THE WAIMATE ADVERTISER. SATURDAY, JULY 27, 1901.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume III, Issue 181, 27 July 1901, Page 2

THE WAIMATE ADVERTISER. SATURDAY, JULY 27, 1901.

Scarcely one of -The later A® of the present Government I® passed without a considera® amount of interest being tal® in it, in many instances t® interest being tinged with app® hension of its probable con® quences ; but none have occupied such a share of pu^H attention as the Workme® Compensation for Accidents j® 1900. As this Act directly af® almost everyone in the colony,® intend devoting some space I<® outline of the res-p msibilitiesß imposes upon employers of labo® comprising the Crown, i<® bodies, and private employ® The primary purpose of (he® is to provide for compensation® workers for injuries accident® sustained during the course® 'their employment, whether it® “ industrial, commercial, S manufacturing works,” H : “ mining, quarrying, engineer® building trades, and other dons work,” and exists only® respect of an injury that (lisa® the worker for a period oi® least two weeks from earning® wages, except where the injur® due to “serious and wilful® conduct of the worker.” H misconduct and neglect Hi® however, be fully proved. I® incumbent on the work l r to® notice qf the accident as® after its occurrence as pos® and before he has voluntary® his employment, and the ®. for compensation most be within three months, in tbe^B of death within six month® its occurrence. Under efl® conditions the employer ■ ; ■formulate, and, with the co®.'--of the Board of Conciliation, into an agreement with bit® ployees for a scheme of co®lß • sat ion similar to the Act anflH; less favourable to the body of workers. In tbb^Bv the provisions of the Act tf*®-. set aside. Clause 15- intro^B-_ the liability of the princi® well as the contractor whe®former engages a contractor®. work for him directly r(‘lati®v; any land, building, vess j®| property of the principal. l®|vf ? the principal is imdemnitif®^T the contractor (as he may employer or principal contractor are jointly liable^®,. £ satisfaction is received of them. When a cont® sub-lets bis contract, tbe® ■ contractor becomes the co»b® ; '; , and the latter becomes ajH|4|| cipal, and ALL are liable «®| t , indemnified. Neither nor composition with hi • , . 6t0,» XflHMSpn can gave the employe^-i to the worker being on the estate for the Bli ®®fes

( ~r m '“ rmi " 11 ' , King the place hitherto held by wages, which mnst now rank second. The following provisions are worth noticing on account of their great stringency and the ■su-ious consequences likely to arise in the case of those who neglect to take precautions by insuring themselves against the possibilities of claims being made against them. When an accident occurs in a mine, factory, building or vessel, the amount of corapen-, sation due shall be presumed to be a charge on the employer’s interest in his mine, factory,; building, vessel, and his plant and appliances, and also against the land on which any of the buildings are situated. All such claims shall take priority ove allothor encumbrances or charges, ' apparently, therefore, superseding the individual who has already lent money on the properly. la the worker’s death results from the accident, and he leaves any' people dependent on him, the employer may be called on to pay any sum from £2OO to £4OO. Where no dependents, partial or complete, are left, a sura not exceeding £3O may be claimed, from the employer for funeral expenses. Where the worker’s total or partial incapacity for work results from the injury, the worker will, after the second week, ho entitled to fifty per' c?ut. of his average weekly eirnings,'btft the full liability of the employer shall not exceed £3OO. This Act is now in full operation, public bodies all over New Z salami are indemnifying themselves against claims, and it will be found necessary for all employers to do the same. Ir hs a moot point whether farmers are included in the scope of the Act. The Legislature infers that It intended they should escape, but it is hard to reconcile this with the “ interpretation ” of the Act, which defines “ worker ” as ■one engaged in any “industrial, commercial, manufacturing,” or ** other hazardous work.” When f arm labourers come into line with employees in other branches of labour, it is difficult to see how they can be excluded from participation in the benefits of the Act, and until the existing doubt is set at rest it would be poor economy on tlv* fanner’s part to

vnu the risk, '-fii.it an employer should take every precaution to

guard employees from risk of accidents is reasonable and just, but like nrmny other Acts passed by the Government, it goes too far. An employee may be just as careless as he likes up to a cm tain mark, but unless expressly told mot to do a thing, before witnesses, and he immediately does it, all the consequences of accident are on the employer. It has been said, with what truth we know not, that the Act was introduced simply to hi ing business to a State Department. We have Government Life Insurance, which is fast losing caste, and which has required a great deal of bolstering up to show even a marginal profit, and to this was added an Accident Department. Whatever the cause of its inception, the results will be the same, and. the only thing left for the employers is to see that if an accident does occur, it Will have been provided for by what is practically compulsory insurance.

There is now ia circulation for signature by residents of the Borough of Waimate, a petition against the proposed inclusion of Waimate Borough in the Timaru Harbour Board district. A Bill is now before the House to provide for this inclusion so as to render •ratepayers in Waimate Borough liable to contribute towards interest on existing loans and on such as may bo raised henceforth. The petition, which is very comprehensive, shows -that the Waimate Borough was deliberately excluded when the boundaries of the Harbour district was fixed in 1879, an inclusion in which the Waimate County Council concurred. The petition ■states that the prospects of making •a good harbour are extremely doubtful,seeing that half a million pounds have already been spent. Daring one storm, * few weeks ago, £BOOO worth of damage was done in twenty-four hours, and it 1 is thought the danger of a recurrence of 9uch disasters is very great. Besides Waimate residents benefited little by the port of Timaru, nearly all their goods

coming via Oamaru. The persons who should bear the burden of the liabilities of the Timam Harboar Board works were those - who authorised the incurring of such liabilities, while excluding

Waimate ratepayers from any voice on the subject, and they agreeing in such exclusion. To now make them partner's in undertakings they have bird no part in initiating would be unfair and unjust, and retrospective legislation of the worst kind. A copy of the petition may be seen at the Borough Council Chambers, or at Mr H. Franklin’s shop, High street. We would* advise all residents to assure themselves that their names are placed on it in time.