W. PBTOB.'

11

I.—9a.

14. Supposing it was immediately below that?—lt would increase the compensation, and increasing the compensation is going to increase our premiums. I think it would need an expert in insurance to estimate what that would amount to. I apprehend that that woula mean perhaps another £20,000 per year. 15. What would be the effect of eliminating the words I mentioned from the end of section 3 : would it make it any worse for the employer, and, if so, by how much? —That can only be answered by insurance experts. We have said that this is the introduction of a very dangerous principle, and what you tell me now shows that we have been justified in our opinions. Taking out those words practically means making the principle general in its application. 16. I think this only serves to prove what I said before, how much better it would have been if one of the employers' representatives and a representative of the employees sat here the other day when the witnesses were giving thair evidence? —I feel that I ought to have been here when the employees were giving their evidence. 17. In clause 6 there was an objection to the words " Inspector of Factories "? —We are not raising any objection to that. 18. They wish those words to be struck out: have you any objection to that?—No, they can have it as they like. We are prepared to go before the Magistrate. 19. There was a suggestion that the limitation of £5 in the earnings should not -apply to manual workers? —Even though they were earning £5 or £6 per week. 20. Yes, that is the suggestion?—l think we might cover everybody if we are going to cover that. But how is it possible to cover that? The thing is so ridiculous as to carry its own refutation. 21. Another suggestion was that the State Insurance Department alone should be permitted to insure employees against accidents. That is to say, the State Insurance Department should have a monopoly?—Of course, we are utterly opposed to that. 22. The reason given was that private companies always beat down the workers : what is your experience as to that?—My experience as an employer of labour in Dunedin extending over nearly twenty years, and as one who employed at times seventy, eighty, to a hundred and twenty men in labouring-work involving blasting-operations, where there were broken legs and other accidents of that kind, is that I never once had any difficulty with the insurance companies. There have been complaints, and of course every one who has an accident feels that he has a grievance, whether rightly or not; but it appears to me that it is not desirable that any legislation should be brought in to prevent fair and legitimate competition, even competition with the State. The State requires competition just as much as a corporation requires competition. I am convinced of this, with all due respect to Mr. Richardson and his Department, that if the State alone had the whole of the insurance business in its hands the premiums would be higher than they are to-day. There would be no check on the premiums, not because the Government officials desire to make the rates higher, but because they might be compelled by the powers that be to bring in more revenue. In any case, whatever is done in that way, nothing should be done to prevent the carrying on of legitimate business in this or in any other line. 23. Have you had any experience in regard to this point: Does the State Insurance Department examine as closely into all claims, or less closely, than the private companies; or are the private companies more particular in examining all claims? —I should rather think the examination is just as close in each case. I should say the State Department would be neglecting its duty if it did not examine very closely into every claim put before it. 24. I will bring before you an instance given by Mr. O'Regan. The master of a small vessel who takes his meals with the crew and lives with them, earns £4 lis. a week, and is allowed 10s. for food, which would bring him over the £5 limit. He works just as one of the crew, and yet it was claimed that as he earned over £5 he could not therefore claim compensation for an accident? —That is the case in New Plymouth. 25. I do not know the particular case, but it was given as a sort of example of what might occur?— That might be very hard lines. If this is the case I refer to, what I remember of it was that his living or food was-calculated at 10s. a week. It could have been quite reasonably put at a higher amount, and that would not have made it look so bad. Evidence given in the Arbitration Court yesterday with regard to the providoring of seamen showed that it cost £1 ss. per week per man. If any one had an accident while employed by that company the food would probably be reckoned at 10s., as in the case referred to. You must have some limit. 26. Mr. McLaren.] You say that the provisions in clauses 3 and 9 would be likely to considerably increase the burden on the employers. Have you looked into the provisions of the English Act? —I know them generally, but I have not got a copy. 27. With regard to the plea that may be raised for wilful misconduct, do you know that the provision in this Bill is the same as in the English Act of 1906? —I understand that that is so. 28. As a matter of fact, this is the language : " If it is proved that the injury to a workman is attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of that workman, any compensation claimed in respect of that injury shall, unless the injury results in death or serious and permanent disablement, be disallowed."? —I would like to make this statement with regard to that: We are advised that the condition of things in Great Britain is that the best, companies are going out of the accident insurance business because of the liabilities entailed under the Workers' Compensation Act, and we are very much afraid that this Bill might prove the turning-point in this Dominion, and before very long there might only be the State Insurance Department or weak companies left to take our business. Our point is that you are putting too great a strain upon the resources of the employers in going further in workers' compensation than at the present time. 29. That provision has been in the English Act since 1906? —Yes. 30. It was presented to the Committee that the English Act only applies the limitation of £5 as the average earnings in the case of other than manual workers, and that there was no