The Secretary to the Department of Defence has forwarded for advice the following memorandum:

Advice is desired in regard to the following matter affecting the award of compensation under the Commonwealth Workmen's Compensation Act:

1. In computing 'average weekly earnings' of a workman for the purposes of compensation under the above Act, should regard be taken of any allowance in kind received in addition to pay? For example, a seaman employed in a civilian capacity is entitled, in addition to payment of wages, to be victualled and provided with accommodation on board ship.
2. Should the value of any such allowance in kind be estimated and included in earnings and taken into account when computing 'average weekly earnings' of the workman?

The First Schedule to the Commonwealth Workmen's Compensation Act 1912 provides that compensation shall be based on the 'average weekly earnings', and in paragraph (2) of that Schedule certain rules are laid down for the purpose of computing the 'earnings' and 'average weekly earnings' of the workman.

In several cases which have arisen in England under the Employers' Liability Act 1880-under which compensation is based on the 'estimated earnings' of the workman-it has been held that 'earnings' include not only cash payments but other things, the value of which is capable of being calculated in money, such as clothes, board and lodging, or articles which under his contract with the employer the workman is entitled to receive in return for his services: Noel v. Redruth Foundry Co. [1896] 1 Q.B. 453. But tuition such as an apprentice receives from his master as part consideration for his services was held to be of too vague a character to be the subject of pecuniary valuation: Pomphrey v. Southwark Press [1901] l.K.B. 86.

In my opinion the principle of these decisions is applicable in the interpretation of the words 'average weekly earnings' in the First Schedule to the Commonwealth Workmen's Compensation Act 1912.

I think therefore that the questions asked should be answered in the affirmative.

[Vol. 14, p. 106]