Labour tries again to amend bill

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32564, 25 March 1971, Page 2

Labour tries again to amend bill

(Hew Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, March 24. Another Labour Party attempt to amend the Government’s Stabilisation of Remuneration Bill was made in Parliament today.

After frequent attempts to change clauses were overruled during the committee stages of the bill, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) moved yet another amendment during the report stage.

His amendment called for the deferment of further consideration of the bill until:— Effective restraint was applied to price increases. Restraint was applied equally and effectively to all incomes other than those related to social security. Suitable assurances were given by the Government that policies imposed on the public would not be nullified by taxes and Government charges. Mr Kirk said that after careful study of the bill in committee, the Labour Party was more concerned than ever about the lack of evidence that the bill was capable of providing the economic stability urgently needed in New Zealand.

But he noted that the bill which had reached the report stage was considerably different from the bill introduced to Parliament last month.

The Prime Minister (Sir Keith Holyoake) suggested that the first two points of the amendment were out of order as involving an appropriation of public money, and were the same or similar to motions moved earlier and rejected by the chairman. The third point was not germane to the bill.

RENTS, PRICES Mr W. W. Freer (Lab., Mount Albert) said the Opposition had given Government members the opportunity to say they favoured stabilisation of prices, rents or rates, but this opportunity was not taken. The Minister of Education (Mr Taiboys) said it was worth noting that the Opposition had not voted against one clause of the bill. A Labour amendment sug* gested that clauses relating to State servants be held over until after "full consultation” between the Government and the Combined State Service Organisations. But the amendment was ruled out of order by the acting chairman of committees (Mr R. J. Harrison). Government speakers argued that the amendment was unnecessary. Mr E. E. Isbey (Lab., Grey Lynn) said the danger in any industrial situation was if the attitudes of both sides began to harden. Discussions at this stage would be of advantage to the Government, to State servants and to the country as a whole. The Minister in charge of the bill, the Minister of Labour (Mr Marshall) said Mr

Isbey’s amendment could not be accepted as it would involve an appropriation by changing the method of payment of civil servants. SEVERAL TALKS Mr Marshall said there had been at least three, and possibly four meetings between Cabinet Ministers and C.S.S.O. executives concerning the bill. “State servants know that when I say they are not going to lose one cent, that is true. “That is why it is disturbing in the extreme that they are now distributing to State

employees the kind of pamphlet which I have here, saying there is going to be discrimination against State servants,” said Mr Marshall. Sir Basil Arthur (Lab, Timani) said that postponement of the October, 1971, survey would mean that State employees would be so much further behind the private

sector. Back-dating of the survey would not compensate them fully. The Minister of Transport (Mr Gordon) said the Opposition had failed to understand how ruling rates surveys were made. Many State employees were getting more than their counterparts in the private sector. “MIGHT LOSE”

Mr N. J. King (Lab., Birkenhead) suggested that the provision in the bill for the Remuneration Authority to take into account State servants’ regrading and reviews which had progressed “to a substantial degree” before February 15 should be changed to include all negotiations begun before that date.

The phrase "substantial degree" was not defined, and some groups of civil servants which had not been regraded for up to five years might miss adjustments which had been due.

But Mr Marshall said exceptions were adequately provided for in the second part of the clause, which allowed for special cases. The C.S.S.O. agreed with this point of view, he said. Mr E. S. F. Holland (Nat, Riccarton) said that State servants would, if anything, be better off under the bill than those in the private sector. State servants would have to wait only nine months without a wage increase, but, the private sector would nave to wait up to a year. But the Opposition Chief Whip, Mr H. L. J. May (Lab, Western Hutt) said that while people in the private sector might have to wait a year, they could at least be eligible in October, 1971, for any cost -of - living adjustments from the previous 12 months, whereas State servants would have, to wait until April, 1972, for any such adjustments and these would exclude the six months from April this year.

ARBITRATION COURT Mr S. A. Whitehead (Lab, Nelson) wanted to know where the Arbitration Court would stand in relation to the Remuneration Authority. Clause 27 stated that provisions of the bill should supersede other acts if there was any conflict.

Mr Marshall said the legislation would not interfere with the normal course of negotiations between employers and employees, except where proposed wage increases exceeded 7 per cent.

Parties would meet in conciliation and attempt to reach agreement in the normal way. If agreement was not reached they could go to the Arbitration Court.

The Remuneration Authority had power only where proposed increases exceeded 7 per cent, and in such cases the Arbitration Court’s decision would be delayed until the authority delivered a finding. Clause 27 was to ensure that if there were conflict with any other act, this legislation would prevail. Any regulations made under the act had to be confined to its provisions, Mr Marshall said.