THE BASIC WAGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 185, 7 August 1925, Page 6

THE BASIC WAGE.

THAT £6 A WEEK.

COUNTRY CAN'T PAY IT,

ARBITRATION COURT DEFENDED.

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.}

WELLINGTON, Thursday.

In the tourse of his defence of the Government towards the conclusion of the Budget debate late to-night, the Prime Minister said there had been a good deal of criticism of the Arbitration Court, and it had been suggested, moetly by implication, that the Court had been interfered wifh by the Government. If there was anything on the Statute Book to-day which restricts the Arbitration Court in considering the basic wage, then he would ask Parliament to remove it. One thing the Governent did say; that it stood by the Court, and declared it to be the proper place in which the question of" an increaee or decrease in wages should go. Complaint had been made that he made but a short reply to the deputation on the basic wage, but it could not be urged that he had no sympathy with ilie working man because he did not use a lot of words. A request was made that the basic wage be raised from £3 17/6 to £6. Mr. Holland: And little enough! The Prime Minister pointed out that in 1920 a commission was set up by the Commonwealth of Australia, consisting of three workers, three employers, and tlie chairman. It was unanimously agreed that the basic wage should be £5 IG/. It was a unanimous recommendation. The Commonwealth Statistician was asked to inquire as to the ability to make this payment, and he reported that the whole incomes of Australia could not pay that £5 10/ basic wage. Mr. Holland: They never tried it, did they? . The Prime Minister: Aa a matter of fact that is the wrong way to go about it. It was found impossible to pay this amount, because it would mean closing many industries. Unemployment would increase the cost of living, so far a family man was concerned. Mr. Justice Piddington made recommendations based upon the allowances paid by the employers into the fund to provide 10/ for each child, yet it was never brought into operation, though it was true that one or two Australian States had since adopted motherhood endowment. Has the Arbitration Court been of any value to the workers of New Zealand? Had it not been for the Court when it became necessary to reduce wagee, they would have been reduced 10/ instead of 3/ a week. The Court had served .as a very ueeful medium to assist the workers, but if this House considers the Court in any way tied by legislation, let ue free it and- give the Court a free hand. So far ac the Government is concerned, said Mr. Coates, it hae never at ftny time interfered with the Court. But what would be the effect of increasing the baeic wage to £6? The same as had been reported would be the case in Australia. It seemed to him the real cause of the trouble was that the debt of New Zealand had nearly doubled, and until we could pay that off or increase our productive power we would find it difficult to live on the basic line. As it is at the moment, the difficulty can best be overcome by the work- of service and production. The more- we could produce by our effort, he continued, the sooner we would be able to get more for the money we spent. If the Arbitration Court, with its knowledge and wisdom, declared that there should be an increased wage, Parliament would leave it to the Court. As far as the Prime Minister could tell, the increaee in wagee and the increased cost of living were about equal since 1914. .