CRITERIA TO STAND IN MEANTIME

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31728, 11 July 1968, Page 1

CRITERIA TO STAND IN MEANTIME

Govt Refuses To Alter Regulations (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, July 10. The Government has refused to make any “hasty amendment” to the controversial Economic Stabilisation Regulations, which determine the criteria the Court of Arbitration takes into account when considering a general wage order application.

This was announced in a special statement to a hushed House of Representatives tonight by the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake).

But he promised the Government would make a full review of the stabilisation legislation, and added that this could start tomorrow.

The Federation of Labour and the Employers’ Federation agreed unanimously on Monday to seek immediate amendment to the regulations, and agreed that one of the five criteria that dealing with any rise or fall in retail prices should be given greater emphasis than the other four.

The Prime Minister emphasised during his speech that there was no barrier at the moment to an immediate fresh application for a general wage order, in the course of which all the arguments put forward against the recent judgment could be placed before the Court

He said the Government agreed that the stabilisation legislation should come under review, but said: “It is not a task to be undertaken in haste and solely from motives of expediency.” Commenting that the F.OX. and Employers’ Federation agreed with this view, he said:

“The real point at issue, then, is whether there is a sufficient case to warrant an urgent amendment of the Economic Stabilisation Regulations at this time solely to enable the Federation of Labour to have an adverse decision replaced by a more favourable one.” It should be noted that, except in 1922,1931 and 1941, the Court’s general order decisions had always favoured the workers’ application. Fourth Case “We’ve now reached a case —only the fourth in a long succession—where the decision is against the unions,” said Mr Holyoake.

"This decision has been arrived at under the same rules as those of 1962, 1964 and 1966. “The Federation of Labour wouldn’t claim—and hasn’t claimed—that the rules of the game should be altered every time one side or the other finds the referee’s decision unpalatable,” he said.

“We therefore have to rule out the thought that the regulations should be amended at this point because the decision is unpalatable to one of the parties.” Posing the question of what other grounds existed, the Prime Minister said: “Threats” “There are, as we know, threats of direct .action, and already some instances of strike action have occurred. No law-abiding person would support the view that we should make the amendment because of threats.” “In fact, the presence of these threats, and the pressing of them even since Monday’s meeting, creates an atmosphere in which it becomes almost impossible to accept the request without implying that the Government has yielded to threats,” he said. “I emphasise that certain unions by their present actions have seriously affected the possibilities of reaching a rational solution of the situation.” If the Government should not alter the regulations merely because for once the Court’s decision was against the union, or because of threats, what other ease was there for any alterations? the Prime Minister asked. He said the following factors were then taken into account:

Far from there being unanimity behind the proposal, there was strong opposition to it from one of the

parties to the hearing— Federated Farmers—a party representing a large section of the community. There was division of opinion in another of the parties—the Manufacturers’ Federation—also representing i large ■ section of the community. There was no barrier at the moment to an immediate fresh application in the course of which all the arguments put forward against the recent judgment could be placed be-

fore the Court. Despite adverse economic conditions and a sharp decline in the incomes of farmers and others, wage rates obtained through the normal procedures of the Industrial Conciilation and Arbitration Act had continued to rise, and increases continue to be recorded.

Whenever any fresh application for a general order was made it could retraverse the ground to the last general order In 1966 and be up-dated to the time of the application.

“It’s quite wrong to say that, because the decision of the moment is unfavourable, any ground lost in effective wages can’t subsequently be recovered,” said Mr Holyoake. ‘Tor instance, general orders in both 1959 and 1962 did not restore the effective wage index to its 1956 level of 1023 after the general order of that year, but a general order in 1964 more than made good all the lost ground, and raised the index to 1043.” The Prime Minister told Parliament:

“The Government has given long and close attention to all the points put before it.

“It has looked most carefully at the proposal for a quick amendment of the regulations—but, as I’ve said, there are some factors which shouldn’t influence any of us. “The Government Is of the

opinion—and I’ve already expressed this thought to the Federation of Labour and Employers’ Federation executives—that their suggestion of a full review of the legislation is a proper' approach. “Not Hastily” “This is not something to be done hastily or piecemeal —in fact, a piecemeal approach could embarrass a later full-scale review; on the other hand, it needn’t be delayed,” he said. But the Prime Minister said that in reaching this decision the Government would expect all sections of the community to recognise the need for restraint

The proposal made to the Government after the urgent meeting on Monday between the F.O.L. and the Employers’ Federation was for an amendment to regulation 3 (1) which they wanted to read as follows: “In making a general order the Court should give primary consideration to any rise or fall in retail prices as indicated by any index published by the Government Statistician.” The two organisations also agreed that, if such an amendment was made, the F.O.L. would at once lodge a fresh application with the Court. Both parties also agreed that after the disposal of such a hearing, they would consider the whole question of the appropriateness of the present stabilisation legislation and the possibility of replacing it with something more suitable.

The Cabinet met the joint deputation from the two federations on Monday evening, and since then several Cabinet and Government caucuses have been held to hammer out a decision. Closed Doors The Cabinet met three organisations behind closed doors yesterday—the Manufacturers’ Federation, Federated Farmers and the Combined State Service Organisations.

Federated Farmers strongly opposed any amendment to the regulations which made the rise and fall of retail prices as the primary consideration for the Court. The Manufacturers’ Federation (four member associations) were split on the issue, and the Combined State Service Organisations supported the proposed amendment. The Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association had recommended:

(1) The Federation of Labour immediately withdraw its advice to the unions to make individual approaches to employers for wage increases when such are accompanied by a threat of direct action. (2) The Government immediately takes steps to implement a complete revision of the economic stablisiation regulations as an urgent measure.

If these points were accepted the association would support, as an interim measure only, an amendment to the existing Economic Stabilisation Regulations, requiring the Court to give “primary consideration” to any rise or fall in retail prices as indicated by the indices published by the Government Statistician.