ANNUAL HOLIDAYS BILL

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 7, Issue 59, 24 March 1944, Page 5

ANNUAL HOLIDAYS BILL

MR W. SULLIVAN'S VIEWS

EXCHANGE WITH PRIME MINISTER

. The contention that the Annual Holidays Bill strengthened the case of the primary producers who were entitled to some consideration in respect of the proposal, apart from the omissions of d'ays gone by, was put forward by Mr W. Sullivan, Natitonal. M.P. for Bay of Plenty, in the House of Representatives during the siecond read'ing debate on the Bill.

The Opposition welcomed the Hill, which embodied part of, its policy .submitted to the. electors at the last election, lie said. Mr Sullivan scrutinised the clause of the Hill, and said it seemed to him that there was no ])revision for the casual worker, or the worker at. odd jobs. If he worked for less than one week continuously he would not derive any benefit from the legislation. The Prime Minister: The casual worker is covered. Mr Sullivan: Hut not if he works at one job for less than one week. Probably there is. some reason for it, but it does not seem to me that tjie man who does, an odd day's gardening should be paid something additional to his ordinary; day's pay. After all, his whole, year's earnings are made, up of spasmodic working «.lays. Question of Stabilisation "One point that occurs to me is that these increases, which are definitely increases in ay ages generally, will affect our stabilisation scheme to some extent, and I feel justified in saying that when the Government brought down its stabilisation proposals, it should luvyc made a review of the Avliole labour situation and price levels and made some attempt to iron out uniform prices to all sections," said Mr Sullivan. "This legislation Avill definitely increase costs to all manufacturers, and no manufacturer can produce an article at '20s and sell it for l<)s."

Tiie Prime Minister said that only insofar as the Bill brought, in new people would it increase the money In circulation. Effect on Industry Mr Sullivan: Yes, but t understand from a statement made by the Minister of Labour that this Bill will bring in 70,000 workers. I should say that would mean an increase of about. £750,000 a 3 r ear in circulation. Simultaneously •with the fact that there will be appi'oximately a 1 per cent increase in wages where paid holidays do not at present apply, we must expect that the commodities manufactured in these factories will increase in price, and I think many of these industrialists will have to ask the Price Investigation Tribunal to authorise increases. J am not objecting to this because 1 think a worker who had done, an honest year's work should have the cash to enjoy a fortnight's holiday a year; but when we think in terms of stabilisation we have to realise that the increased cost, of the commodities will be passed on to the consumer and in that way we can track it back to the producers of the country. That! justifies the claims of our primary producers that they should be given some consideration from this Gov-! eminent in the way of an increase in prices. 1] know that 1 am getting close to the edge when I refer to that question, but I consider that it has a distinct bearing on the holidays with pay proposal. This proposal will help to build up prices of commodities, and consequently it must increase the prices of commodities required by the primary producers. That strengthens the case of the producers who are entitled to some consideration m respect to this: proposal, apart from the omissions of days gone by." What of the Farmer ? Mr Sullivan said he had received a telegram in which a friend asked to be advised just what the Government intended to do for the farmer and his wife. Mr Sullivan said that a suggestion had been made to him that the Government would, increase the guaranteed price. He hoped the Government would give a far greater increase than four per cent be-' cause by the time the commoJ.ities reached the. consumer the increase would be. far greater than four per cent. One omission in the Bill was that there was no obligation on the worker to turn up for work when that industry opened for business. The .Minister would be well advised to make a provision to the effect that | where an employee did not return I (Coutanued in neat column}

to work be should nude some sacrifice. "Apart from minor anomalies wh'.ch are bound to arise, the Opposition considers, that the principle, of the Bill is sound," said Mr Sulli-< van. "We congratulate the GoAei'nment on bring l ng it forward. !• trlist thai the. Prime Minister, when he ileals Avith the problems of the primary producers, will take the various factors J have mentioned into sonsSderation, and give the primary producers an increase which they fully deserve."