A CONCESSION

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

A CONCESSION

EXEMPTION FEOM TAX

CHRISTCHURCH PROTEST

When the House resumed this morning the Prime Minister announced that the Government had drafted a clause exempting from the payment of- the wage tax all relief workers who were on local body works and whose wages were wholly paid by the Unemployment Board. Mr. Forbes said that the levy would stand. The amendment would mean that those eiriployed under the No. 5 scheme and whose wages were not subsidised would not have the tax.deducted. tThe exemption' would mean that the board would lose £25,000 by the concession and £25,000 in subsidy from the Consolidated Fund. ■'•■.'. , ' ■ Mr. W. J.-iJordan (Labour, Mauukau): "You don't intend to reduce wages instead of stopping the amount?" The Minister of Labour (the Hon. S. G, Smith) said that the exemption would not apply to such places as Christchurch, where wages wore subsidiscd'by the City Council. ■ Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier): "Why leave the fly in the ointment?" Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South): "That is mean." Mr. Smith said that the Government had met'the request of members in a generous manner indeed. '; . ■ : Mr. M. J. Savage (Labour, Auckland West) said that the simplest way of getting over the difficulty was to exempt all those who received £100 or less; . "SMACK )k CHRISTCHTJRCH." Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour, ChVistchurch East) said the payment was the bone of contention, not the wages tax, but the! levy was to stand. The Government was making a deliberate smack at the Christchurch City Council and those few other local bodies which-had refused to reduce wages. : The Prime Minister said they had no need to worry about the men who were receiving 15s 4d a day. The man the Government was trying to help was the man on the lowest scale. A man might be; on relief work'for two, weeks and; then secure.other employment. Should he be exempt? The Government was already conceding £50,000, and all the thanks they got were complaints. Mr. J.. M* Combs (Labour, Lyttelton) said that he regretted that the Government had singled out;a local body which was trying to do the right thing by 1500 men. -It was a slap in the face for Christchurch. •' ;' -'■:»' .-.'.'' . ..:.::'.■.:-:', ■ The figures quoted by the . Minister were questioned by Mr. 33. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South). , : : Mr. R. A. Wright (Reform, Wellington Suburbs), said it was not a question at all of penalising Christchurch. He would vote for. the proposal because he believed it was the best tliat; could be done. '■ ■:.■" .' !' ••- ' . ,Mr. C. B. Macmillan (Reform, Tauranga) submitted that the -test of whether a nian should; be exempted was the degree of hardship suffered. The. determination of that should be left to the Magistrates. ,; . ' ; (Proceeding.)'