N.Z. BASIC WAGE

Grey River Argus, 20 October 1936, Page 5

N.Z. BASIC WAGE

CASE FOR THE WORKERS Stated to the Court (Per Press Association). WELLINGTON, October 19. I lie task of fix-'ng basic rales of wages tor male and adult female workers, employed in any industry to which any award or industrial agreement relates, faced the Court of Arbitration, when the Wellington sitting of the Court opened to-day. It had been generally anticipated that the hearing of submissions and evidence on behalf of employers and workers would take the best' port of a week or ten days, but according to intimations made to the Court by representatives of the respective parties, the proceedings will not be unduly protracted. Air J. Robinson (Dunedin) and Air J. Roberts (Wellington) appeared for the workers, and Air T. O. Bishop, secretary of the Employers’ Federation for the employers. Air A. W. Nisbet was present to watch proceedings on behalf of the Wellington Alanufacturers’ Association.

Questioned by Judge Page, Mr Robinson said that his prepared statement would take about an hour to read, and Air Roberts’ about ,an hour and a-half. The workers proposed calling one witness. E. Warner, but he would not be available until tomorrow morning. With the calling of h’m. the workers’ case would be finished. How long the inquiry lasted after that, remained with Mr Bishop. Mr Bishop said the whole of tho employers’ case, including the evidence, would not last more than two davs.

Outlining the case for the employees, Air Robinson said the legislation required tho Court to provide a basic wage, sufficiently high to provide a fair and reasonable standard of comfort- for a family of five persons. It was submitted that the first matter the Court should consider, what should constitute a fair U ud reasonable standard of comfort, what commodities other than the bare necessities of life, what services, and what luxuries should be obtainable by the basic wage. It was submitted that it was the intention of the legislature to ensure that industry be required' to provide each worker with a wage sufficient to enable him to carry out his functions as a citizen, to discharge in proper manner his duties as the father of a family, and to induce those who have not yet undertaken family responsibilities, to undertake them, and thus plav their part in the plan of life.

Proceeding, he said they could not agree with the principle of basing wages on the 1914 standard, and could not accept a method by which increases in the cost of living would be added to the wages rate of 1914. The Court should fix the wages on the reasonable requirements of a. family of five, and two schedules were submitted, which added together, gave a weekly wage of £6 10s 3d, the first part containing the weekly expenditure, and the other, items which must be purchased some time during the year. The schedule submitted for women came to £3 10s a week, for a woman to support herself independently

Mr Robinson went on to deal with the capacity of industry to pay, and before concluding, said' they would .ask the Court, not to be guided by various agreements entered' into this year on the wages rate payable in 1931. It was desired to assure the Court that the Unions that entered into such agreements did not intend them to be taken as the basis upon which to fix the basic wage, though it had been better if they had refrained' from entering into new agreements, until the basic wage had been fixed. No society was properly organised until every ciiild born into it had an opportunity in life. The playtime of childhood should be held sacred by the nation. The legislature had given the Court a. mandate to provide means to enable people, not only to live, but to live well, to give body to the truth that the products of industry are for the satisfaction of many, rather than the surfeiting of the few. That being the case they might leave the issue with confidence in the hands of the Court. Mr Roberts’ statement also traversed the needs of a family, and the ability of industry to provide comfort for all, and he made out a weekly wage necessary of £3 7s 3d. exclusive of any saving against sickness. He said that the wages earned by wage and salaried workers were expended within New Zealand, or the goods they produce were exchanged for goods from other countries. A high basic wage therefore could not impoverish New Zealand'. Rather it wov'd Zurich it, for it meant higher purchasing power, more employment. _ nnd more buoyancy in trade and business generally.

The Court adjourned till to-morrow,