ALMOST THROUGH

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 9, 10 July 1931, Page 7

ALMOST THROUGH

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL

LABOUR OPPOSITION

A LONG SITTING

In the face of frequent amendments moved by members of the Labour party, there was a long sitting on the Unemployment Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives last night, but the Committee stage was completed, with the exception of the consideration of one clause, when the House adjourned at 2.48 this morning. In this clause an amendment was moved that the relief workers be exempted from payment of the levy, and at the request of Labour and Reform members, the Government promised to give the suggestion further consideration. None of the sheaf of Labour amendments was accepted by the Government. In the afternoon the Prime Minister complained that the Labour members were attempting to obstruct the Bill, and this assertion drew heated replies. Mr. F. Langstonb (Labour, Waimarino) moved that the charge on salary, wages, and other income be at the rate o£ one penny for every £1 or part of a £1 where the income does not exceed £4 per week;,twopence for every £1 in excess of £4 per week, and threepence for every £1 where the income exceeds £6 per week. Mr. A. M. Samuel (Reform, Thames) said he would like to hear an explanation of the effect of the proposal. . / Mr. P. Eraser (Labour, Wellington Central) said it was designed to make the.burden lighter on the lower paid people. The Minister of Labour:. "If the amendment is carried it would mean a loss to the fund of £400,000." Mr. Fraser: "We could then spread it over the people with higher incomes." "OBSTRUCTION TACTICS." "~ The Prime Minister (the Right Hon. G. W. Forbes) said the Government would like to do without the tax altogether. The taxation proposed in the Bill was a social matter. He suggested that members were trying to throw sand in the bearings. Mr. Fraser:- "Do you suggest we have no right to move amendments in speeches?" Mr. Forbes: "I know from the number of amendments that have beeit given, notice of that it is obstruction." Labour members: "No, no." "One has been in the House long enough," said Mr. Forbes, "to know that'that's what it means. Does that," he asked, .waving • a sheaf of notified amendments, "mean a genuine attempt to deal with the Bill? No, it,is obstruction. You can't tell me it is a desire to assist the Government." TJhe Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. H; E. Holland), said there was.... no necessity for-the Prime Minister to get excited. It was ridiculous to say that the amendments were obstructive. ',' • "EIiECTIONEEBING." Mr. Holland: "That is another stupid attitude to take up." AvtVoice: "You're getting excited nowi*' ■:■■• . • • • . . . JVliv? Holland: "I am not getting excited,' -but one does not like to see members of this Houso adopting a silly attitude." He could understand' the Reform Party being a bit nervy about imposing heavy taxation on the man with the big income. Mr: W. J. Jordan (Labour, Manukau'7 also objected to the Prime Minister's remarks. Twenty amendments had:: teen brought down by GovernorGeneral's Message, and no one would say that His Excellency was obstructing ....the Bill.. (Laughter.) The fact that'there were' twenty Government amendments showed that the Bill had been badly drawn. "I can, imagine the Prime Minister is the sorriest man in the House for having made such a fdolish statement," said Mr. Langstone. "Put us on Ijhe Treasury benches for a couple of days and we'll do the .job." Mr. Samuel: "Like Lang." Mr. Langstone: "You talk about Lang! You're not fit to unloose his boots. You wouldn't get a job as a boot-black in Australia." (Laughter.) The Chairman of Committees called ihe speaker to order. LOSS OF £400,000. "Mr.-W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) asked the Minister to state definitely what would be the difference between the flat tax and the graduated tax moved by Mr. Langstone. .' : . Mr. Smith: "If the levy is reduced to one' penny it will mean a loss of £400,000.'' . Mr. Nash said that the total amount to be raised by the wage tax was £772,----000, and if the Minister's figures were correct, then the small wage earners wero • contributing by far the largest amount. > "I object to tho schoolmaster methods adopted by the Prime Minister," said Mr. Jordan. '' Are we to be treated as a lot of children? Wo are members of this House just as much as the Prime' Minister is, and we demand the right to move amendments without being insulted by the Prime Minister." The amendment was defeated by 46 rotes to 20. .Mr. W. Nash urged the Minister to consider further the idea of a graduated tax, and moved-an amendment which was ruled out because it imposed a tax of more than 3d^in the £, which waa not permissible. Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South), in.moving that no person receiving under £150 v should bo subject to the wage tax, and that no income should be reduced below £150 by reason of tho tax, invited Mr. Samuel to vote with Labour. , Mr. Samuel would find it difficult to wriggle out of voting for the amendment. Mr. Samuel: "The hon. member suggests I am going to find it difficult to wriggle out of this one." Labour members: "Oh, you'll wriggle out all right." • Mr. Samuel said the Labour Party was playing on tho emotions of. the working people. "It is electioneering and nothing else," said Mr.' Samuel. "The Labour Party, does not seem, to .realise that we are passing through a critical period." Mr. .Fraser: "The honourable gentlemnn would have no difficulty in wriggling but of anything at all." He commended the amendment to tho Minister. THE MOST EQUITABLE 'SYSTEM. Mr. Smith: "Every possible consideration has been given, to every aspect of the question, and wo believe that this is the fairest and most equitable system that can be dovised." The Minister of-Health (tho Hon. A. J. Stallworthy) said he understood that the amendment would possibly mean the elimination of from £350,000 to £370,----000 from the fund. It would givo relief not only to relief workers but also to men who could well afford to pay. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labonr, Napier)

said objection could not be taken to an increased levy if a guarantee were given that more work^ would be provided. * „ The Minister of Labour: "You don't think wore going to hoard it up, do you?" The Minister of Railways (the Hon. W. A. Veitoh) asked for a ruling as to whether the amendment was in order. He suggested it would.destroy the whole purpose of tho clause. The Chairman ruled that the amendment was in order. Mr. R. M'Keen (Labour, Wellington South) considered that the local bodies should pay the difference between the amount received from the Government and awaTd rates. ' He reiterated the statement that many people wero on the verge of starvation. The Minister of Labour: "The honourable gentleman _will recognise that this is a Bill to raise more money to relieve distress." Mr. M'Keen: "Yes, but at the same time the men on unemployment relief would receive less, in spite of the fact that we are raising more money." ■ The amendment was lost by 48 votes to 22. ' Mr. J. O'Brien (Labour, Westland) moved to exempt all those with incomes under £104 from the payment of the taxi This was lost by 46 to 24. The next amendment, promoted by Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) sought to exempt peoplo of £52 income from the tax. Mr. C. H. Chapman (Labour, Wellington North) said it would be a gracious thing for the Government to accept the amendment, which could not affect the fund to any great extent. The motion was defeated by 45 votes to 26.. Mr. H. ■G. R. Mason (Labour, Auckland Suburbs) then moved to exempt married couples whose combined income does not exceed £150. This waa dofeated by 50 votes to 21. CASE OF MARBIED COUPLES. A similar alteration, proposed by Mr. J. W. Munro (Labour, Dunqdin North), seeking exemption for married, people on £104 income, was lost by 35 votes to 22. Another amendment aimed at the exemption of marreid persons with a total income of £52 per annum was moved by Mr. J. M'Combs (Labour, Lyttelton). Mr. Coates asked Mr. M'Combs if he realised ihere was a hardship clause. The Minister of Labour said there was provision for the granting of exemptions. Mr. Armstrong characterised the point raised by Mr. Coates as a mere quibble. Hardship clauses were never put into operation.. ' Mr. Semple: "They would take the worms from blind fowls." (Laughter:) Mr. Chapman said that there was no guarantee that the poorly paid workers would be exempt, in spite of a hardship clause. The exemptions should be specifically written into the Bill. The Prime Minister said the tax on the people concerned amounted to only threepence a week. Mr. Parry: "That means a pint of milk for starving kiddies." Mr. Forbes said that for the whole year they would pay 12s 6d, and if they were unemployed they would derive pounds and pounds ' in relief pay for that contribution. " This particular class," he said, f'will really mop up most of the fund; It is proposed so that they will realise their responsibilities." '•■,■. ' "They won't be insulted if you take it off," Mr. Parry interjected. , It was the desire of the Labour Party, said Mr. Forbes, that people should get relief and pay nothing, but personally he did not think that was sound. "I believe," he-said, "in people making sonic contribution, no matter how small, so that they will realise they have a responsibility in the matter of unemployment." Mr. H. E. Holland said that, the Prime Minister had taken up an amazing attitude. He had practically repeated the arguments used by the Tories against the Liberal-Labour Party forty years ago. His statement would make Seddon and Ballance turn in their graves. Mr. Forbes had made a specir ous defence of the Government's right to tax a married man on £1 per week. He had said that the man on the small wage,would benefit, but would he guarantee^ those earning £1 per week addi-' tional work worth ariother. £1 weekly? It had been found that hardship clauses were not worth the paper they were printed upon, unless they re-, ferred to land and. income tax. After further discussion the amendment was vetoed by. 35 votes to 28. Messrs. J.. *S. Fletcher (Independent, Grey Lynn), G. R. Sykes (Reform, Masterton), H. S. S. Kyle (Reform, Riecarton), W. W. Massey (Reform, Hauraki), J. A. Young (Reform, Hamilton), H. G. Dickie (Reform, Patea)> T. D. Burnett (Reform, T. Te'Tomo (Reform,- Western . Maori) voted .with Labour. ' COMPANY PROFITS. . Mr. M'Combs moved that all- companies, syndicates, and other organisations not already subject to the tax, should pay a levy of threepence in the &1 on all undistributed profits made during the year ended 31st March, 1931. . ■ '.■."■ The Chairman ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it could be included only by : GovernorGeneral's ' Message. ■ ■ When the clause was reached which empowers.the board to grant exemptions from payment of the general levy, Mr. Semple moved to the effect that persons' so relieved should' not be prevented from being granted work or sustenance.. Thia,.was defeated by 45 votes to 21. Mr. Chapman mot defeat by 44 votes to 20 on his amendment seeking that each worker registered as unemployed be provided with work sufficient to enable; him-or her to earn an adequate living Wage. . A motion, by Mr. ,W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier) that each unemployed worker should be provided with sufficient work to enable him or her to earn at standard wages, the' amounts provided for sustenance payments under the principal Act, met with a similar fate. . - • Mr.'W. Nash offered an amendment that for the i purposes of the Act a single man or woman with persons totally dependent upon him or her should be entitled to. such work or sustenance as would, be granted if such persons were married and had a similar number of dependants. This suffered defeat by 33 votes to 30. Messrs. H. G. Dickie (Reform), A. Harris (Reform), J. T. Hogan (Independent), W. W. Massey (Reform), J. N. Massey (Reform), G.R. Sykes (Reform), Te Tomo (Reform), R. A. Wright (Reform), J. A. Young (Reform) voted with the Labour Party. The discussion on the imposition of tho general levy on relief workers, the reconstitution of the Unemployment Board, and the principle of taxing women is reported under separate headings. •