DEADLOCK AGAIN.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 223, 20 September 1928, Page 7

DEADLOCK AGAIN.

HOUSE AND LIQUOR BILL

"SHORN OF MASTER PRINCIPLES."

MR. COATES DECLINES TO CARRY ON.

DEBATE RESUMED THIS AFTERNOON. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) 1 WELLINGTON, this day. Members in the House of Representatives pledged to a two-issue ballot paper, a bare majority, and three-year tenure, were the silent section when the Prime Minister took charge of the Licensing Amendment Bill in committee at 6.30 last night. Mr. Coates confined his comment to rare interruptions, while the speeches were not new. Mr. Glenn declared, ironically, that he did not think the House would have the delight of considering the Licensing Bill in election year. However, the Prime Minister was keeping his promise in what he could term "a dry House," though, curiously enough, 52 members were elected in constituencies which showed big majorities for continuance. "The queer position we have got into is that the minority will carry the -lay." He predicted that at the general election not national politics but license or no license would be the main question. Mr. P. Fraser: Does the hon. member attach the same importance to summer time? (Laughter.) Mr. Glenn: We are not discussing summertime. The Prime Minister: There's a referendum on liquor now, but not 011 summer time, and there won't be. "Merely a sham fight," remarked Mr. Forbes (Hurunui). "We had it all last year, and the same majority is still here." He described what happened before, and predicted a final rejection of the bill, because the two branches of Parliament could not agree, and asked why the Prime Minister wanted to put everybody through the hoops again. Mr. J. Mason (Napier) described the amendments he would move later, when doubtless the House would be too tired to hear his explanations. He wished to place in the same category as perry, the ancient Saxon drink, mead which was in use 2000 years B.C. Mr. Potter (Roskill): How do you know? (Laughter.) "I have sympathy with the Prime Minister," declared Mr. Lysnar. "He does want to do something, but the prohibitionists have captured Parliament. They are all tied." The member for Gisborne asked why these tied men sat silent. Only one-third of the House could speak freely; all the others jumped when the string was pulled from outside. He advised asking the electors to return unpledged men who could do their best. Discussion had been going on nearly two hours in exactly the same way as on two previous debates this session when Mr. Wilford (Hutt) asked one speaker: "What's the use of wasting time? You won't change a vote." Mr. Lee (Oamaru), who had been speaking, retorted that he had listened quite patiently to Mr. Wilford's exposition of the Canadian system, which was quite irrelevant. Quick Dispatch Recommended. Mr. Holland (Leader of the Opposition) declared that the Labour party stood for a preferential .vote. A full dregs debate was evidently going on, but everybody knew the bill was not intended to pass, and, although it provided for two issues the Government had printed ballot papers on the old lines of three issues. His advice was to get to a quick division on every clause. (Hear, hear.) It was a peculiar coincidence that the House had also gone into committee on the Mental Defectives Bill, and, after members had dealt with licensing, the other bill would be necessary. (Laughter.) Hon. A. D. McLeod (Minister in charge of the Electoral Department) repeated his previous explanation regarding the printing of ballot papers for absent voters, and declared that the Prime Minister had no knowledge of the matter. The numerous speeches from Labour members following Mr. Holland's appeal for quick dispatch showed that the party was not disciplined on this non-party subject. Yes or No Ballot. There was a firm determination on the part of "No License" pledged members not to interfere with the two issue ballot paper which the bill contains. When the committee reached clause 2, which defines the issues, two in number, Mr. Fraser moved an amendment with the object of adopting preferential voting and the inclusion of a third issue, "State Control." The preferential voting section of the amendment was defeated by 61 votes to 12. A change in the form of the two issue ballot paper was proposed by Mr. Wilford. He moved to insert clauses which would have the effect of framing a ballot paper with the question: "Are you in favour of national prohibition?" The voter, he said, would then strike out the words yes or no, } according to his opinion. Mr. Wilford contended that the present ballot paper containing issues of national continuance and national prohibition was an appeal to extremists of both sides. The president of the New Zealand Alliance had I asked the Premier in a deputation to J give the people an opportunity of | settling the question "yes or no." He believed some of the prohibitionists 1 were recanting, because they feared a I handicap of losing their favourite I phrase, "Strike otit the top line." Mr. McCombs declared that when the House had to deal with practical issues it was trifling with the matter to deal in subleties and distort an expression of the Alliance president. Electors should have the issues clearly stated. They either wanted continuance or prohibition. This was a deliberate attempt to create confusion. Mr. D. Jones (Ellesmere) laughinglv declared that here wis' a new recruit. Mr. Wilford was leaving out the third issue. Mr. Bellringer (Taranaki) advised his fellow prohibitionists not to accept gifts from the Greeks. The amendment was lost on the voicesMr. Wilford moved to add the State | control issue to the ballot paper, and saw another defeat by 51 votes to 22. I Clause 3 was then agreed to, confirm-1 ing the two-issue ballot paper.

————————^ Bare Majority Again Approved. On clause 4, which provides on what majority the issues are to be determined, some confusion arose as to priority of the proposed amendments. Mr. Bitchener had given notice to strike out practically the whole clause, leaving the law as it now stands—a bare majority. Mr. Campbell (Hawke's Bay) then interposed with an amendment to alter the majority of -w per cent proposed in the bill to 52$ per cent. This gave rise to a considerable discussion as to which amendment should be the first taken. The chairman of the committee ruled in favour of Mr. Campbell's amendment. This ruling was challenged, and the Speaker was called in to determine the point. He ruled that the first portion of Mr. Bitchener"* amendment be taken, which, if carried, would virtually determine the whole question of the majority. A division was taken on whether the first portion of the clause proposed to be struck out should stand. By 43 votes to 30 the words were struck out. This then allowed Mr. Campbell to move to substitute 52J per cent for the 55 per cent proposed in the bill, but this also was defeated, by 42 votes to 29. The clause as amended i\v Mr. Bitchener. confirm- | ing the bare majority, was then agreed to. after a further division, by 42 votes to 30. The division list is as follows:— Bare Majority. Ayes (42) Armstrong Lee, J. A. Bartram Linklater Bellringer McConibs Bitchener Martin Buddo Mason. H. G. S. Burnett Xgata Dickie Parry Dickson, J. McC. Potter Forsyth Ransom Fraser lleid Girling Rolleston, F. J« Hamilton, A. Savage Hamilton, J. 11. Sidcy Harris Stewart Holland, H. Sullivan Holland, H. E. Sykes Howard Tapley Jones, D. Waite Jones, W. Walter Kyle Wright Lee, E. P. Young Noes (30). Atmore Lysnar Bell MeLennau Campbell McLeed Coatcs Macmillan Dickson, J. S. Mason, J. Elliot Nash Field Kolleston, J. CL Forbes Samuel Glenn Seddon Hawken Smith Henare Urn Horn Yeitch Hudson Ward Hunter Wilford Luke Williams Prime Minister Intervenes. At this stage the Prime Minister stated that he had been asked by a number of members to see the bill through the committee stage, and he had agreed to do so. As, however, the bill had been shorn of the master principles, it contained as he introduced it, he could not consent to move the third reading at that stage He would arrange with some other member to take the measure up. Mr. Wilford then moved to report progress, with the object of killing the bill. This was defeated bv 55 votes to 18. Following the changes made by the committee the Prime Minister moved several consequential amendments, which were agreed to. Mr. Sullivan moved an amendment, the effect of which would be to restore at all restoration polls carried the same number of hotels as existed prior to prohibition being carried. The Prime Minister said the proposal was impracticable. Mr. Sullivan said the position would be unjust, as, unless his amendment were carried, under the bill no less than seven, and perhaps 22 licenses might be dumped into his electorate, which now had only, one license. The amendment was defeated by 47 votes to 20. Stronger New Zealand Wines. Clauses 18 and 19, providing for in« creased strength of New Zealand wines, were agreed to after a division. The Prime Minister then reported progress, leave being given to sit again. The House rose at 4.45 a.m. until 2.30 p.m., when consideration of the bill was resumed.