I.—9a.

16

H. N. LTARDET.

4. The general manager of your company, Mr. Montefiore, told me it would not cost anything at all?—I cannot understand that, because it is quite contrary to our experience. In estimating what the loss is going to be with regard to my own corporation I must add to the 1,778 claims we have paid during the year a certain proportion—perhaps a fourth of this number —for cases where we have not had to pay anything on minor injuries, but which would have to be attended by a medical man, so that I estimate our increased expenses on the bare claims paid and premiums received will be 11 per cent., or 13 per cent, if we add the minor cases requiring medical attention. With regard to section 3, that is going to cost the employer and the indemnifier—the corporation—more money. The gentlemen who have gone before me have evidently not had very much experience of freezing-works and slaughterers, and that class of men, who must of necessity be good workmen and be paid high wages cr they would not be employed. A slaughterer must get through so-many sheep or cattle or pigs a day or he is not wanted there. So with shearers, who earn big wages, and harvesters, but only for the season : and it does not seem quite a fair adjustment that the average earnings should be reckoned on what they earn during a certain period of the year only. I had an experience where a man in Christchurch was earning an average of £7 12s. a week. 5. Mr. Fraser.] Could he claim if earning over £5? —When we put it in that way the men wanted to put it in another way. I said, if he is earning that amount per week he is outside the pale of the Compensation Act. We settled the matter. I was informed that the men in freezing-works earn up to £8 a week, but it is only for a certain part of the season : take Borthwick's and other large freezing companies, where there is a closed season. At other times these men are earning good money. There, I think, it is going to be a hardship to the employer. With regard to subsection (2) of clause 3, I suppose there is nothing very dangerous in it. With reference to section 5, there again it seems a question in the minds of the gentlemen who have given evidence as to whether there are many cases of misconduct —accidents arising out of gross negligence which should be defined as misconduct. I do not know how misconduct could otherwise be defined. We have had several cases—one particularly which comes to my memory just now. A man loading a steamer — a ganger — called one of the men from the side of the ship, and as he came over he and another man started to wrestle and fight. The consequence was that a box of butter fell and broke one of the men's legs. Compensation was claimed, and I resisted the claim, and it was proved beyond doubt that the men were skylarking, and the accident was due to wilful misconduct—instead of working the men were playing. The case did not go to the Court. I was served with a writ, but the case was withdrawn. 6. Hon. Mr. Millar]. That case would not have come under this clause in any case, because it did not result in death or permanent disablement? —It might have resulted in permanent disablement, because it was a compound fracture of the ankle. With regard to clause 6, I do not know whether it is going to make very much difference to us. We never to my knowledge coerced a widow or unintelligent man to accept compensation less than what they were entitled to by the Act. We never do it. My experience proves to me, on the other hand, that the injured people, or the dependants of a man who is deceased, are not given time to accept any compromise from a company, because as soon as the accident occurs and before the man is dead there are three or four solicitors about him. They do not give you any chance whatever. In the old days —I have had eighteen years' experience of accident insurance—the solicitors never interfered with one at all. If the man were alive he had his friends with him, and we threshed the matter out and settled it. Now, the first thing you hear of is a letter from the man's solicitor stating that so-and-so has met with an accident or death, and demanding compensation. Of course, that is due to the progress of the country, and you cannot combat that. I would not like to think that any of the companies in New Zealand would take advantage of the unfortunate position in which the dependants of injured people are put. It would not pay them to do so, because they would not get any business. The whole thing would kill itself in a year or two, as these things soon get about, and people would not insure with them. It would be rather a death-knell to the company doing it. 7. Then the clause cannot do any harm? —Of course, we have a very large business, and although the worker may seem - not to be the man we are looking to at the present time, from an underwriter's point of view, you want to get the employer on your side as well, because he has a lot of insurance business to give you. I heard Mr. Millar ask the chairman of the Underwriters' Association a question just now on severed joints. As nearly as possible we adhere to the Act, and I think that is our Bible —our business guide. The insurance companies do not make the laws, but have to obey them, and so long as we give a generous interpretation to the law no one can say that further legislation should be passed. My office is a good deal like a hospital. We keep a surgeon on the premises, and it has never come under my notice yet that we have ever tried to get out of a claim for half a joint. But to say that because a man gets a small point of a joint cut off we are going to pay for the whole joint—well, we are not. Ido not think we ever quibble about paying for a joint wdien it has been not totally but partially cut off. I am perfectly certain that our company or any other well-conducted insurance company never quibbles about that sort of thing. 8. The figures you gave us showed that the average claims per annum for four years amounted to £15,700?— Yes. 9,. And the average premiums for the same periods amounted to £27,800? —Yes. 10. £27,000 as against £15,000 leaves a balance of £12,000 in premiums collected than claims paid? —Yes. 11. That is about 60 per cent.? —I will admit 60 per cent. 12. It would be fair to say you pay 35 per cent, for working-expenses?— You must put more than that down. You are picking out a line which is most expensive in our business. No company, or hardly a company, in New Zealand has made a profit out of workers' compensation