TAXATION RELIEF

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 December 1945, Page 2

TAXATION RELIEF

SIXPENCEJN THE £ LEVY TO BE ABOLISHED house hasTlong SITTING

WELLINGTON, December 6. ' A reduction of 6d in the £ in the national security tax, making the combined social security and national security tax 2/- in the £ instead of 2/6 as at present, is provided for in the Finance Bill introduced in the House of Representatives last evening. The reduction will become operative on May 12, 1946. Of the 2/-, 1/6 will be for social security instead of the previous 1/-, and 6d will be for national security instead of the previous l/6 ; The social security registration fee of 5/- a quarter for males and 5/- a year for females, will be abolished from April 1, 1946. The Bill also provides for a reduction from 75 per cent, to 40 per cent, in the special war-time export duty on uncoined gold imposed in 1939. A minor adjustment is made in the assessment of gift duty on marriage settlements.

The rates of remuneration and the allowances for Members of the Legislature, fixed last year, are made permanent. A Member of the House of Representatives receives an honorarium of £5OO and an expense allowance of £250 a year, and a member of the Legislative Council will receive an honorarium of £375 a year. These rates were to continue in force till March 31 after the termination of the war, but a clause 4n the Bill provides for their continuance. The Bill also provides for payment into the Consolidated Fund of moneys originally levied for the War Expenses Account. The Minister of Finance (Mi’ Nash) explained that moneys could be paid from the Consolidated Fund to the War Expenses Account, but, not vice versa. Therefore, if there were a surplus in the War Expenses Account it would have to remain there unless this provision were made. Provision is made for the payment of a war bonus to superannuitants reemployed during the war peripd, the amount being left to the discretion of the Minister of Finance, provided it does not exceed the amount of the reduction in his retiring allowance. Other provisions are that: — The issue or renewal of meat export slaughterhouse licences by local authorities shall be made subject to such conditions as the Minister of Agrculture or Meat Board may impose. „ . , For the purposes of fixing boundaries of electoral districts, a i epresentation commission shall allocate members of the forces and persons under manpower direction in such a manner as it thinks fit to appropriate electoral districts, if practicable, and if not, proportionately to the several electoral distrcts. . Mr Nash said the reduction in the security tax would involve the loss 01. about ‘£6,500,000 revenue and the abolition of the registration lee, the loss of about £500,000. MINIMUM WAGES. Described by the Prime Ministei as a Bill setting a wage standard below which no worker could go, tbc Minimum Wage Bill was dealt with in the House of Representatives tonight. _ . . Mr. O’Brien, Acting-Minister of Labour, moved the second reading of the Bill. He said the Bill did not leave anyone out, no matter whether thev were covered by an award oi not". The Minister said that underrate permits were necessary because men who were partially incapacitated should be enabled to earn, even if they could not be paid a full wage. He stated that the Arbitration Court’s cost-of-living increases were not payable on top of the minimum rates prescribed in this Bill. These rates provided only for an ordinary standard of living, and the Bill was not a luxury one. Mr. Holland (Nat., Christchurch North) traced increases in the basic wage rates since 1936. He said: “Tonight legislation has been brought down that is a frank confession that the cost of living is galloping away from the worker.” He said that there were people to-day who were not getting what they deserved because of stabilisation.

Mr. O'Brien: You can pay them what you like. Mr. Holland said, he hoped every employer in New Zealand had heard the Minister’s interjection. It was what they had been waiting to hear.

Mr. Fraser said that there was no doubt that stabilisation was still in operation. Mr. Holland said that the cost of living had increased to such an extent that he did not know how a man could live on five guineas weekly. Answering an interjection, he said that he would give equal pay for equal work for men and women alike. The Government said that they believed in that. The Government did not practise what they preached.

The Prime Minister said that if the Leader of the Opposition, would move an amendment for equal pay for equal work, he (Mr. Fraser) would accept it. They would have to see where such a thing would lead them. Next session a committee would study this problem, and would take evidence, and find out where such a principle would get them. In his opinion, it would mean a complete alteration to the wages system. As far as women undercutting men was concerned, the Government had adopted the policy of full employment, which meant that employment had to be found, or a minimum family income paid. There was no danger as far as rehabilitation or employment were concerned. The Bill was passed. APPROPRIATION BILL. WELLINGTON? December 6. To finish the session, urgency was granted by the House when it met this afternoon, to the remaining items on the Order Paper, and also for the Appropriation Bill, Superannuation Bil Land Finance Bill, which have yet to be introduced. The formal business was quickly disposed of. The House immediately went into committee of supply on the Supplementary estimates. Mr. W. Sullivan (Nat., Bay of Plenty) asked for information on the vote of £lO,OOO under the Internal Affairs Department for grants and subsidies for purposes of physical welfare and recreation. He' asked what organisations would receive payments, on what basis they would be made, and for what purpose. Mr. Parry said that his first idea

had been that this money should be used to assist various clubs, the question of grounds and memorials being deferred until some agreement was reached between local bodies and others on a national drive for the provision of permanent war memorials, which he would like to see take the form of places of . culture, and of physical recreation and training for the youth of the nation. The allocations would have to be made as evenly as possible through the Dominion, and, while the sum granted was not sufficient for the full purpose envisaged, it should meet the most urgent needs this year.

Mr. Fraser, replying to questions on the work of the Information Section of the Prime Minister’s Department, said that there was still work for this section in connection with the war, but, in the main, its work would be general publicity for the activities of Government Departments. The Appropriation Bill was passed before the House adjourned for tea at 5.40. SPEAKER AND MEMBER. THREAT TO NAME. WELLINGTON, December 7. Two brisk passages of ivords brightened the latest sitting of the five months’ session, when the House of Representatives, in the early hours, this morning, was considering the Finance Bill of 57 clauses. Mr. Corbett was discussing a clause iconfirming the remuneration of Members of Parliament at the present level. He said the Government members had given the impression that the increase was made at. the instigation of the Opposition. Mr. Richards: Evil to him who evil does. , Mr. Corbett: You know all about that. Mr. Richards: I am not as low as you are. At this point, Mr. Speaker intervened, calling upon Mr. Richards to withdraw, and on the latter’s failure to do so warned the Member for Roskill that he would name him and call upon the Leader of the House to take action. Mr. Richards remained seated, and when he rose a few moments later to say: “Well, I will apologise,” Mr. Schramm, said the Member for Roskill was too late. He had disobeyed the chair. Mr. Nash, who was acting-Leader of the House, suggested that, if Mr. Richards was now prepared to withdraw that was. sufficient. Mr. Fraser, on re-entering the Chamber, said the action he would take as Leader of the House was the normal action under the circumstances. He would call upon the Member concerned to express his regret and that would be sufficient. Mr. Polson said the Member for Roskill had treated the Chair with grave contempt. Every |M ember from whichever side felt the greatest indignation at the defiance of Mr. Speaker, and if the Prime Minister was prepared to condone such defiance, it was extraordinary. Mr. Fraser: I am not going to be lectured by the Honourable Member, I appeal for the protection of Mr. Speaker. Mr. Schramm said he had been reluctant, particularly in view of his long association with the Member for Roskill, to reprimand him as he had done.

Mr. Fraser: It was surely adequate if a full apology was expressed by Ihe Member for Roskill. Mr. Richards: T rise io a point of order. Mr. Fraser: You can’t rise to a point of order, You. are in the wrong, and you know it. Mr. Schramm said it was for the House to determine what, action should be taken.

Mr. Holland said that at 2.30 a.m., things were not quite normal. He suggested that if Mr. Richards would express his regret, the incident could be closed. Mr. Richards: I am very desirous of unreservedly apologising. I was slow to do so before because I felt the suggestion had been made I had done something unprincipled. Mr. Richards’s apology was accepted by the House and the incident closed. MEMBERS’ EXPENSES Mr. W. Sullivan said under the revision of electorates, the rural electorates would become one-third larger and the urban ones would become smaller, and there was no justification for the maintenance of expenses on the present flat basis. He would vote against the clause. Mr. Corbett said there was no justification under the present set up for continuing the present basis of allowances. It would be absolutely impossible for Members in the newly drawn rural electorates to carry out their duties on the present allowances. Town Members received £.250 allowance, and that was more than they were entitled to. The alteration of the basis representation must have been under consideration when the change in remuneration was voted for and that was wrong. Mr. Fraser said it was a new phenomena in the House for a Member to be objecting to an arrangement which had been agreed upon be! ween both parties. Such action should be treated with the respect, or lack of respect, it deserved. The matter had been the subject of agreement between both parities, and he had never known the Leader of the Opposition to go back on his word. Mr. Fraser said he had always been one of those who believed the allowance should vary according to the demands for travel made upon the Member within his electorate, and he was prepared to look into that problem. However, for the present, an honourable agreement had been made, and it was something outside his experience for Members to go back on such agreement. Mr. Sullivan: But you changed the basis of the electorates. Mr. Fraser said he was quite willing to leave the question of Members allowances to an open vote of the House. He was prepared to consider the matter during'the coming year, but he was not prepared to-night to vote against what the House had agreed upon. Mr. Corbett: You changed the basis of the agreement when you changed the electoral law. Mr. W. Sullivan: You changed the set up and you know it. ■ Mr, Holland said he had, given his

pledge in.the m'atter and he steed by it. Members gave their unanimous support at the time, but the electoral law had been changed since, and it. was not right for the Prime Minister to question the political integrity of Mr. W. Sullivan and Mjr. Corbett!, who had merely said that if the boundaries were changed, the basis of allowances must be revised. Mr. Fraser said the matter could be reviewed if the boundaries Were altered. Mr. Bodkin said the honorarium of £5OO with £250 expenses was the irreducible minimum for widespread ■electorates. SUPERANNUATION. Speaking earlier to the second reading of the Superannuation Bill, Mr. Mackley congratulated the service organisations on their persistence and the Government on what. had been done to' remove long-standing injustices. Mr. Oram said that while he agreed with the Bill’s general principle, he vehemently objected to the way it had been forced through at the last moment, without adequate opportunitey for consideration. The Bill had been mentioned in the . Speech from the Throne on June 26, but was not introduced until the last day of the session. He criticised the Bill on the ground that it failed to .remedy certain anomalies. Mr. Doidge said he wondered why the Government had not seen fit to incorporate some of the improvements asked for by teachers. They claimed that for each year a man spent at the war, he should have the opportunity of retiring one year earlier. The Bill was passed. Moving the second reading of the Finance Bill, Mr. Nash said, the total cost of the war to New Zealand to September 9, 1945 was £564,596,000 while the country, owed £58,397,000 for the last war. Interest charges on the cost of the Great War totalled £2,891,000 and pensions amounted to £2,331,000. The costs of the recent war were six and a half millions in interest charges and two millions in war pension charges, so that it was necessary to go into the war expenses account for eight and a half millions yearly. Mr. Hackett during the Finance Bill debate on Members’ salaries, said he objected to Mr. Corbett’s statement that the Government had deliberately manoeuvred the Opposition into a statement making fit appear the Opposition had to take full responsibility for the increase in salaries. Opposition ■ Members were not only the ones who were “put on the spot.” Mr. Nash said it was true the city Members had expenses to meet, that country Members did not have, but the country Member in some ways incurred greater expenses than the city man. Mr. Clifton Webb: No one makes money out of politics. Mr. Nash said the clause confirming salaries at the present level was not introduced surreptitiously. He had gone out of his way to be open on the matter.

The Bill was passed as was the Linen Flax Corporation Bill, and House rose at. 4.10 a.m. until noon to* dav.

CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION INCREASES WELLINGTON, December 6. The abolition of the £3OO limit on the superannuation that is allowed to Government employees, and a provision for the State subsidisation, of the retiring allowance by a pound for pound subsidy, with a minimum subsidy of £l5O a year, and a maximum subsidy of £3OO a year are provided in the Superannuation Amendment Bill, which was introduced and read a first time in the House of Representatives to-day. The provisions of the Bill apply to the civil service generally, including the employees of the Railways, Post and Telegraph Departments, and the teachers. Present provisions are that a civil servant whose contributions began in 1909, or subsequently, pays superannuation on his whole salary, and at the end of 40 years’ service, he receives a pension on the basis of twothirds of his average annual salary during the last three years of his service, with a maximum of £3OO per annum. Those who joined the fund prior do 1909 '.are exempt from this maximum. The provisions of the Bill introduced to-day give to the State employee, after 40 years’ service, a pension of one-third of his average annual salary during the last five years, plus a pound for pound subsidy, with a minimum subsidy of £l5O annually, and a maximum subsidy of £3OO. Thus an employee with an average retiring salary of £240 draws on the present scale £l6O. On the new scale he will draw £230, comprising his contribution of one-third, plus a minimum subsidy of £l5O. On an average retiring salary of £3OO a year, the superannuitant on the present scale draws £2OO a year. On the new scale he will draw £lOO plus £l5O subsidy, a total of £250.

On a salary of' £450, the present superannuation is £3OO a year. The new scale will provide the same sum, comprising £l5O contribution and £ 150 subsidy. On £ 900 of average salary the present superannuation is £3OO. On the new scale it will be £3OO contribution, plus £3OO subsidy, a total of £6OO.

On a salary of £1,500 the present superannuation is £3OO, being the maximum. On the new scale it will be £5OO (contribution) plus the maximum subsidy £3OO, giving a total of £BOO. Thus those up to £450 retiring salary receive a subsidy of pound for pound. On salaries above £9OO, the subsidy falls below the level of pound for pound. ASSOCIATION’S APPRECIATION. WELLINGTON, December 7. “Many thousands of public servants, including teachers, railwaymen and employees of the Post Office and all State Departments, will have learned with satisfaction that in the Superannuation Amendment Act the Government has effectively honoured its pledge to remove anomalies and injustices from superannuation legislation,” said Mr. J. Turnbull, secretary of the Public Service Association, to-day. “At an extraordinary meeting of delegates at Wellington, this morning, after the Associatiofi’s President, Mr. J. K. Hunn, had outlined the provisions of the Act, the following resolution was passed with acclamation: ‘That this combined meeting of the National Executive Committee and the Wellington Section Committee of the Public Service Association records its satisfaction that the Association’s long-standing claim for the removal of the £3OO limit has been met fairly and generously by the Government, and expresses its aopreciation of the basis on which the claim has been settled, and of the other improvements contained in the Act.’ ”

“The most spectacular and _ farreaching provision in the Act is the removal of the iniquitous £3OO limit on retiring allowances,” said Mr. Turnbull, “and this meets the TRADITIONAL POLICY of the Association, a policy which has been pressed with succeeding Governments without success for over 30 years. The new basis which limits the employers’ pound-for-pound subsidy to £3OO is considered a very fair and ‘equitable solution of the problem, and the provision for a greater than pound-for-pound subsidy on the contributions of lowerpaid employees is fully in accord with the Association’s policy. A number of other grievances has been adjusted, and in addition the Government is giving consideration to other representations, and if convinced of their merit will make provision for the adjustments in a superannuation consolidating measure which it is hoped to put through next year. When it is remembered there were 10 employee organisations interested in the three State superannuation funds, and that the interests of many diverse groups of contributors vary considerably and are in some cases opposed to each other, the impossibility of fully satisfying the aspirations of all will be fully appreciated. The employee organisations themselves had first to attain as great a measure of unanimity as was possible, and this was done through the central committee sitting in Wellington. The degree of unanimity reached is a tribute to the generous, fairminded spirit which animated the delegates and will serve as a model for future collaboration. No one could expect the Government to decide which of the varying claims it would recognise, and the organisations themselves had to find a solution in

I adopting a united policy. It is a tinI bute to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that the Government reconciled the triple duty as employer to its employees, as the State in protecting financial and other interests of the public, and as a Government in implementing the policy of the Government party.” TO-DAY’S SITTING. WELLINGTON, December 7. 'The House of Representatives met at noon to-day to transact formal business and then adjourned until the ringing of the bells this afternoon. On Mr. Fraser’s motion, a Select Committee was appointed to consider matters relating to the proposed superannuation scheme for Members of Parliament. The Committee was given power to sit at such times as it sees fit and is to report to the House within 14 days of the commencement of next session. The Committee comprises Messrs. Bodkin, Schramm, Clyde Carr, Holland, Nash, Fraser, and Oram. On the motion of Mr. Nordmeyer, a Select Committee of ten members was set up to consider ways and means of increasing New Zealand’s population. The Committee was empowered to sit when it sees fit and is to report to the House within 14 days of the commencement of next session. The personnel is Messrs. Acland, Armstrong, Algie, Gerard, Howard, Parry, Richards, Thorn, Nordmeyer, and Mrs. Ross. On the motion of Mr. Fraser, and in terms of the Electoral Amendment Act, 1945, Alfred Blake, milk zoning officer, Auckland, and Clarence L. Grange, the Borough Commissioner of Thames, were appointed as nondepartmental members of the Elec u toral Representation Commission.