BUDGET DEBATE Mr Shand Describes Work Problems

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32035, 9 July 1969, Page 18

BUDGET DEBATE Mr Shand Describes Work Problems

(Urn Inland Preu Aueciation) WELLINGTON, July 8. It was not easy for some people to appreciate the difficulties in the path of any trade union leader who publicly expressed a will to co-operate with anything—either with the Government or with employers, the Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) said in Parliament tonight.

Speaking during the Budget debate, he emphasised the “meaningful co-operation and dialogue” going on between trade union leaders and the Employers’ Federation, and then held up copies _of ..“People’s Voice” and a pamphlet issued by the Communist Party. "Everyone should be conscious of the relentless and insidious pressure to which trade union leaders are subjected by the authors of this filthy propaganda and by their feMow travellers," he said.

These people had one clear and simple object—“to damage and destroy our country by every means they can adopt,” Mr Shand said. “Then when we are on our knees they say they will build their Communist empire on the ruins of our society.” Mr Shand said that over the last year trade union leaders bad joined with Employers’ Federation leaders in agreeing upon amendments to legislation affecting general wage orders.

He hoped to introduce this amending legislation “within a week or so,” he was sure it would lead to a much better understanding of this part of New Zealand's wagefixing procedures. The parties had also agreed to meet to discuss other aspects of these procedures and to discuss industrial relations in general. Productivity Down

Mr Shand said he did not believe there was a man in the House who did not know that the only road to greater productivity and a higher standard of living was through co-operation in the

country’s total work force— i “whether they be called man-' agers or workers.” 1 “We are shortening our i working day by starting late and finishing early. We re-1 duce our productivity by con-1 sciously not doing as much as 1 we are capable of doing. < “In total, this amounts to ■ a very high proportion of 1 what our society could produce for itself if it has the will.” ( Mr Shand said it was not I possible to apportion the i blame for this between man- t agement and labour, and it was stupid to try. 1 Mr Shand said be always < said that prime responsibility I rested with management— ! that was what they were paid for. 1 But management would be 1 immeasurably helped if all ‘ people who aspired to leader- . ship in any field were to J measure their words and , “encourage the kind of co- ; operation we need instead of I encouraging those foolish ! people who devote them-, selves to frustrating it” , Both Sides

The improvement of industrial relations would be vastly simplified if feelings were not exacerbated by irresponsible statements made by people who ought to know better. These statements came from both sides of the industrial fence.

Mr Shand said the key to achieving greater productivity, as called for by the National Development Conference, lay in improving the standard of industrial relations. It was in this field that the programme would stand or fait

Dealing with trade training, he said trade requirements would have to be looked at “ruthlessly” and there would be a need to accept change, which was not easy. Objectives would not be achieved simply by adding

more men and more machines. There had to be more production by the better use of those

men and machines. Mr C. J. Moyle (Lab., Manukau), who followed Mr Shand, said the Communists, the National Party and Social Credit had one thing in common—the destruction of the Labour Party in New Zealand. Waterfront Dispute Mr Moyle claimed that under Mr Shand the time loss to industry by stoppages was greater than during the 1951 waterfront dispute. The most important single factor in the increase of industrial unrest was that workers were deprived of a fair standard of living, he said. The loss of overtime, the rise in the cost of living and unemployment lead to disquiet among the labour force. Mr Moyle said a lot of the fault lay with management. Many skilled men were doing six hours productive work in the eight hours for which they were paid. This was not because they did not want to work but because of bad management Nothing would please the workers more than to have decent programming, said Mr Moyle.

After nine years with Mr Shand as Minister of Labour more skilled workers were leaving New Zealand than ever , before, he said. The margins for skill had declined to such an extent that they had to leave. The Minister had said that New Zealand had to be ruthless to conserve its tradesmen, yet 21,000 had left the country in recent months. Many skilled workers were today doing labourers’ work to get anything like a living wage.

Mr A H. Nordmeyer (Lab., Island Bay) compared the period of the second Labour Government with the 1966-67 year ended June under the present Government to show which Government had faced the worst economic recession.

Comparing the extent of fall in exports, Mr Nordmeyer said that under a Labour Government in 1958 exports fell by 859.4 m. In 1968-67 the fall was only $43.9m. In 1958 imports rose by 872.3 m, while in 1966-67 there was actually a fall in the value of imports. The balance of transactions in 1958 fell by $92.9m. In 1966-67, the year in which the present Government took drastic measures, there was a rise in transactions of 842.9 m.

Comparing deficits in the current account, Mr Nordmeyer said that in 1958 the deficit was 8154.1 m, while in 1966-67 it was 8132.2 m. “We find,” he said, “that the situation in 1957-58 was actually far more serious than the situation the Government had to face in 1967-68.”