[unclear: It] Tuesday evening, we were treated [unclear: ch] the media of television and radio, [unclear: esage] of "importance to every New [unclear: der]" from our Prime Minister. It was [unclear: age] of both economic and political [unclear: especially] timed for release only [unclear: ays] before the opening of the Na[unclear: Party's] conference in Christchurch [unclear: ch] was not as notable for what it said [unclear: ch] as it is an indicator of future Go [unclear: ent] action. In other words, the vei[unclear: eates] to both trade unions and in[unclear: contained] within the statement are [unclear: nteresting] than the actual measures [unclear: need].

[unclear: entially], there were two main points [unclear: statement]. First, the establishment [unclear: 5%] general wage increase from Sep[unclear: r] 3, and secondly, the repeal of the [unclear: al] Wage Orders Act 1977.

[unclear: inter] to Rising Prices

[unclear: eneral] wage order is seen by the Go[unclear: ent] as a wage increase in response to [unclear: ses] in the cost of living, while wage [unclear: ses] bargained for by individual unions [unclear: individual] employers are supposed to [unclear: rgins] for skill and established [unclear: rela— among] workers in different indus[unclear: oing] the same sort of job. But in the [unclear: ne] quarter, wage increases outstripped [unclear: ises] by 2.7% - without the benefit of [unclear: ral] wage order. The Government is [unclear: oncerned] at this practice; where the [unclear: ng] people are getting "too much".

[unclear: erefore] the General Wage Orders Act is [unclear: scrapped] and the unions will no longer [unclear: e] to apply to the Court of Arbitration [unclear: general] wage order.

[unclear: e] belief that free wage bargaining has [unclear: o] too high wage increases is not the on[unclear: son] that the Government took this stand [unclear: nesday]. It is a reaction to the FOL's [unclear: prc "minimum] living wage" of about the [unclear: of] the present average wage. The FoL [unclear: the] time of the announcement, pre[unclear: g] its case to the Arbitration Court. In [unclear: l] style, Muldoon, instead of letting the [unclear: reach] its own decision, jumps in, and [unclear: s] the very law under which it operates.

[unclear: essive"] Wages

[unclear: at] all this means, of course, is that free [unclear: bargaining] remains intact as a process [unclear: etermining] wage increases. But the wri[unclear: s on] the wall for this process if it starts [unclear: oduce] wage rises which, in the Govern[unclear: 's] eyes, are "excessive".

[unclear: is] clear that Muldoon expects the 4.5% [unclear: order] to be taken into account for any [unclear: negotiated] wage increases over the next [unclear: e] months. This point is somewhat ob[unclear: d] by the fact that he has called for a [unclear: tite] conference of unions, employers [unclear: Government] to work out how long it will be until the next general wage increase.

It is clear that Muldoon will run into some difficulty with this proposal - the FoL have already indicated their reluctance to take part in such negotiations. But Muldoon pointedly made reference to the fact that wage and price limiting powers will be made a part of the repealing legislation - not that they don't have these powers already - a direct warning to both unions and employers that the Government will not stand idle if negotiated wage increases are too high (what exactly is "too high" has not been stated but it will tend to be whatever the Government decide;, at any one time.)

The Government's philosophy on free wage bargaining of which this latest move is very much a part, is to let it continue but come down hard on large increases and workers who strike to attain wage increases. This last point is a particularly pernicious one because the ability of workers to withdraw their labour is, in reality, the only power they have. It is this vital possession - their labour power which gives workers any basis at all from which to bargain. A government which allows workers to bargain for wage increases but withdraws the right to strike is a Government which makes it almost impossible for negotiated increases to occur.

The battle Against Inflation

In last Tuesday's pronouncement - which resembled a war-time broadcast calling for "co-operation, imagination and determination" in these "difficult times" — a state of war was called against inflation. And the number one enemy in the fight against inflation was declared to be the rise in wages to workers.

But what are the facts? If we care to examine the figures we find that it is entirely erroneous to equate wage increases with a rise in inflation. During the three financial years of 1975, 1976, and 1977 wages increased at a slower rate than the increase in prices (or, the rate of inflation). Thus, inflation continued to increase even though wages were kept below price rises. But in the financial year of 1978 wage increases outstripped the rate of price rises while the rate of inflation dropped.

Obviously, the rate of inflation fluctuates for reasons much more important than wage increases. To claim that unions are irresponsible to go for "excessive" wage increases because they will directly worsen inflation is to ignore the real influences on the rate of inflation. To focus on wage increases as the main motivator of inflation, as both National and Labour Governments have done, is a red herring employed to ensure that profits of big business are kept as high as possible. In times of economic recession, us we are now [unclear: finaly] entrenched in, the fact that both Labour and National act in the interests of big business becomes more obvious. Their rhetoric and their policies are designed to keep wages down to the lowest possible level.

And this is the light in which Muldoon's economic statement to the nation must be seen in because it was very much a part of this political philosophy. It is also a sop to the big business interests before the National Party conference: in whose eyes Muldoon has been losing credibility lately for not fully carrying out the anti-worker policies they wish him to.

Stephen A'Court.

Returning Officer for Annual Election

Applications are invited for the position of Returning Officer for the election of the 1980 VUWSA Executive. The election is to be held on Wednesday 12 and Thursday 13 September An honorarium of $115 will be paid.

Applications for Returning Officer close at the Association Office at 4.30 pm this Wednesday (1 August) or can be made direct to John Blincoe, Convenor of the Election Committee, from whom any further details may be obtained. His phone numbers are 893-157 (home) and 738-775 (work.)