Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 6 December 1911


Senator RAE (New South Wales) . - I really cannot understand the reason for making this provision. I admit that I did not understand the matter when I made an interjection during the debate on the second reading. While I recognise that it would be blackmailing for any person to claim damages twice, this amendment appears to me to be overloading the Bill. How can a man recover compensation except by making a claim against his employers ? I suppose that he could not, in any case, get compensation from anybody else. As his employers are one firm or company, no matter what country they do business in, if he was foolish enough to enter an action in another country the fact would be at once a bar and throw him out of Court.


Senator Millen - He might enter an action against the same people in two countries; for instance, in Australia and England.


Senator RAE - Would it not be madness to do so? There is no Court which would grant a claim made in such circumstances.


Senator de Largie - His employer might be a stevedore in Australia, but a shipowner in the Old Country.


Senator Guthrie - He could not be a stevedore here, because he would be on the articles of the ship.


Senator Millen - I think that the clause brings the Bill on all-fours with the Imperial Act.


Senator Guthrie - I do not think that it does.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 - (3.) There shall be included among the debts which are in the distribution of the property of a bankrupt and in the distribution of the assets of a company being wound up to be paid in priority to all other debts, the amount, not exceeding in any individual case One hundred pounds, due in respect of any compensation the liability wherefor accrued before the date of the sequestration order. . . ! .







Suggest corrections