The Gazette 1964/67

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