EXEMPTION FROM LEVY

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 9, 10 July 1931, Page 8

EXEMPTION FROM LEVY

MAKING UP DIFFERENCE

A CLAUSE HELD OVEE

As the result of pressure from the Reform, Labour, and Independent members of the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister agreed last night to the postponement of the proposal to make relief workers subject to the unemployment levy, so that other means may bo considered of reimbursing the unemployment fund of the amount that would be lost by exempting them. Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) moved that persons engaged on relief work should be exempt from payment of the general unemployment levy and the emergency unemployment charge for such period as they" are so engaged or unemployed. He said.that the principle of taxing , the relief worker was just like taking up a collection for a man in distress and not handing the money over to him until he had made a contribution. "We are going to bring New Zealand into the gutter of disrepute unless we make a stand to protect' the relief worker," said Mr. P. Langstone (Labour, Waimarinb). The Minister of Labour (the Hon. S. G. Smith) said that the amendment would exempt hundreds of seasonal workers—freezing workers, etc. —who earned in three or \ four months more than was earned in a year by others who would have to contribute to the fund. There were 16,500 employees of the Public Service receiving £4 a week and under whom the Labour members were willing to tax. It would be exceedingly difficult to discriminate, -s the aniendment suggested. Referring to exemptions from the levy niade under the original Act, Mr. Smith said that there were 10,000 males who did not have to pay, and an additional 9000 who were granted partial exemption by the board. DANGEROUS AND WRONG. ' The Minister of Health (the Hon. A. J. Stallworthy) submitted that it would be very dangerous and quite wrong to pass the amendment, because1 it'would create anomalies, ■•exempting, for instance, persons who received, say, £6 a week for part of the year, and then became unemployed and went; on to relief works. The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. H..E. Holland): "Will the.Minister give .a. definite assurance that so far as. the . general principle of the amendment is concerned, he will vote for it provided we can get rid of the difficulties• he mentions?' ■'•• The Leader, of the Opposition (the Bight Hon. J. G. Coates) asked the Minister to relate the i reasons why he had included relief, workers in tho Bill. Members of the Eeform Party had asked for a clear explanation of the Government 's reasons, and '.he himself was' in favour of the ; tenor ■of the amendment, but he beli6ved that the' Government' must have hrd a sound reason ,: for including relief workers among those paying the itax., He did not feel like destroying a measure deBigned to overcome a difficulty, provided tho Government in the scheme it had drafted tad made the burden of the small wage ■■.earners as light asipossible. vv •■. ■. .: ■ ■■-;' ■- • ■:■■ THE GOVERNMENT'S REASONS. The Minister of Labour said that the, Government had given'every consideration to the proposals in the Bill. The measure was designed to make those who were fortunate enough to be in work contribute to the relief of those unemployed,- and if certain exemptions were made they would destroy the Government's proposals, because; the, amount required, for relief would not be raised. \The members of the Government realised the hardship which was being suffered, but the special committee which had been set up to.investigate;the position had considered . that the number of unemployed, would5 not exceed 15,000, but others who were not so well acquainted with the position had stated that they had warned the Government.. Unemployment was a world-wide problem, and the Government had done its best. Mr. Langstone: A poor •best. 5' , Mr. Smith said that in some of the other parts of the British Empire they were paying the dole, and that was what was crippling England to-day, where they were Borrowing £90,000,000 to pay to people who had done nothing foi'it. The Government had to keep a check on seasonal'workers, -and he 'knew- of some men. who were • drawing more in a season thanmany workers did in twelve months. These 'men, after fourteen days, could .obtain, .work. Mr. Smith said that at the present time 400,000 men were providing work for 40,000 men who were unemployed.There -were thousands who would not get any benefit from, the Bjill, and yet they had to contribute) to"the furid. 1 Mr. A. M. Samuel (Eeformj Thames) suggested that •; the, amendment would not greatly affect the-Bill; it would be a gracious concession to make. "When it comes to asking a.man to give something he/has not got, 5,' he said, "I am going to stick my toes in.' This is the irreducible minimum that wo have reached." ' ' . , £<l"0,000 TO £50,000 A YEAR. ! Mr. G. A. Wilkinson (Independent, Egmont) also urged the Government to accept the amendment. .It was going a little too far, he said, to expect those receiving relief, to pay. It affected the very poorest section of the community. Iff the Government would give way it Would save a good deal of trouble later on, for the proposal would make the relief workers feel sore.: The £40,000 or £50,000 a year: involved could be made up in some other way. Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central) said that a great number of the unemployed could not pay the 7s 6d a quarter levy. The Minister: "It we lose contact with any section of workers we are going to have chaos." ■ "<. - Mr. Fraser: "It is riot, necessary to make the charge proposed to keep contact with those people. I know that tho officers of the Labour Department will keep contact with them all right." Ho urged the Minister to postpone the clause in order to consider framing.safeguards against what ho feared -would happen if the relief workers were' exempted. AN ADVERSE VOTE? Mr. Wilkinson: "I am convinced that if it comes to a division there will be a very largo voto against the Government." He said that if the-clause was passed there would bo more trouble than if the amendment was passed. The Primo Minister said it was a question of raising a. certain amount of money. He had said he was quite, willing to accept any reasonable amendment. In view of the large number of unemployed, • the Government could not afford to reduce the fund aimed at. The amount required to bo raised had beon pared down to the finest degree The Government would like to exempt many classes of persons, but if it did so the fund .would be short by a considerable amount. He was prepared to postpone tho clause, however, so that ' consideration. • could bq giwu to the

amount involved in the amendment, and to making it up in another way. (Hear, hear.) The clause was postponed, and other clauses were proceeded with.