A Law Most Honoured In the Breach

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27038, 24 March 1949, Page 5

A Law Most Honoured In the Breach

Special Correspondent

Acting (perhaps) on advice that the inchoate mass of Orders-in-Council should be reduced to some sort of order, the Economic Stabilisation Commission now has its regulations consolidated. A reprint has been made of regulations gazetted since 1942, and, instead of having to look up amendments, repeals, etc., since 1942, one has only to refer to Regulation 1949/11 to learn what there is to be known about the legal aspects of stabilisation.

But that does not mean that the law has been consolidated in handy form. On the contrary, it means that stabilisation experts must now refer not only to the recently-gazetted Regulation, but also to Statute law_ which impinges on stabilisation. Specifically, one has to refer to the Economic Stabilisation Act, 1948, the Tenancy Act, 1948, the Apprentices Act, 1948, and the Transport Law Amendment Act, 1948. These new Acts incorporate bits and pieces of the numerous Stabilisation Regulations which have been gazetted since 1942. All that is left comprises the law concerning rates of wages, salaries, and other income relating thereto —allowances, fees, commission, and “ every other emolument, whether in one sum or several sums, and whether paid in money or not, and also includes travelling expenses; and also includes the remuneration of directors of companies. ...” The general principle is that nobody is to be paid any more wages and salaries than he received in 1942, except such increases as have been approved by the Commission. One might not gather that much by reading the relevant provisions in t.ie Regulations, for instance, Clause 33 (1), which says that “every person who employs any person in any position of employment to which sub-parapragh (iii), subparagraph (iv), or subparagraph (v) of paragraph (b) of Regulation 32 (1) hereof applies. ... ”, but inquiries addressed t 6 the Commission confirm that the legal jargon in the Regulations is designed to do this very thing Every person who accepts any additional remuneration, in contravention of the Regulations, commits an offence. If, since 1942, you have had a rise in your job, while doing the same work, without the approval of the Commission, then you are an offender against the law. _ Your employer can, “ notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any agreement,” refuse to pay the salary or wages agreed upon, and increases “shall be irrecoverable.”

How many applications for increases in salary or wages are submitted to the Commission? Nobody outside officialdom knows, or will ever know. The banks, insurance companies, and some other firms—the big firms, as a general rule—do ask for the concurrence of the Commission when, in their wisdom, they decide to pay John Brown more money for the work he is doing. It is in the highest degree unlikely that more than a handful of small firms even know about the Commission’s powers, or take any notice of the Commission even if they do know. The fact of the matter is that the law is being flouted, and nobody knows that better than the Commission itself. Things Could be Worse What would happen if every firm in New Zealand adhered strictly to the law. and submitted every application for a wage and salary increase to the Commission? One could expect a hundred-fold increase in the Commission’s staff: there would need to be a thousand-fold increase if every application were sifted and weighed in accordance with the strict rules of justice. Whatever one might think of the virtues of stabilisation of incomes, in theory, the hard fact remains that much of it is no more than makebelieve.

There is a rather curious departure from established custom in these regulations. Previously, there has been printed a footnote saying, briefly, these regulations are administered in the Department.” A Stablisation Regulation, published immediately before this latest one, conformed to this custom; the footnote said, “These Regulations are administered in the Office of the Director of Stablisation in the Treasury.” But, after all these years, somebody has discovered the importance of Ministers of the Crown, and due regard to their standing is paid in the footnote to Regulation 1949/11, which says, “ Subject to the general supervision of the Minister of Industries and Commerce, these Regulations are administered in the office of the Director of Stabilisation in the Treasury.” What this portends is anybody’s guess.