Graduated v. Flat Tax

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1061, 27 August 1930, Page 7

Graduated v. Flat Tax

UNEMPLOYMENT PROPOSALS Cablnet May Change Plans THE SLV'N'S I’urliamrzuluy'y lit-purltr PARLIAMENT BLDGS‘, Tuesday. AN intimation that the Government, would consider 1h:übolition 0f Hm flat tax undm‘ the Unemploymvnt Bill and sul‘mtitutfl a graduated scale, was given by tho MiuixH-I' ol' lmbnm'. the Hon. H. G. Smith, in the cmmnittrlo sum-s u!" Iho Bill Ihis ('\'(‘11i11;:. 110 also unflinod svw‘x'ul pI-opusz-d amendments to ”1013 i”.

The Minister first asked the House to pass the short titid and consider the Bill clause by clause. He said a clause would be inserted providing for an advance of £IUO,OOU from the Consolidated Fund to help the Unemployment Board to carry out its functions at first. Another amendment would provied for exemption from the payment of the flat tax of persons in receipt of old-age or any pension. Coopted members of the board would be excluded from voting on questions before the board, and so the fear of the board’s being swamped by coopted members’ votes would be done away with.

The claLise relating to the subsidiary functions of the board would be amended to give the board power to make grants or loans to any persons or authorities to enable them to undertake or carry on developmental nr other works calculated to relieve unemployment. The Minister mentioned sawmilling as an industry which could be so helped. GRADUATED V. FLAT TAX The Minister asked that the clause relating to the unemployment levy should be hold over, because in answer to the appeals of members against the fiat tax. it was only fair that Cabinet should consider the question and see how the- necessary money could he raised by a graduated tax. The members, said the Minister, had complained of hardship on the men earning £3 or £4 a week, but we had 5,500 men with no work in New Zealand and 5,000 on relief works. It was the function of the board to stimulate industry and bring hack prosperity to New Zealand. As Minister of Labour, said Mr. Smith, he had no illusions regarding tho magnitude of his task, but he (lid not shirk it. If the Government got a board acceptable to the House, it would be found by next session that a great deal of good had been done under the Bill, and there would be less need for relief works. INCLUSION OF WOMEN Later in the debate Mr. Smith dealt with the question of including women in the Bill, and said that the Bill represented a pioneer movement and must not be hampered in the first year of operation. In New Zealand. he said, there were 2,890* females between the age of 20 and 64 who were employers of labour. 7,006 between the same ages who were working on their own account, and 70,766 earning wages or salary, making a total of 80.662. Propaganda was going out to force thy Government .to include women, but in giving the question very serious consideration he had come to the conclusion that the Bill represented an experiment. and In view of the difficulties to be faced regarding the men, it Mould be only hampering the board in its operations to include women in the levy and sustenance provisions. Mr. R. Semple (Labour, Wellington East): Surely sustenance can be given to women?

Mr. Smith replied that it could not bo done this year. The Bill provided that work was to be found for all, both men and women. What was going to bo done when there were in New Zealand classed as pensioners or retired or in domestic duties and not working 286,238 women. Were those not working to be forced to pay the levy? If they had to pay The levy they would be entitled to sustenance.

Mr. P. Fraser (Labour—Wellington Central) asked about wage earners. Mr. Smith pointed out that if that were done next year, it would be said that thousands of girls were leaving schools and there was no work for them. As they were not wage earners they would not be entitled to sustenance.

Referring to the pleas by Labour members, including Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) and Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) for special provisions for waterside workers and other similar casual labourers, whose few hours’ work in a fortnight might stop them from obtaining sustenance, Mr. Smith said he thought that if only a few hundred men could be encouraged away from the waterfront it would he to the advantage of the waterfront and to New Zealand. It had been suggested that the watersiders should be considered. Mr. Fraser: Was that suggested? The Bill is loaded against them. Mr. Smith: Oh, no!

He continued that the board had great discretionary powers and could assist workers or any body of workers where injustice was done. Tho Leader of the Opposition, the R.t. Hon. .T. G. Coates, agreed with the Minister that women should not be included under the provisions of the Bill

He considered that the Government, would be making a big mistake if it postponed clause 5 of the Bill, because eluase 5 was the Bill. Without funds the Bill was of no use. If there was money collected to employ the unemployed those unfortunate men would have money to spend and that would be for the good of everyone. The Leader of the Labour Partv, Mr. IT. E. Holland, said he must explain that every Labour member was in favour of sustenance. Mr. Coates: In his heart of hearts. Mr. Holland: Better, in his mind where the intellect is. Mr. Holland continued that of course members of the Labour Party regarded it as the first essential to provide work, and failing that, sustenance.

Finally, the first four vlnuses of the Rill wero )lllSSr‘ti without furthor discussion and the, fifth viuusr‘. rr-lntinr: tn thr- levy, was dv-i‘r-rrnivd until (‘uhint-t hud Ponsidei'otl tho DUSSiliility of :in :nnenrlnu nl. DEBATE lN HOUSE ‘ LABOUR MAKES STAND MANY PROPOSALS MADL Press Association \\'}-JLL4L\‘(:’[‘U.\'. 'l‘ut-sdnp‘. The, L'nomploynwut liill was considered in committev today by the House of Representatives. The Leader of thr- thlmur Party. Mr. H. I'2. l-i’ollunr‘i. expressed the opinion that very few workers would be likely to raise any objection to the payment of i-ontrihutions toward .in unemployment fund. He. was satisfied that no man. if he had had the experience of cases that daily ennu- bl'fOl‘c members of Parliament. would object to paying even a. £3 levv. There were at good many features in the'Bill which fell far short of what the Labour Party stood for, Still. it would make some provision for people in dire distress. The only alternative to sustenance. was in nntny Cases starvation. “‘hen the worker paid 305. or whatever scale of contribution was eventually decided upon. he would be contributing it as an insurance for himself. The general effect of providim: work would be a. contribution to—ward the economic stability of New Zeuland. LABOUR UNANIMOUS \Vhen the Labour Party subsequently endeavoured to secure changes in the Bill. it would be voicing the unanimous wishes of practically the whole of organised labour in New Zeulantl. It particularly desired a. graduated scale of eontributions. and that women should be included in tho schenle. It wzts fortunate that the Government had already indicated it was prepared to accept amendments. and he hoped important Changes would be made. Mr. R. A. \Vright (Reform—\Velling—ton Suburbs) said he was in favour of the retention of tho sustenance Clause in the Bill so long as it was provided that a. man should no to :1 local body and be given some. work to'do in return for sustenance received. Some local bodies would be able. to employ a. large number of men it they had the money to pay them. Ltr. P. Fraser (labour—\Vellington Central) took exception to the advice of experts on the subject of graduated contributions. He suggested that the Minister should again refer the mat—ter to the officials. and ask them to make some feasible proposal. SHORT TITLE UNCHANGED An amendment moved by Mr. J. S. Fletcher (Independent—Grey Lynn) to amend the short title. to “Employment Bill" was defeated on the voices. Mr. \Vrinht urged the Minister to include in the Bill a Clause requiring that a. person should have resided in New Zealand for a fixed period. say three or five years. before he was entitled to the sustenance allowance. This would obviate. the influx into New Zealand of indigent people from abroad. Mr. C. E. Macmillan (Reform—Tau—rnnga) said he favoured the addition of a. hardship clause to meet the posi—tion of those to whom the payment oi? the 30s levy would be, unduly diffi—cult. - After the first four clauses of the Bill had been passed. progress was reported, and the House rose at 10.30 .p.m.