THE FINANCE BILL

Hokitika Guardian, 25 March 1931, Page 3

THE FINANCE BILL

The Finance Bill, which was read a second time in the House of Rcpresejitatives on Saturday morning, divides itself into two parts. The first part provides for a reduction in the salaries and wages ot public servants in order that the Government m;l y |, e enabled to el feet a saving .that is imperatively necessary in the- costs of the adminstnative services. ’I lie second proposes to empower the Arbitration Court to review the rates of wages that are paid under existing 'economic oi mi instances, to reduce, by general order, the rales to the extent- that .seems to it desirable.

The opposition to the first- part of the Bill is based mi the grounds of justice and eqnih. One of (lie arguments is tliai it- is unfair to the public servants that they should, as a class, be selected as the victim of a p> |. icy of reduction of earnings. This argument is deprived of force, however. if the Arbitration Court, in exercise of the power with which the Bill pronoses to clothe it, decides to reduce award wages bv a percentage corresponding to the percentage that is to be applied to the pay received by the public servants. The public servants and those workers whose wages are fixed by Arbitration Court award are the. , two sheltered classes in the community..

. Outside them -is, . a large body of . workers upon whom is exerted,’ ns in the case also of the producers, the full and- inescapable pressure of : economic cimimsta.ilres-. Th n workers in tip's category have, in thousands, suffered the loss, of employment- itself. The producers have,-through. the-fell in the ■price of .their'produce, experienced a drop of 40 to-of) pur cent, or more intheir returns and have, in fact, when ■the' cost of production' has been mol. had nothing left for themselves. When all (he facts are considered, therefore there is no actual unfairness in requiring- that the persons engaged in the sheltered industries should submit to a reduction in their pay. A policy of wngo-red.uet ion is not one which there could hi 1 any desire to bring into operation except under the stress of absolutely compelling circumstances. Least of all is it a policy which auy -nefson could -wish to. see'up., plied ta-those married public servants and .workers who are in receipt of low wages, and, if it should be possible to exempt Micro from the operation of the “out,V the. exemption would he generally viewed with a great, deal of ■relief.- : ;:

The' attempt has been made in Parlininenit to represent that the proposal to, empower tbonArbitration Court to review .the rates of wages that are fixed in • current awards involves ■ a breach : of contract. Some of the members who have employed this argument have, however, been very insistent in flu' contention for the purpose of reducing the -ra-tes of interest, that, are paid under registered instruments' - which unquesiotia'bly ennkfituto valid contracts. And they completely overlook tlie 'Tact that Parliament has itself .■rented the precedent for a revision by the Court: of tlie terms of awards. There was'iio suggesting that a broach a. contract was contemplated in 1918 when the Court was empowered to increase, by general order, the wages tint were tin'll being paid. At that, time there was a general acceptance of the view that, an increase of wages was

necessary. _ It is perfectly clear now that, industry cannot, Ik> Mistiiiiicd. while tlie costs of T>rb(l.uction. in which wagesnrc ;in important factor, remain as high as they are. Reductions in wages have already hemi made in busine«ess that are not conducted under industrial awards, and it would probably lie found, if the opinion could be taken of the workers who are engaged in industries that are smhjeet to awards, that the majority of them recognise that a reduction of wages must he affected. There is not likely to he any dissent on their part from the view that a reduction, of wae.es is certainly preferable to the alternative which is that the volume of- uimmnlovmenf. would he swelled through' dismissals from their ranks. There was no more: impressive state,' merit during the debate on tlm .second reading, of . tlie Finance. BiJI than that 'made hv the Minister of T/ahonr who was for twenty years a railway servant in the receipt of a .small wage. He'took his full share, r/ responsibility' for tlie proposals that have been hroinght; down hv the riovernment, He would, he said, not. have agreed to them unless they were absolutely necessary, and ho did agree with them because lie believes tha.t “they are eventually uoinii: to lie of -benefit to the workers of this emintrv.”