers and the workers that the proposed alteration should not be made. In section 7 (1a) w r e would like it made quite clear that no further responsibility is placed on the employers by this subsection than is actually provided for in the Act. Some considerable fear is expressed that this subsection, taken in conjunction with the proposed alteration in section 2, might land employers in very serious liabilities. Section 9 comes under the category of clauses which appeal to one from the humanitarian or sentimental point of view, as I said previously, and the objection is that we do not know to what extent it is going to increase our liability under the Act. But I want to impress the Committee seriously with this aspect of the whole case : that, no matter how desirable it may be that some of these provisions should be made, the Bill as a whole will impose such tremendous liabilities on the employers of the Dominion that it is absolutely impossible for us to agree to it. We have sought the very best advice of those who are acknowledged as experts in insurance in New Zealand. We have asked them to go through the Bill carefully for us, and to tell us what the increased premiums will amount to if this Bill becomes law; we have asked particularly that the estimate should not be an extravagant one, but should rather err on the conservative side; and we are told that this Bill, taken on what I might term its face value —that is, without reckoning some sections which might mean more than appears on the surface—means an increase of 15 per cent, in the premiums that will be payable under the Workers' Compensation Act. Now, I want the Committee to consider for a moment what that means. The returns from the Official Year-book, 1910, page 601, say that the premium income of the accident insurance companies of the Dominion amounted in 1909 to £223,916, and 15 per cent, on £220,000 means £33,000 a year extra premiums we are going to be asked to pay under this Bill. 10. Mr. McLaren.] What is the amount for 1910? —I have not got the figures, but I understand they are something like the same. We say it is absolutely not possible for the employers of the Dominion to pay this amount, and that when these concessions to the workers mean such a serious increase as that —we say it advisedly —they should not be considered by this Committee or by Parliament for one moment. But the whole position is worse than that. The Workers' Compensation Act of 1908 imposed upon the employers an increase of at least 10 per cent, in premiums—that is, £22,000 —and we are told that even that increase is not sufficient to recoup the insurance companies for the extra payments they have had to make under the Act. So that, even if the increase in this Bill should happen not to be so great as I have said, I think it is beyond doubt that, taking the extra cost to the employers under the Act of 1908 and the extra cost under this Bill, it would mean that the employers of the Dominion will be called upon to pay extra premiums for these concessions given to the workers amounting to at least £50,000 per annum. 11. Mr. Fraser.] In excess of what?— What had to be paid previous to 1908. And no one can say that the Act of 1908 was not a humane measure and did not give increased protection to the workers of the Dominion, or that it was not such a law as imposed sufficient liability on the emplo}-ers of the Dominion. We ask the Committee to look into these matters very seriously, because there is no doubt that the employers of labour in New Zealand are not in a position to submit to the extra tax imposed, and will be compelled, if the Bill is proceeded with in Parliament, to do their utmost to prevent its becoming law. 12. You have not heard what was said the other day. May I ask what is your view of certain statements which were made? In clause 3 you will see the last two and a half lines say, "if in the opinion of the Court it was impracticable that the worker should be employed at other remunerative work during such absence." It was suggested that those words should be struck out. What difference would it make?—lt would mean exactly what I said in my opening remarks, that the insertion of this proviso means the insertion of the thin end of the wedge to make it law that the average wages would be calculated on the time that was worked, not on the real average wages earned during the preceding twelve months, and must mean a large increase in premiums. 13. It was alleged that in the event of a man being employed for, say, £5 or £6 a week, for a period, and then having to take a lower rate of wage, or being unable to obtain employment, it would be unfair if the compensation given to him, in the event of an accident occurring during the time he was earning the higher rate, were averaged on the time he was unemployed and was therefore unable to reap the harvest? —I should imagine a man earning £5 does not come under the Act, and that would stop him, would it not?