The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1920.

Hokitika Guardian, 30 June 1926, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1920.

EXTREME INSURANCE LEGISLATION.

i Tiiekk is something of an impasse for Labor organisations arising out of the new Workers’ Compensation Act which is to become law in New South Wales to-morrow. Oura of the Labor Ministers recently remarked on the legislation that it was more drastic and fnri reaching than any similar legislation to he found in the rest of the world. A Sydney paper commenting on this statement- was prompted to remark that the fact disclosed “may he regarded as a singularly happy circumstance for the rest of the world.” The provisions of the Act in question caused consternation among all classes of employers, and created something of a panic among industrial and insurance interests in the State'of New South Wales. The President of the Graziers’ Association after a searching analysis of the situation, estimated that the Workers’ Compensation Act will place upon the shoulders of the employers in New South Wales a burden of £12,000,000. While competent authorities are unable, to gauge exactly the increased cost for the insurance of one added liability under tbe new Act there seems to be a distinct feeling that the present rates for the accident side of it only will need to bo at least threefold,” said the President. “To this, however, lias to be added the cost of insuring the risks under the diseases section of the Act. the provisions of which are very drastic, and may easily he construed into what amounts to social insurance, i.e.. providing, to a large extent, life and sickness insurants combined. It is

estimated upon good authority that the cost of making provision for these clauses of the Act will not be less than , 4s per week per bead of employees, or approximately £lO per head per an- ■ mini, or £5 per cent, on workers’ average yearly wages. Wages paid in New South Wales are estimated at £160.000,000, so that the cost to tbe State at the 'estimated rates of premium is: Accident liability £4,800. 000.” Mr Waddell pointed out 'That tbe official returns showed that in the rural industries there were 135,600 employees, on whom the disease risk at £lO per head would amount to j £1,356,000. The accident' risk would involve about £4 per head, or £542.- ( 400, making a grand total for the rural industry of about £2,000,000, compared with the present cost, of, say 27s per head or £183,0G0. Evidently the extra premium in many eases would be tremendous. A grazier may have to find suddenly £2OO instead of £2O; a. farmer £SO instead of £5. One cannot help wondering wliat the banks will say if they are asked, as apparently they will Ik?, to provide payments under this Act to tbe extent of £12,000,000 in the one month—July. How is it going to affect the financial position generally? This is a question which the financial advisers to the Government might well consider and answer.” It would appear from the latest cable news, that in self-pro-tection, many employers are ceasing operations, because of the burden of tbe insurance premium. A Sydney paper, referring to the details of tlie 1 Act, says that not only are the provisions extravagant in their scope, but • to make matters worse, the liability of 1 the employer under them is vaguely 1 and carelessly defined. “Injury,” it 1 a glance at section 6, 1 "includes a disease Which is contract- i ed by the worker in the course of In's 1 employment, whether at or away from his - place of employment, and to ;

which the employment was a contributing factor.” How this last phrase will be interpreted no one can say, but it .would be a narrow reading of it that did not include a contagious illness, contracted from a fellow-employee. The monstrous extravgance of this portion of the Act will be realised when one considers the position in which insurance companies would have found themselves had the Act been in foroa during the present influenza epidemic. Perhaps the provision that illustrates most clearly the irresponsible way in which the Act lias been framed is that which lays it down that share farmers, and all those employed by them, including members of the share farmer's family, ‘.‘shall he deemed to ho workers employed bv tlic owner of tlio farm.”zShare farmers, particularly in wheat areas, are frequently men of substance, and are altogether independent of the owner of tlie land except in the matter of dividing the profits. Not only is the owner not in charge of the work, hut under the usual conditions he is not entitled to give a single direction as to how the work of the farm is to he carried on. Yet lie is now to lie compelled to insure the farmer, bis family and bis employees against injury ot sickness. What chance lias be of showing that any mishap which may occur is the result of the “default or wilful act” of the farmer? It will be no matter for surprise if the effect of this part of the Act is to destroy share-fanning altogether as a method of rural development. The A 1 mister in charge has hastened to point out in his statement certain limitations on the liability to pay compensation. Such as they are, those limitations have practically all been inserted by the Legislative Council. It was well that- at the time of the passing of the Act there remained one House in which the survial of democratic traditions enabled some measure of discussion and consideration to be given to the laws of the country. Tbsumianncr of the passage of the bill through the Assembly was a disgrace to the Government and a betrayal of its duty to the people. It is appalling that men who pay lip-service to democracy on tin? hustings should have conspired to gag this bill through the popular House with no opportunity for discussion or review of its provisions. Hut the Labour caucus bad decided—and Parliament mattered nothing. Such being the considered comment of a. reputable Sydney paper, it will be seen there is much occasion for the 'concern of the employers of labour, and the developments will no doubt present interesting phases of the effect of Labour Government legislation on the general welfare of the State, and perhaps be something of an object lesson for other countries to note for future consideration.