WORKERS' COMPENSATION: SEAMEN'S COMPENSATION
DEATH OF EMPLOYEE DUE TO DISEASE: WHETHER ILLNESS OR DEATH BY DISEASE IS COMPENSABLE
SEAMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT 1911: COMMONWEALTH WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT 1912: LAWS REPEAL AND ADOPTING ORDINANCE 1921 (N.G.)
The Secretary to the Prime Minister's Department has forwarded a file of papers relating to the death of A.B., an employee of the Expropriation Board in the Territory of New Guinea, and has requested advice as to whether the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the late A.B. under either the Commonwealth Workmen's Compensation Act 1912 or the Seamen's Compensation Act 1911 which have been applied to the Territory of New Guinea under the Laws Repeal and Adopting Ordinance 1921.
The circumstances of Mr B.'s death are set out in a letter dated 30 June 1921, from the Acting District Superintendent, Maron [Island], to the Business Manager, Expropriation Board, Rabaul, which is in the following terms:
I have to report the death of Mr A.B., Captain the m.s. Ninigo, at 4 p.m. on 29 June 1921. Mr B. had had intermittent doses of malaria fever for about a month, recovering for a short period, and during which time he had made several trips to the outstations. Upon his return to Maron a week ago, he went to bed with a very bad attack, and even during this time he seemed to improve, but on the 27th there was evidence of blackwater fever, and he developed a very high fever. About 1.30 p.m. on the 29th he became unconscious and expired at 4 p.m. the same day. Every attention was given to the deceased during his illness by the members of the Maron staff without avail.
It appears, therefore, that Mr B.'s death was caused by disease.
Both the Commonwealth Workmen's Compensation Act 1912 and the Seamen's Compensation Act 1911 provide for the payment of compensation in respect of personal injury or death caused to a workman or seaman, as the case may be, by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. No provision is, however, made in either Act for compensation in respect of illness or death from disease.
In my opinion, therefore, the Commonwealth is not liable under either of the Acts in question to pay compensation to the dependants of the late A.B.
[Vol. 18, p. 53]