The Evening Star FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1929. THE STONEWALL FAILS.

Evening Star, Issue 20315, 25 October 1929, Page 8

The Evening Star FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1929. THE STONEWALL FAILS.

The stonewall in Parliament ended last night, and the United Party, with the unwavering help of Labour, came through its first really big ordeal triumphantly. This is all the more noteworthy in that physical causes prevented the Prime Minister piloting his own taxing Bill through the stage in which it was most open to radical alteration, prolonged obstruction, or possibly such mutilation as to necessitate its being dropped. In expressing regrets over Sir Joseph Ward’s enforced absence when the stonewall was in the early stages of development the ‘ Dominion ’ stated that “ no substitute for the Finance Minister can handle a point of financial policy with the same freedom and elasticity as the Minister himself.” But in this case what was required was standing to one s guns rather than virtually nullifying the real use of the measure by weak compromises—if that is what is meant by the term “elasticity.” Mr George Dorbes stood to his guns manfully. He appears to have kept both his head and his temper admirably, and to have done all that lay within his power to maintain the dignity of Parliament undei trying circumstances. Apparently it would bo difficult to claim the same thing on behalf of Mr Coates, who drew on himself the rebuke from Mr Holland that he was reducing the proceedings of Parliament to a farce, a statement that was endorsed by the Minister in charge of the Bill. The refuge which Mr Coates found in personalities suggests that the protest irora the other two party leaders was not made on insufficient grounds. The reasons for the Opposition’s behaviour have been freely canvassed in the Press of the dominion. The Reform papers in general approve the objections to the proposed taxation raised by Mr Coates and his followers, though in some cases by 110 means with the whole-heartedness that might have been expected. As to the methods adopted to kill or maim tho Bill the chief Reform organs have been either openly condemnatory of the party’s obstruction or significantly silent, except that one Southland paper has adopted an apologetic tone. The Wellington ‘Post,’ impartial, or inclining to be neutral in party politics, considers that the stonewall will not redound to the credit of the Reform Party in the minds of understanding people. It reminds Reform of its promise to put the country’* interests before those of party, points out that the need for more revenue has been shown, and that Reform, which lias admitted the desirability of accelerated land settlement, obstructs a measure designed to serve both pur pos.s. As to Reform’s protest against taxing on debts the ‘ Post ’ withering!* comments: “ The most, glaring viola tion oi the cn -, ear.l principles oi land tana ion is the mort~a"-> exemption. Parliament, with eyes shut, increased that exemption beyond all reason, and it is nonsense to talk of confiscation when a mild reduction of the exemption is proposed.” In this connection it may be noted that in the recent debate Mr Dowuio Stewart invited the

House t shut its eyes again, as it did in 192-1, and raise this exemption to £‘10,000; but, thanks to tho change ot Government, the House is now more wide awake. What is it, then, that Mr Coates and his followers arc battling for? The Christchurch ‘ Star ’ asks this question, and denies that it can be a fight for a principle, because the principle at stake was definitely settled thirty years ago and emphatically endorsed by tho Reform Party in 1912. Nor can it be the protection of farmers in general, because tho enormous majority of far mers are not affected in tho remotest degree. It must therefore bo for tho protection of individuals. To meet the cases of those individuals who may really need protection tho hardship clause was introduced. On this point the Opposition under Mr Coates has re peatedly changed its ground. First it demanded a hardship clause, then when this was conceded it objected that the necessity for one was prima facie evidence that legislation embodying such a thing must be radically unsound and confiscatory. The hardship clause confers wide discretionary power on a tribunal and tho Commissioner of Taxes, and at once the Opposition protested against such authority being given to any individual, quite oblivious of the fact that Reform, when itself in power, allowed such discretionary power to the Commissioner in other taxing legislation. It was under cover of having got some of its way through concessions over tho hardship clause that the Opposition allowed its stonewall to collapse. All fair and reasonable considerations, and not merely financial considerations, arc to form grounds for inquiry under the Hardship clause, and tho suitability of unbroken land for subdivision is another matter that may be taken into consideration by the tribunal and the Commissioner of Taxes. Mr Coates has made a statement emphasising the value of tho concessions, but still breathing hatred of tho new taxation and a determination to take any further opportunity offering to extract some more of its sting. In particular he wants Parliament to try and shut its eyes while the £IO,OOO mortgage exemption is reinstated. There is the third reading of the Bill to-day in the House, and then it goes to tho Legislative Council, whosepporersw r ers in respect ot money Bills are restricted. Would not Mr Coates, his followers, and those outside Parliament by wiiose direction, presumably, obstruction tactics were pursued bo wiser to continue now tho policy which Mr Coates himscli said d.ctated his retirement from this last engagement ? The Opposition Leader declared to an interviewer last night that his party was still full of fight, but thought it better to break off with what remained to them rather than risk losing all by fighting on. The fact seems to be that Reform has seriously injured itself in the eyes of the country—and knows it.