171 / 364
it impossible or very difficult to convert their
securities into cash.
It is understood that at the present time the
Government broker is not bidding for the stock
and that there are numerous sellers who cannot
get a bid at all. The Society has made represent
ations to the Department of Lands for the im
mediate issue of Land Bonds bearing interest at
not less then 6f per cent with not less favourable
terms of issue and redemption than those which
attach to other Government securities offered to
the public for voluntary subscription. It has been
suggested that this and all future issues of Land
Bonds should have a reasonably proximate date
for
redemption
(otherwise
than by drawings),
that the bonds should have the privilege of the
right to tender in satisfaction of death duties and
income tax due to the State and that they should
be issued free of income tax at source as in the
case of other Government securities. There is a
strong case for the issue of bonus bonds to the
holders of the present issues to compensate them
[or tlie loss
in value of their holdings due to
Government action.
There is a greater moral obligation on
the
State to maintain the market value of securities
which must be accepted by the citizen in ex
change for his property compulsorily acquired
than in the case of Government securities issued
for voluntary subscription.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
It is
inherent in
the system of multi-party
parliamentary democracy that governments
(ir
respective of their particular affiliations) tend to
advance schemes which appear superficially at
least, to confer financial benefits on sections of
the population which are numerous and conse
quently have strong voting power. The man in
the street experiences an
instinctive favourable
reaction on learning that a particular bill pro
poses to confer financial benefits on him if they are
to be paid for by somebody else. He seldom if
ever reflects on
the long term effects of such
benefits and that financial gains, even when paid
out of some other pocket often have a tendency
in the long run to reach his own—usually in a
much inflated form. Neither does he reflect on
the equitable distribution of benefits and costs as
between himself and other members of the com
munity. On its face the Social Welfare (Occup
ational Injuries) Bill is attractive from the work
man's point of view.
It proposes substantially
increased injury benefit and disablement benefit
payable in the form of weekly income, payments
with attendance allowance, cost of medical care
and death benefit at prescribed rates. The scheme
is to be administered by the Department of Social
Welfare and financed by weekly payments
made
by
the employer only
at a rate equivalent to
£5-8-3d. per annum for each male employee and
£3-18-Od. per annum for each female employee.
Neither the State nor the employee contribute
to the cost of the benefits.
The first thing that strikes the unprejudiced
mind about the scheme is the inequitable prin
ciple of obliging all employers to contribute at
the same rate to benefits for injured or disabled
workmen and employees irrespective of the degree
of risk attaching to the particular occupation or
employment. Under the existing private enterprise
system of workmen's compensation insurance each
employer is rated at the risk appropriate to his
trade or business. The industrialist,
the shop
keeper and the professional or domestic employer
are all rated as different risks. This is in accord
ance with a sound principle of social justice. The
effect of the principle of uniformity of payment
proposed in
the Bill
is
that the same annual
premium £5-8-3d.
(or £3-18-Od.
for
females)
will be paid in respect of employees in low risk
professional, clerical or domestic employments as
in highly hazardous trades and industries, such
as building and engineering where dangerous
equipment and machinery is in constant use. The
State with the aid of ensuring the solvency of the
scheme, which could not be done without the
contributions of the employers of comparatively
risk-free workers has chosen
to disregard
their
interests and to compel them to subsidise large
employers in the building, engineering and similar
industries.
The removal, in 1955, of certain employers'
defences has caused a substantial growth in the
numbers of claims for damages and negligence.
This growth will not be affected by
the sub
stitution of a Social Insurance Scheme for the
Workmen's
Compensation
system
claims
in
negligence are more likely
to
increase. In the
event it will mean that every prudent employer
will continue his
insurance policy with an in
surance company and will
in addition make a
payment to the State scheme. Because the outgo
on negligence is more
likely to increase than
reduce it will mean that the majority of employers
can hardly expect material
reductions
in
the
amounts which they will continue to pay to the
insurance companies. Because of the iniquity of
the fixed contributions which will be made to
65