House Asked To Back Policy On State Pay

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31365, 10 May 1967, Page 3

House Asked To Back Policy On State Pay

(New Zealand Frost Association)

WELLINGTON, May 9.

The Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) today called upon Parliament to urge the striking railway tradesmen to return to work and to endorse the Government’s policy on the payment of State servants.

Mr Holyoake told Parliament that nobody regretted the strike of the railway tradesmen more than the Government, and no-one had done more to avert it.

He was speaking on his motion, “That this House endorses the policy that servants of the State should be paid wages and salaries, including margins for skill, fairly comparable with those paid to wage and salary earners in private employment, and urges the R.T.A. to return to work and agree to their claims being referred to the Railways Tribunal.”

Between 2.30 p.m., when the House met and the Prime Minister gave notice of his motion, and 3.30 p.m., when he finally launched his speech, the question of whether the matter was sub judice was hotly debated. Dr. A. M. Finlay (Lab., Waitakere) asked on a point of order how far the House could discuss the matter, since it had been referred to the Railways Tribunal. Reasons For Debate During the ensuing discussion, Mr J. Mathison (Lab., Avon) suggested that the debate was being introduced for the Government to influence the tribunal. “If we could have a debate without the press being present and without being on the radio I would be wholeheartedly in favour of it This case goes to the very roots of our arbitration system,” he said. Mr Holyoake maintained that in the public interest the debate should be allowed to commence, while the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Marshall) pointed out that the other party to the dispute was not prepared to agree to the matter going to the tribunal. Speaker’s Ruling The Speaker (Mr Jack) ruled that standing orders should be suspended so far

as necessary to enable the debate to take place. Wide discussion on three points in the motion—a policy of comparable wages inside and outside the State Services, urging the railway tradesmen to return to work, and the reference of R.T.A. claims to the tribunal —would be accepted. Then Mr Holyoake told the House of the Government’s efforts, emphasising his belief that Government had done everything best and fair.

“The National Government believes firmly in adequate margins for skill,” the Prime Minister said.

It also believed firmly in “fair relativity.”

Wage Adjustments

Mr Holyoake maintained the National Government had a “very fine record" in this matter, and recalled that in 1962 the law was amended to provide, for the first time, that every Government be required to ensure wages were compared every year and necessary adjustments were made.

“Relativity is a two-way street,” Mr Holyoake said. “State servants should not receive less than others doing similar work but they should not receive more.”

He said that if railway tradesmen got what they demanded they would be given more than tradesmen engaged

on similar work in private enterprise. Mr Holyoake then reviewed the background to the strike. Mr Holyoake said he wanted to emphasise the 6d margin for skill which had been given to the railwaymen was an extra margin for skill. It had been paid, to the men and would continue to be paid as long as the tribunal order lasted. “The Government’s view is that they should continue to receive this 6d plus an extra Id an hour which will bring them up to the rate tradesmen outside the Public Service are receiving. “The R.T.A. is concerned at the welfare of 2500 members but the Government is concerned about the welfare of nearly three million people.” It seemed to him the strike was merely a delaying tactic. It was also clear that the strike could not be settled unless there was arbitration. “This strike will lead to hardship to many people and to great harm to our economy at a time when we cannot afford it,” he said. Mr A. J. Faulkner (Lab., Roskill) said the Opposition regarded the strike just as seriously as the Government did. “The only exception is that this is a Government matter,” he said. “In effect we have had a confession from the Prime Minister today that he is attempting to turn Parliament

into a tribunal.” Change Suggested Mr Faulkner said that the Deputy Prime Minister had admitted that if a judicial body made a decision in favour of the R.T.A. he would change the laws. “This is why the Public Service and people outside are complaining about the dictatorial and jack-booted attitude of the Prime Minister,” he said. Proposal Explained Mr Marshall told the House there had been reluctant agreement to amend the law for the future. “There was no suggestion that legislation should be passed to interfere with this dispute,” he said. “The Prime Minister said so,” several Labour members interjected. Mr Marshall maintained there had not been such an indication. What the Government proposed was a future amendment to re-establish the principle of fair relativity. The country would want to know why the R.T.A. was not prepared to take their case to the tribunal, Mr Marshall said. “They’ve been there,” several Labour members jected.M: Marshall said that in point of fact the tribunal had not decided this issue.

Mr Kirk said the Opposition was prepared to do everything in its power to get “a fair, just and speedy settlement of the situation.”

The Minister of Transport (Mr Gordon) said the essence of the present case was based on a Supreme Court decision which determined that State Services workers should not be paid more than those in outside employment. Mr Gordon said the R.T.A. proposal was not acceptable to Government as it would escalate further wage demands throughout the country. Govt. Dispute Mr N. V. Douglas (Lab., Auckland Central) said there was no dispute till the Government created it “The railwaymen rre entitled to believe, as they did, that when the general survey was made they would benefit from both the tribunal award and the ruling rates survey,” he said. Mr Douglas said “fair relativity” for the Government was based not on justice as it should be but on the economy.

‘The justice of the claim made by the R.T.A. is that to maintain their margins and keep up with outside employment they need not 6d absorbed into 7d but 6d plus 7d.” he said. The Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) said he did not claim the legislation to provide for a ruling rates survey was perfect—and would not quibble at a Royal Commission hearing evidence and bringing down recommendations.

Mr Shand said he could not agree that tradesmen’s wages should be raised by £1 a week over teachers’ wages. If the tradesmen’s claims were granted without a hearing, there would be an industrial disturbance elsewhere in the railways within a fortnight. Mr Shand said he was quite sure that when some judicial body was set up, it would recommend changes so that this situation could not occur again. The rules would not be altered until this case had been given a “good hearing.” There were a number of matters connected with public service pay to be cleared up.

Mr Shand said the skilled margin above unskilled was 22.2 per cent in 1919. It was

21.2 per cent in 1960, 23.9 in 1962, 24 in 1964 and 26.4 in 1966.

The ruling-rate margins for skill had gone from 10.8 per cent in 1951 to 11 per cent in 1956, 17.6 in 1960, 19.8 in 1966, and this year would be 21.5 per cent The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Watt) said that the reality of the situation was that in some towns in New Zealand, tradesmen outside the State Service could only earn the minimum wage rates while in other towns they could earn far above it.

Mr Shand: This is what we must try to eliminate. Mr Watt continued: "If we do not pay margins for skill in the fields of engineering and technology, if we do not encourage our young people to take up trades and professions, there is not much future for our country. “I have the feeling that the Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) who himself set up the tribunal to determine wage rates, believes that the skill margin has been set too high and that is the opinion of most of the members on the other side of the House.”

Amendment Moved Mr Watt then moved an amendment to the Prime Minister’s motion. It read: “That this House endorses the policy that servants of the State should be paid wages and salaries, including margins for skill, fairly comparable with those paid to wage and salary earners in private employment and — “Deplores the Government’s direct threat to interfere with a statutory tribunal; “Deplores the dispersal of the Cabinet and the failure to maintain proper contact and communication at a

time of threatened national emergency; “Supports and urges an immediate resumption of

work; “Calls on the Government to facilitate a resumption of work by giving an immediate assurance that it will maintain the 29.32 per cent margin for skill established for indentured tradesmen by the Railways Tribunal.”

The Attorney-General (Mr Hanan) said that if the amendment was carried by the House it would mean that the dispute could not be settled by the Railways Tribunal. If the Railways Tribunal had had before it the ruling rates survey in January, it would not have made the decision it had, he said. Mr V. F. Cracknell (S.C., Hobson) said it was apparent that the House was confronted with two irreconcilable situations.

He said that margins for skill had been gradually whittled away over the years. In his opinion, the skill margin should be 33 1/3 per cent for all skilled tradesmen. Mr Cracknell said that the result of reducing the skill margin was the grave shortage of skilled tradesmen in New Zealand.

“May I suggest to the Government that they accept the situation without disgrace, but with courage and grace,” he said. Mr A. H. Nordmeyer (Lab., Island Bay) said it was idle to suggest that if the tribunal had known the survey would require the Government to pay another 7d, it would not have made its decision. “The issue tonight is whether the Government has acted fairly by the men,” said Mr Nordmeyer. The railway tradesmen were a responsible body of men, and the action they had taken was not taken lightly. “I sincerely hope they recognise no good purpose can be served by remaining on strike,” he said. The matter must ultimately be resolved by the tribunal. The debate was interrupted by the 10.30 p.m. adjournment.