AUSTRALIAN NEWS

Hokitika Guardian, 22 June 1926, Page 3

AUSTRALIAN NEWS

[Australia & N.Z. Cable Association.'

DISASTROUS FIRE. ADELAIDE, June 20.

Fire destroyed Rigg and Son’s stationery factory at Southwark, doing damage to the extent of €30,000.

PRETTY FLOWER PEST. SYDNEY. June PA

Of tine three weeds which have lieen declared noxious all over the State, the one that is now attracting most attention is St. John’s Vorl. It is claimed to have eaten up already £1,000,000 in land. How effectively to grapple with the pest is now being discussed but the question of this and other noxious weeds has been discussed for so many years that any definite policy in respect to St. John’s Wort will come as something of a shock. Thi? view of the shire councils and the Departmental view ns to the most effective line of attack differ, and the weed, of course, flourishes. Like Dead Sea fruit. St. John’s Wort Is nin? to look at. but it is nasty in all other respects. Like the water hyacinth. it was brought into Australia as a pretty flower. Tt was known in Eurooe as the Witch's Herb, and wa> supposed to be capable of acting as a charm against, witchcraft. In Victoria it has already eaten up 150.000 acres. Tt is feared that if it is not checked before very long it will eat up £10.000,000 in land in New South Wales. The Crown's chief asset—its unsold land—is vitally affected. WORKERS’ INJURIES. COMPENSATION IN X.S.AY. SYDNEY, June 10. It is not at all unlikely that the Workers’ Compensation Act, which will come into force on July Ist, and will embody compulsory insurance in its most radical form will provide a substantial harvest for the legal fraternity, when it comes to the interpretation of some of its provisions. The term “injury,’’ for instance, as defined in the Act, means personal injury, “and includes a disease which is eontraeted by the worker in the course of his employment-, whether at or away from his place of employment, and to which the employment was a contributing factor.”

A pretty little bit of ambiguity is woven round that phrase, “to which the employment was a contributing factor.” Perhaps it was inserted for the reason that ambiguity is a quality deemed essentially necessary to the clear understanding of Acts of Parliament. Say employee No. 1 comes to his job with a heavy cold, and sits sneezing and coughing all day among Ids fellows. Employee So. 2. whose place at work is beside No. I. now falls ill. He is prepared to swear that he has not knowingly come into contact. with any source of infection except employee No. 1. Is this a “disease to which the employment was a contributing factor? Or is it a disease arising out of conditions superimposed upon the employment. Lawyers incline to the former view, which of course makes the employer liable. A doctor has gone so far as to say that an employee who attributes his influenza to a draught in which ho has sat at his office or workshop, will nave a valid claim for compensation. When employer' and employee disagree over some of the clauses of this Act. as they inevitably will do, the lawyer will prosper.