PROPOSED WAGE ORDER

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26123, 27 May 1950, Page 8

PROPOSED WAGE ORDER

Submissions To Be i Made On June 6 arbitration court hearing (New Zealand Press Association) Tn moot mJ ELLINGTON, May 26. 1° meet the request of the workers’ ne 4 ° C w. e *. Mr Kp - Walsh) the Court ?intu rb r tra,lo l ! !°' da - v decided to delav until June 6 its hearing of submissions by parties on the proposed interim general wage order thj employers’ representatives (Mr S’ An derson and Mr H. F. Butsnhm Wan ‘ ed to go ahead with the that if th°ft S next , T t‘ esd ay. and said that if that w as not done, they opposed Uvel” ak “ g ° f any ordcr re?r P o P specMr Walsh asked for another week at least so that he could have time “to people " Ce e Case of ,he " orking jy stice Tyndall, president of the ®a a »i Ing the adjournment to J™ e 6. s aid tnat if the question of a ,2 rdt ‘ r was to be deterfc ± bn d 'tJt en th . ose dela ys would have Court “do consideration by the of thl n r> fix,n J the . date ° f operation vLwhW r dCr ' He said that to meet Mr bv ’the Cn qU ! St ’ fix . t ' lr '’s recently made C * , wou!d have to be can®xcepJ far that to be heard on .Monday next. May 29. C 2 urt to-day heard evidence r\vector nd ? r J; r u S w examsn ation by the ii ector of Stabilisation and Markpt (^ r L ' the%ecre?arv the Economic Stabilisation Commission (Mr M. J. Moriarty), and the Government Statistician (Mr G E F hv°°M/ cross-examining was done Court and by members of the Egg Subsidy Answering questions about the e«g subsidy. Mr Webb said there was exigence of consumer resistance to the S-SS” Pnee for eggs - He said that the fln.h 6 f S fl, eOntinUed t 0 be sold in The flush of the season at ceiling nrice was open to question. Jo his Honour. Mr Webb said he had not been able to get reliable data to cal f elation of the general rates rulmg on the black market for eggs. Ritas a distinct possibility that eggs °Ki Sic l e ti3 e egg floors would °J e to mam tain the increase prices 2 dozen on the black market Asked by Mr Walsh whether he conthe removal or reduction of subsidies had disturbed the equilib•,the country’s economv. Mr webb said he was not able to express en opinion. It would depend on the extent to which wages might have ri ? e \‘ immediately before the removal of the subsidies. Mr Walsh asked questions about the provision for increased pay-outs from the Dairy and Meat Industry Stabilisation Accounts to meet increased costs Isn’t it reasonable to ask that the workers be treated in a like manner, to preserve the equilibrium?” he asked. Mr Webb said that raised the question the Court had mentioned at the outset, regarding wage increases which might have taken nlace before the lifting of the subsidies. Subsidy on Wool Mr Moriarty, questioned about the wool subsidy, said that for the 194950 season the subsidy on greasy wool bought at auction was 50 per cent, of the auction price on the fall of the hammer. That was on a different basis from the system obtaining in 1946-47 and later years. Woollen mills in those years were paid the difference between a basic price based on the 1945-46 appraisal values and the price paid at auction. He said that the estimated cost of the wool subsidy this season was £1.350.000. The actual figure would depend on prices at auction and on the quantity bought by local mills. The estimate was based on the second and third series of sales this year, and did not take into account the recent price rise. Mr Moriarty said that the cost of woollen goods would go up. according to the type of product and its wool content, by 15 to 40 per cent. That was purely a theoretical calculation. There might be a point where New Zealand production of those goods would meet competition from imported goods. To his Honour, Mr Moriarty said that, in the main, all woollen goods were still price controlled. The effect of the 1949-50 adjustment of the subsidy would not be felt until the higher cost of wool found its way into the retail level. That would begin to take effort this month. Mr Walsh asked witness about the butter and milk subsidies and wanted to know whether, if the costs increased for the production of those items, the Government would increase the subsidv or allow the extra cost to pass into the prices. Mr Moriarty said he did not know what the Government’s policy would be. He produced figures to show that the subsidies still in force since May 8 involved a total of £5.462.590. Statistician’s Evidence Mr Wood produced figures which had been asked for on the previous day. He submitted amended figures on the likely cost a head of population each year of a reduction or withdrawal of the subsidies, as measured by the index. He agreed with Mr Walsh's figure of £4 19s lOd as the calculable total. The maximum, if the whole effect of the withdrawal of the sub-

sidies was reflected in the retail prices, would be £5 14s 4d. The estimated final effect was £5 6s lOd. Those figures were based on a correlation between subsidies and effect on the index calculated on the basis of a few large items. "When Mr Wood finished his evidence. His Honour thanked him and his officers for the manner in which the information had been supplied. ’‘The Court.” said his Honour. “has the greatest respect and admiration for the Government Statisticians over the years. I have much appreciated the assistance of the Government Statisticians in the last 10 years.” His Honour also spoke in appreciation of the manner in which evidence had been given by other witnesses. Mr Walsh then asked for time to prepare his submissions. “I’ve got a man-sized job ahead of me.” said Mr Walsh, “to correlate these figure for submission to the Court. I would like as much time as possible.” Mr Walsh said he had conferred with Mr Anderson, but Mr Anderson had “put in a bit of barbed wire.” He wanted an undertaking that for every day's delay, the workers would be penalised. Mr Anderson said there was nothing employers disliked more than retrospective wage orders. For that reason they opnosed a delay. He was quite prepared to go on next Tuesday. He would, on the other hand, agree to the delay for which Mr Walsh asked, provided any order was not made retrospective. Mr Rutland supported Mr Anderson’s statement. The Court adjourned to confer on the date. His Honour, on his return to the Courtroom, said the Court would agree to adjourn until June 6 for the hearing of submissions. “I must, however, make it perfect lv. clear.” said his Honour, “that if an order is made, and if the question of retrospective operation is to be decided, then these delays will be taken into consideration before the Court decides the date of operation.”