STONEWALL DEBATE

Hokitika Guardian, 29 October 1929, Page 7

STONEWALL DEBATE

A SORRY RECORD. (Christchurch “Times.”) Late on Thursday afternoon a marked change came over the scene in the House of Representatives. taring the debate the OpppsTion had displayed bad temper but Mr Forbes had handled a difficult situation with surprising patience, and the steady progress made with the Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill had proved the ability of the Government to achieve its ends.

That fact, of course, was not lost*on the Reformers, but there were added reasons thajt must have caused them to reconsider their attitude, and examine closely those somewhat dramatic statements about preferring to retire from public life rather than see such an iniquitous measure become tlio law of the land. What gave the Opposition cause for deep thought was the very clear indication that their jtactios had antagonised puplic opinion.

'Tile evening . journal in Wellington as a rule, is inclined to be lenient in its criticism of Reform efforts, but the futile waste of time for which Mr Coates and his followers have botll responsible ytllis week has been tco much, and the “Evening Post” lias hot hesitated to speak very plainly on the subject. “The debate*” it sftid* ‘ *S|O far, has produced only one new feature—another change of ground by the Opposition.

First, a hardship clause was tiemanded; then it wus objected that legislation needing a hardship clause must be defective; now that the clause has been amended to give a wide discretionary power to a tribunal and the Commissioner of Taxes, the complaint is raised that such authority should not be vested in an official.” The Wellington paper draws . attention to the fact that the original contention, that the Bill would affect thousands of farmers, has been quietly dropped, and when discussing the Reform protests against the laige land owners being asked to contribute more by way of taxation, allegedly (because it would mean a breach of faith, asks the Reformers to remember that they did not raise that po.nt when their own Government made much heavier increases in the income tax to years ago.

There can be no doubt that the unreasonable obstruction on the part of the Opposition failed to impress the people of the Dominion. There were scigns of annoyance in many quarters, and these must have been among the factors that so suddenly caused Mr Coates to take a different course. The Govern,ment amendments to the hardship clause were simplicity itself, the deletion of one phrase, and the inclusion of another. They may have given the proposed commission a little more latitude but that was all.

And it could not possibly he held that, for the sake of such minor amendments the Opposition was justified in holding up the progress of the Bill and deliberately obstructing the business of Parliament, The words that Mr Coates wanted to have changed appear in +■’" hardship clause passed by the Reformers in 1925, What they supported then they oppose now.

Unimportant amendments 1o the hardship clause have been made the excuse on the part of the Reformers to escape from a position of their cwn creating that was proving to be decidedly uncomfortable. They set oul to make a test of strength, but obviously as the struggle proceeded, their courage failed them.