Treasury leak to put Govt on mat with unions

Press, 1 September 1986, Page 1

Treasury leak to put Govt on mat with unions

By

PATRICIA HERBERT

in Wellington

A sensitive Treasury document leaked to the unions will add fire to what was already expected to be a fiery debate at the Labour Party conference today on industrial relations.

The paper, dated February 28, this year, recommends: • The abolition of the national award system and associated blanket coverage. • The abolition of the Arbitration Court. • The introduction of contestable unionism wherein workers are given a choice as to which union they join. These changes, the paper says, would allow employers to reduce costs ahd would allow the unemployed to compete for jobs.

. The recommendations were- disclosed ' oh"-tife floor of the conference at the week-end by the secretary of the Hotel Workers’ Federation,' Mr Rick Barker. Asked to comment later, the Minister of Finance, Mr Douglas, pointed out that Treasury advice was not policy. But the leak must sharpen the unions’ determination to wring from the party today a declaration of support for their bottom line on the Green Paper review.

This is that national awards be retained and that unions be protected from having to compete against each other for members. The Government has yet to make final decisions on the reforms it will introduce but Ministers have, hinted that workers will be given scope to switch their union membership and that workers covered by

second tier wage agreements may be dislodged from the award. The unions have been campaigning in advance to block both proposals and have apparently already secured an ally in the Labour caucus which last week told the Cabinet that it would oppose any move towards contestability.

This was announced at the conference by the secretary of the Wellington Cleaners’ Union, Mr Pat Kelly, and was later confirmed by the Minister of Labour, Mr Rodger.

Critical to the union campaign, * however, is that the party back their position, especially as the White Paper containing the policy changes to emerge from the review is expected out fairly soon.

They are likely to secure the backing they seek not only because they command about 40 per cent of the conference vote but also because they are well organised and, on this issue at least, they are united. A win today would compensate the Left wing for its failure in the economic debate where the voting went mainly within the three Finance Ministers, Messrs Douglas, Caygill, and Prebble.

Remits calling on them to stop fully funding the deficit, to impose GST only on luxuries, to exempt local body rates, and not to proceed with the deregulation of the banking industry were all

defeated. So was an amendment opposing the sale of new shares in State-owned enterprises, a remit against the floating exchange rate, and a call to lower inflation not through control of the money supply but through controlling prices and incomes. Only on two significent issues did the vote go against the Government. The first called for import protection in the form of “substantial” tariffs to protect local manufacturing and the second, for increasing company tax.

In-the. Public Services section, the mood was sharper with delegates conveying deep unease at the commercialisation of State activities through the user-pay principle. Even there, however there was not sufficent support to carry a remit opposing the breaking up of the Post Office into three, separate corporations.

Over-all, the Government secured a higher measure of endorsement than many had been expecting given the cockiness with which the Left went into the debate.

Partly the result may have reflected anger at what was perceived as divisiveness from the Kelly-Anderton lobby, partly, it reflected the assertiveness with which Mr Douglas handled the conference.

He began with a call for unity saying: “The journalists are here to see blood on the carpet. I do not believe we should give them that satisfaction.”

He defended his poli-

cies as being aimed at Labour’s traditional objectives; more jobs and a fairer distribution of wealth.

“The argument is about how we get there and how fast; that and nothing else,” he said. Then he laid into Leftwing theory, dismissing it as “bullshit.” The Muldoon Administration had tried controls and regulations and had been swept out of office, he said and asked what point there was in returning to an approach that the electorate had already rejected. “If we live in the past we will die in the past...lf we want to be remembered for creating a better future... we are going to have to make changes,” he said. The voting showed most delegates either accept the need for a new direction or accept that the Government must hold its course to hold the confidence of the public. It also showed that a significant level of dissent remains. The member of Parliament for Sydenham, Mr Jim Anderton, articulated this, winning applause when he said the present economic strategy seemed to be based on the premise that to achieve equality it was necessary first to enlarge the inequalities in the economy. “Now if that sounds stupid, it is because it is stupid,” he said. “We are giving free rein to greed

... it is time we put our social goals up front — they should not be the servants of or slaves to economic policy.” Further reports, page 3