WAGES TAX PAYMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20922, 11 July 1931, Page 13

WAGES TAX PAYMENT.

relief workers exempt.

MEN ON BOARD'S RATE OF PAY.

CONCESSION BY GOVERNMENT.

[BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION. ] WELLINGTON, Friday.

The question of payment 'by relief workers of the flat levy and thei wages tax occupied the attention of the House of Representatives when it resumed this morning.

The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, said the Government had decided, in order to meet the feeling of the House, to amend clause 4, so that ■workers under the No. 5 scheme would be exempted from payment of the wages tax. They would still have to pay the regular levy. It was estimated the proposed concession would result in the loss of £25,000 of revenue. The Minister of Labour, the Hon. S. G. Smith, explained that the exemption would not apply in cases where relief workers, in addition to payment from the unemployment fund, were receiving .remuneration from local bodies, as was granted in some instances in Christchurch. It applied only in cases where the sole remuneration received was that from the fund. Meeting Members' Requests. Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour —Christchurch South): Isn't that rather mean ?

Mr. Smith: It is difficult to draft the clause. I think it will be recognised that the Government has met the requests of members in a very reasonable manner. Mr. M. J. Savage (Labour —Auckland West), said he did not see where there ■was any difficulty in drafting the clause. He suggested there should be exemption for all those whose incomes last year had not exceeded £lO2. That would cover cases such as slaughtermen and others in seasonal occupations. He did not believe the proposed concession would result in the loss of £25,000. •

Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour —Christchurch East), said the bone of contention was the flat rate levy, not the emergency tax. Men were being denied work because of their inability to pay the levy. He contended the Government's attitude was designed as a slap at the Christchurch City Council. The Government, in effect, said, "You refuse to reduce your employees' wages, so we will take it off you in another direction."Blow at Christchurch. Mr. Forbes contended that men who earned extra wages would not be injured by the tax. Messrs. J. McCombs (Labour— Lyttelton), D. G. Sullivan (Labour —Avon), and E. J. Howard supported the view that the terms of the Prime Minister's proposal were intended to be a blow at the Christchurch City Council. Mr. Sullivan added that it served to strengthen his conviction that terrorism was being emploved against any employer who did not desire to make the 10 per cent, reduction in wages. He knew of private employers who did not want to reduce wages, but were afraid to let it be known. A division was taken on the amendment moved by Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour —Auckland Central), seeking to exempt relief workers from both the levy and the emergency wages tax. It was defeated by 40 votes to 24. After the bill had been to the House in the afternoon, the Minister of Labour intimated he desired the bill to be recommitted with a view to the insertion of certain amendments, including the concession relating to relief workers to which reference had been made during the morning. Mr. Smith moved this amendment immediately the House was again in Committee. Labour Again Protests.

Mr. Armstrong said the amendment aimed at the Christchurch City Council, which -would make its relief workers liable to the tax by subsidising wages paid by the Unemployment Board. Mr. Sullivan moved ail amendment, tnafc the wages tax on relief workers should only apply to the wages paid local authorities in excess of the amount allowed by the Unemployment Board. The Government's amendment singled out any local authority which had the temerity to pay its employees a living wage, and it was contrary to the wishes of a large number of the citizens of Christchurch. Mr. Forbes said the position was that exemption had been claimed for men earning nine or twelve shillings for two days a week. The Christchurch City Council was paying men 15s 4d a day, and consequently they were not in the position of the men the amendment sought to relieve. . Mr Sullivan's amendment was rejected by 42 votes to 20, and the Minister's amendment was carried on the voices.

SUSTENANCE PAYMENTS.

FUTILE LABOUR APPEAL. CASES OF MEN WITHOUT WORK. [BY TELEGRAPH.-t-PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, Friday. The Unemployment Amendment Bill was considered at its closing stages by the House of Representatives to-day. An amendment was moved by the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. H- E. Holland, definitely providing for sustenance where the Unemployment Board was unable to provide work. He said what was most wanted was work, but if work could not be found the original intention of Parliament should be carried out and sustenance granted. The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, said when the original Act passed by Parliament had contemplated the provision of work, it had not visualised the queues lining up for sustenance payments. He added that if the position became so intensified that sustenance was absolutely necessary, a special session of Parliament could be called to deal with the matter. Mr. J. S. Fletcher (Independent—Grey Lynn) agreed with Mr. Holland's view. It had been the intention of the House when the original Act was passed that sustenance should be paid where provision for work was impossible. Mr. M. J. Savage (Labour —Auckland West) and other members said sustenance had already been granted in one form or another, notably through relief afforded by hospital .boards, and yet the Government failed to recognise it as a national responsibility. The amendment was rejected by 38 votes to 24. The bill was then reported to the House and recommitted for the insertion of certain amendments. An amendment providing for the exemption of money received under the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act from the payment of the tax was caiiied without discussion. " 1( , Mr. J. McCombs (Labour— Lyttelton) moved that the tax should apply to all undistributed profits of companies not, already subject to tax.' , ■ The amendment was defeated by ot) votes to 22. , , , The bill, as amended, was reported to #&• House*, read a third