Disclaimer on pay round

Press, 5 October 1985, Page 1

Disclaimer on pay round

By PATRICIA HERBERT The Prime Minister, Mr Lange, yesterday backed down on his suggestion on Thursday that a 15 per cent “all up” wage round would be acceptable. He said that to interpret his comments to mean so was "totally irresponsible,” and that the Government had made it quite clear monetary policy was such that an 8 to 12 per cent growth in incomes was all that could be accommodated this year.

Yet the transcript of the radio interview on which the offending reports were based has him signalling that a 15 per cent total movement could be absorbed. He was asked if the Government in the tripartite talks had given the unions and the employers any kind of recommendation that 10 to 12 per cent at award

level with second-tier bargaining taking it to 15 per cent should be the aim.

He replied: “That would be the inference drawn from any assessment of the material supplied ... and you will observe that when I spoke of being pushed to the limit of tolerance by the 15.5 per cent electrical contractors’ settlement, I knew

there was not any secondary bargaining in that particular industry, so that is on course.”

His disclaimer yesterday afternoon would therefore seem to lend weight to the charges of inconsistency made against him by the Opposition spokesman op finance, Mr Bill Birch.

This is especially so as Mr Lange yesterday said that the Government had tabled forecasts at the wage conference presaging a 10 per cent rousd with a 2 per cent allowance on top for drift.

This is true, but the paper specified that the 12 per cent assumption was neither a prescription for what should happen nor a prediction of what would happen.

Instead, it was presented merely as a basis for discussion. Of more import were the nominal growth estimates: 10 to 13 per cent this financial year falling to 7 to 9 per cent next year.

. It was these the Minister of Finance, Mr Douglas, used as parameters when preaching the need for restraint, although he emphasised that they were not intended as a guideline. Mr Lange mentioned the figures again yesterday, saying that he had emphasised on Thursday that

settlements of 8 to 12 per cent would be in order. This coincides with the interpretation that the Employers’ Federation took away from the tripartite talks which was that the Government was signalling a wage path of between 8.5 and 11 per cent.

For this reason the federation might have been expected yesterday to back Mr Birch in accusing Mr Lange of taking an inconsistent position in appearing to approve on Thursday a 15 per cent “all up” wage movement.

Instead, its director of advocacy, Mr Steve Marshall, provided a new twist to the tale by saying that the 15 per cent figure was “more or less” in line with what the federation had been told.

He also said Mr Lange’s Thursday statement would be “useful” provided it was recognised that he had been talking of only 10 to 12 per cent on award rates and that he had referred to 15 per cent as an average increase.

This meant some would

get more, others less, Mr Marshall said.

He was interviewed by “The Press” before Mr Lange issued his clarification and his comments reflected concern in employer circles yesterday that the 15 per cent would be seized on and the riders ignored.

The fear was that it would raise expectations at a critical time — only days before negotiations resumed on the trend-setting drivers’ document.

Another concern yesterday, now possibly allayed, was that the Government’s tolerance level on wages seemed to be creeping up. One exasperated industrial relations expert described it as “a movable fence” with about as much value as a game of tiddly-winks.. He was referring particularly to statements by the Associate ! Minister of Finance, Mr Prebble, to the effect thatj the wage round should be contained at 8 per cent

Mr Birch touched on the same point He said Mr Lange had “blown it” while Mr Prebble and, Mr Douglas were overseas.