Defeat of Labour move to change bill’s wage date

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32563, 24 March 1971, Page 22

Defeat of Labour move to change bill’s wage date

INew Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, March 23. An amendment providing that wage negotiations must have begun before March 31, instead of February 15, to miss limitation under the Government’s stability measures, was moved by the Opposition in Parliament tonight.

Moving the amendment, Mr E. E. Isbey (Lab., Grey Lynn), said that the present clause meant that unions which had taken a moderate view ( and exercised restraint last year were penalised if they did not have negotiations under way at February 15. The Industrial and Conciliation Amendment Act which was passed last year provided for awards as far as possible to expire at March 31, he said. The Minister of Labour (Mr Marshall) said February 15 had been put in the Stabilisation of Remuneration Bill as this was the date on which the Cabinet had decided that legislation would be introduced. This date had been set so that increases would not apply automatically to wage applications which might have been lodged simply because it was known that legislation was coming. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) said that at least one union was receiving a ruling rate of wages 14 per cent above award

wages. But under this bill, he said, these workers’ award wages could be increased by the maximum allowable, and yet they would not receive any more in their pay packets. It would not be inflationary to allow the bill to provide for such cases, and to allow unions to catch up where their award rates had

been left behind by inflation. The bill was concerned with stabilisation, Mr Kirk said, not with book entries which would merely increase award rates and not increase pay received. The Minister of Defence (Mr Thomson) said that the second part of the clause already stated that amendment of awards was allow-

able where serious anomalies could arise. The amendment was put, and lost. On the clause which deals with the application of cost of living adjustments, Mr Isbey said this contained provisions which would create relativity anomalies. A union which had received the full guideline increase of 7 per cent would be denied the cost of living adjustment. “This would immediately upset the margins and relativities which have long been held so dear by the industiral movement,” Mr Isbey said. Mr Marshall agreed that unions which had received the full 7 per cent would not be able to get the cost-of-liv-ing adjustment but, he said, this was because the 7 per cent figure had been chosen, among other reasons, to include cost-of-living increases. He did not think this would upset relativities, as there was ample room within the 7 per cent to deal with productivity within each negotiation. However, if the cost of living index increased by more than 7 per cent in the first full year, which he thought unlikely, the unions would be able to get more than the guideline, said Mr Marshall. REVISION SOUGHT Mr F. M. Coiman (Lab., Petone) said it was well past time when the cost of living index, on which cost-of-living rises wilj be based under the bill, was revised. The index gave a weighting of only 5.5 per cent to rent. “Can anyone say, particularly in Wellington, that a man can get a house for 5.5 per cent of his income? "You couldn’t find even a room in Wellington for that,” he said. Just before the adjournment, Mr Marshall introduced an amendment which, he said, would ensure that special allowances were dealt with expeditiously—and he gave dirt money allowances as an example. The amendment says that increases in allowances covered by a disputes clause can be paid “if that increase is .... settled by a disputes committee or the Court of Arbitration or other tribunal.’’