Aust, wage body delivers stinging rebuff to Govt

Press, 24 August 1977, Page 9

Aust, wage body delivers stinging rebuff to Govt

KZPA Melbourne < ,< , The Australian Con-|< filiation and Arbitration; Commission delighted union ji leaders on Monday when it'l awarded a 2 per cent wage rise across the board f°rji Australia’s six million work-,1 ers. ! The president of the Aus-!i tralian Council of Trade i Unions (Mr Bob Hawke) 1 described the decision as a|l devastating defeat for the < Government. He said the commission,i had “nailed the lie” per-j < petrated bv the Government:! in the Budget speech tbat't real wages had risen. Mr Hawke said that in the I circumstances, the unions 1 would obviously stay with < the commission. But the Federal Treasurer ] (Mr Phillip Lynch) returned; to his attack on the commis- ? sion. Both he and the< Minister for Employment i and Industrial Relations (Mrl] Tony Street) said that the; extra cost to the employers , could lead to greater unemployment. 11 Describing the decision as j disappointing, Mr Lynch ' said: “The extent of in- 1 ; dexation awarded was far 1 too great.” The executive director of I the Australian Council of; Employers Federation (Mr .

George Polites) said the decision would slow economic recovery. It would add about sAustBoo million to the annua) wage bill, Mr Polites said. The decision to award full indexation, apart from 0.4 per cent discounted because of the effects of devaluation, is a departure from the commission’s recent practice. In four of the previous five hearings, partial increases have been applied. The award, based on a similar rise in the national cost-of-living index, takes the average Australian wage to $199 per week. The judgement, delivered by the president (Mr John Moore) amounted to almost complete rejection of what had been submitted by the Federal Government, the ,non-Labour states, and private employers. I It strongly questioned the 'centrepoint of the arguments, that a lack of I profitability caused by high wages was preventing economic recovery. The commission chalilenged the view put forward 'during the hearing that “granting no increase at this time is an essential element in economic recovery.” And it found that there had been substantial com:pliance with the indexation guidelines relating to indus-

b' trial disputation. It pointed - out, however, that “this coninclusion has been made the I > more difficult by certain j -junions openly stating thatI they are seeking to destroy i 1 the package and taking ac-j 1 tion in an attempt to bring 8 this about.” , The only concession to the, -'Government and employers! .(was that the effects of thes | November devaluation, esti-l --mated by the Government!Statistician at 0.4 per cent,! i be discounted from the laward. si Sir John also delivered in i 'pointed judicial language ‘what was seen as the comi mission’s direct answer to lithe recent criticism of it by t the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in t particular. 8 Last Wednesday, Mr * Lynch blamed the failure to - reduce unemployment in 1976-77 on the commission 8 which, he said, had refused - consistently to face the f employment consequences of 1 its decisions. Sir John commented on Monday on “apparent misun- - - demanding of the commis- ‘ I sion’s decision.” ti First, he said, using the' s consumer price index as the, t measure of changes in the| purchasing power of money,! e the most recent figures pub-! -ilished by the Government! II Statistician showed there \ - had been some decline in.'

real wages since May and June of last year. I "Second, on all the evidence and argument before ithe commission, it remains I highly contentious whether , employment recovery would have been greater or less i merely if the commission ■had awarded smaller wage ! increases during 1976-77. -The causes of the present | unemployment are complex,” Ihe said. ; Sir John said this was evident from the Government’s own submission and referred to a comment by the Commonwealth counsel, (Mr Keith Marks, Q.C.), in reply to a question, that “structural imbalances in the labour market,” were a contributing factor. Mr Marks had argued that the main feature was the “slackness in economic activity which is in turn ‘ linked in limited measure to excessive real wage costs.” And third, Sir John said, • ■ We believe there is a (tendency to overstate the I power of the commission to control wage movements.” I The 2 per cent wage increase, from the first pay period after Monday, is not !, intended to be applied to over-award payments.