WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Evening Star, Issue 19298, 10 July 1926, Page 4

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

EFFECT OF MEW AGT COASTAL FREIGHTS RAISED. Rreta Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Press Association. SYDNEY, July 9. Owing to the incidence _ot the Workers’ Compensation Act it is announced that the coastal Iroight rates will be increased from to-day. PRICE OF GAS TO BE INCREASED. Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Press Association. SYDNEY, July 10. (Received July 10, at 9.45 a.m.) Owing to tho increased expenditure as the result of the Workmen’s Corn]«nsion Act, and tho increase in .he cost of coal, the gas is to ho increased from July 17 by Id to os 8d pier 1,000 cubic feet. [Criticism of tho new Workers’ Compensation Act in Now South Wales has been answered by the assertion that it embodies provisions in British and New Zealand legislation which have not, in practice, been found to be unduly onerous. The ‘ Sydney Morning Herald’ states that it goes much further than the British or New Zealand laws, and its most objectionable fea--1 ures are contained in its departures from those statutes. In the New South Wales Act tho scope of the expression “worker” is greatly extended. By convention that word has come to connote “ wage earner,” and that is recognised by the British and New Zealand Acts. In these persons whose remuneration exceeds £250 and £4OO per annum respectively are declared to be ineligible for benefits. But in the New South Wales Act the figure is £750 a year. Surely it is an abuse of language to describe a person in receipt of £6OO or £7OO a year as a “ worker ” in the accepted sense. Tho new Act creates liability even when there is no contract of employment between the two parties, even, indeed, when no contractual relationship exists between them. The extent of the liability where total and permanent incapacity results from the injury is quite unlimited. The employer has to continue to pay as long as the other survives. After criticising the provision in regard to disease and the fact that the employer is compelled to insure, under threat of heavy penalties, the ‘Herald’ says; “The new' Act is capricious and unfair in its incidence, and raises many questions of extreme difficulty. There is no knowing whither the interpretation of it will lead. It imposes liabilities of a nature and an extent which, wo believe, have no parallel in any other community. Certainly they have none in the British and New Zealand measures. Conceived in haste, forced through a House which was denied the opportunity of exploring its implications, and carried with a reckless disregard for consequences, it stands a monument of perverse and wrong-headed legislation.”]