CRITICISM OF AMENDMENT

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22506, 14 September 1938, Page 12

CRITICISM OF AMENDMENT

WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT MINISTER’S EXPLANATION Ifrom Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, September 13 Amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act contained In the Statutes Amenedment Bill were criticised by Mr W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo) during the second reading of the bill in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr Broadfoot suggested that one clause had been introduced because of pressure from the unions. “If a man is given a certificate by a medical practitioner that he is fit for work and does not agree with it, he may appeal to the medical committee of three members,” Mr Broadfoot said. “The employer has the same right, and at present the findings of that committee are conclusive, so that the Court of Arbitration has no power to go behind the committee’s certificate. The amendment makes it clear, however, that the medical certificates will not be conclusive, and it seems that even if judgment is given, either side may go to the Court and have the claim reopened. The evidence of the experts is entirely disregarded, and there is no finality.” Mr Broadfoot said that the principle contained in the legislation at present had been favourably commented on by judges in many countries, and it teemed that the amendment was being brought in to meet the whims of some particular case. He understood that it was the result of a recent decision of unions in Wellington, and he considered that the Minister had been ill-advised to introduce legislation for the benefit of any individual, regardless of the interests of the community. “Matter of Procedure” "Any solicitor knows that retrospective legislation has to be scrutinised very closely," said the Attorney-Gen-eral (the Hon. H. G. R. Mason) in reply; "but there are occasions when it Bbb be perfectly just, and this is a

case in point. It deals with a matter of procedure, and with the question of access to the Court. The issues concerned were not determined in Court on their merits, or there would be the gravest difficulty about saying they could be reopened. In the present case, it is considered that the original intention of the act was not that which was determined by the Court when it held that there was no appeal from the medical committee to the Court of Arbitration,” the Minister added. **The intention of the act was that access to the Court should always have been maintained. The whole thing is merely a matter of procedure, and gives the workers who were shut out from access to the Court the access they should have.”