THE LICENSING BILL.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19159, 16 November 1927, Page 9

THE LICENSING BILL.

DEBATE IN HOUSE. DIVERSE OPINIONS. MR COATES'S DIFFICULTIES. (PBISS ASSOCIATION TELZOBAM.) WELLINGTON, November 15. When the Prime Minister rose to move the second reading of the Licensing Amendment Bill, there was only a moderate attendance of members, and the galleries were almost empty. Very soon, however, members were in their places, and in a remarkably short space of time the galleries also filled. Mr Coates said that in bringing the Bill before the House he was perfectly free to look on tho matter from the broadest point of view, because he had signed no pledges to any Party. Mr Wilford: Have any! Mr Coates replied that he had notOnly at last election was he asked what hi 3 position was, when ho had said he was not in favour of a two-issue ballotpaper, and was not in favour of an extension of time between polls. His position was thus a little different from that of others. 'He had endeavoured to draft legislation which, if placed on the Statute Book, would be an improvement on existing legislation. He justified the elimination of the State Control issue by saying that it had never become a live issue. He might be told that the vote for it had increased, but looking at it broadly, he did not think the public really wanted it. The whole question was an extremely troublesome one, and whether they liked it or not, they had to give it considerable attention. That was so in almost every country.

When he looked at Canada and America, he was not prepared to say that Prohibition was or was not a success. He did not like criticising the administration of other countries, and for that reason he was diffident about expressing his own views. He might, however, quote the opinions of other men. Liquor and Politics. Discussing the question as it affected New Zealand, he said the licensing issue cut across all other lines of cleavage, and so disqualified many capable men from entering Parliament, because they had at one time or another expressed a strong opinion on this subject. For that reason he favoured extending the period between polls, and so-removing from political contests that which was always a disturbing element. Hotel Accommodation. Then there was the constant cry from end to end of the country for improved hotel accommodation. Wo were constantly asked to advertise our scenery and tourist resorts, but it would be useless to do that unless we gave tourists the hotel accommodation they requiredMr McCombs: How do they get on in America, where they have the best hotels in the world? Mr Coates said 'that American hotels were not the best in the world, but they are good. The best and the most comfortable hotels in the world are in England. However, New Zealand must have accommodation of high class. The trade representatives were always stating that they could not give it, unless they had a better tenure, and therefore he was disposed to give them an opportunity. Moreover, the Bill gave wreased power to licensing committees to insist on accommodation of the desired quality. For these two reasons—the eliminating of liquor from politics, and the improving of the hotel accommodation of the country—he favoured holding polls every six years instead of every three years. Only Two Real Issues. With regard to the issues on the bal-lot-paper his opinion was there were only two real questions before the country, viz., Prohibition and Continuance. . Whatever might be said of the third issue, he was satisfied that it was not a live one, since it received so small a proportion of the votes cast. The Majority. Having then decided that there could be only two issues, the next question was on what majority should either be carried. He was eatisfied that if Prohibition was carried, it should be carried on such a majority as would make it stable and respected. Canada had gone in for Prohibition, but had gone back to State Control, but that was, he thought, because there was so much difficulty in enforcing the law. Other countries had varied their systems, and Australian States had done similarly. With regard to the United States of America, it, was very difficult to say what the position actually was Tf a visitor talked to one set of people they told him that Prohibition was a great success, while another set told him it was an absolute failure. He (Mr Coates) was quite unable to form any personal opinion, but thought it was wrong to say that America's economic prosperity was due entirely to Prohibition. There were other circumstances contributing to that end besides Prohibition. The difficulty in America seemed to be in enforcing the law, and it was a question whether we in New Zealand could enforce the law if we adopted Prohibition on a bare majority. That was a question that worried him, because it would never do to have a law on the Statute Book which was flouted. That had been done once in connexion with the anti-shouting law, and he did not want to see that sort of thing again. In Figures. Then they had to consider the position of what was known as the "trade." It was. he understood, valued at eighteen millions sterling, with some twelve thousand employees. They also had to consider the interest of the State. In this he was thinking of the Minister for Finance. To him it meant nearly two millions in Customs duty, and there was also income tax to be considered. These things would all have to be adjusted if Prohibition were carried, so that ■it could be seen how serious a matter it was to carry Prohibition by a bare majority. Under all the circumstances he thought that a 55 per cent, majority was fair and reasonable.

For the rest, the Bill contained a number of amendments to the law, which he considered that experience rendered necessary. The provision for the supply of liquor at banquets, he thought, was reasonable. The sale of liquor to young people was being safeguarded. The Bill was clear-cut and fair to both sides as it stood. It was before Parliament, and it was for Parliament to say whether it became law. .He would accept amendments, but if he four A the Bill getting into such a state that he could not support it, h • would have to tell the House he could not go on with it

The Leader of the Opposition. Mr H. E. Holland (Leader of the. Opposition) said he did not believe it was the serious intention of the Prime Minister to put the Bill on the Statute Book. There did not seem to be sincerity behind it. Ho had heard qualified statements, such as that made by tL. Prime Minister, before, and he was not convinced. The Bill was belated; it should have been introduced long ago. He then proceeded to review the circumstances of the- last election, contending that the money spent on the big advertisements by the Reform Party came from the brewers. Clauses in the Bill indicated this. The first of these was the extension of the period between polls, for which he would not vote until it had been referred to a vote of the people. Then, having given something to the Trade, the Bill proceeded to give the Prohibition Party something; that was the two-issue ballot-paper. He did not think this would niter the position one bit, because the State-Control-ler, deprived of his vote, would vote "Continuance." What did matter was that the vote was being taken from the people who now possessed it, and that was repugnant to him. Personally, he thought the voto should bo on a preferential basis, and that should enable them to retain the three-issue ballot-paper. On that point the Labour Party was solid, and he would move in that direction in Committee. He would vote against the 55 per ceut. majority. The Labour Party stood for the bare majority on all questions, and nothing had been said in favour of the 55 per cent, majority that could not be said in favour of 75 per cent. He thought this Bill should be a Government measure. The Prime Minister was trying to trim his sails. He was trving to get all sides into his net. _ The Prime Minister: And I have evidently caught the honourable gentleman Mr Holland: '' Not at all.'' He said his position was quite clear. He had always been in favour of the three-issue ballot-paper, but he was satisfied that Clauses 2, 3, and 4 would not all go through in their present form unless the Prohibitionists in the Reform Party voted against pledges they had given to the Alliance. What he wanted to know was how far the business of New Zealand was going to be held up for thi Bill. He did not believe the Bill was going through, unless the Prime Minisfer made it a 'Government measure and the Prime Minister crackehis wh p. The Labour Party was solid on the qnes tion of preferential voting whilthe three issues remained on the J ballot paper. If that was altered they were free to do as they liked. Mr Lysnar (Gisborne) said that six o'clock closing had done a great deal of good, but if the House Pressed it as far as Prohibition, a great deal ot. Wm would be done. No-License was Z thi remedy, and. therefore he opposed the bare majority.

«'The Tifty-Fifty Principle.* * .Mr McCombs (Lyttelton) said the Bill contained something .for the Piohibitionists, and something; for the "trade " It was a Bill on the nttyfifty" principle, and it was surpmng S the Prime' Minister who was such an able exponent of the fifty-fitty P"J» cTple should have adopted the 05-45 majority. He commented that whUe the Prime Minister had said the House las free to deal with the Bill wit pleased, he also said that if amendments were put into it of which he did not approve he would drop the measure Evidently the Prime Minister did not tell the House exactly what he meant He declared that the sis year poll would simply mean an increase in "trade" goodwills and send Amalgamated Brewery shares. up in Drice. The majority proposed in the Bill disfranchised 75,000 voters, because only after that number of people had voted would the Prohibitionists vote count as of equal value witn that of any other. Tins was plural voting with a vengeance. New Zealanders were a law-abiding people, ana if Prohibition were carried, it woula be enforced because the people respected the law. They were not to be compared with the peoples of other countries. The artificial majority created in the Bill was a refusal to trust the people who created Parliament. What right had thev to set themselves up as superior? The people now had the right to elect Parliament on the bare majority, and all they asked was the right to express their opinion on this great social question on a similar basis. America did not have to impose extra taxation when she gave up one hundred million dollars of liquor revenue, and yet she was extremely prosperous. What would happen in New Zealand? We would turn eight and a half millions of wasted material into more profitable channels, and help to reduce unemployment He quoted statements by Mr Ramsay Mac Donald and Mr Philip Snowden, with a view to showing that the liquor traffic in Britain was wasteful, and harmful to public morals. Reform Party and the Trade. The Hon. Mr McLeod deprecated the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the relations of the Reform Party to the Liquor Party. They had no foundation in fact, and they had been made for purely Party purposes. A Labour member: Produce your balance-sheet. Mr McLeod: The hon. gentleman would not produce a balance-sheet of his Party. (Labour dissent.) Mr McLeod, continuing, said a Labour bal-ance-sheet would not disclose the position if they did produce it. Mr Fraser: That's a lie, anyhow. Mr Speaker called on Mr Fraser to withdraw that imputation, which he did, substituting "deliberate inaccuracy," which was also ruled to be offensive, and was withdrawn. Mr H. E» Holland: Are you prepared to send this Bill to a Committee take evidence on all its aspects? Mr McLeod said Mr Holland knew how impossible it would be to get evidence before a Committee, and then, at the request of Mr Speaker to "get back to the Bill," he proceeded to argue against the bare majority because of its instability. He favoured extension of the period between polls as being less disturbing. If, however, it was logical to settle the question whether the country was to be wet or dry on a bare majority, then on a bare majority people should say whether polls should be every thvej, sis, or nine years. In the King Country. With regard to the nosition in the King Country, he had read a great deal about it, and he had come to the conclusion that there was a definite bargain between, the Government of New Zealand and the Maori chiefs in the King Country, that if the railway was allowed to proceed through their country no liquor should be sold theie. That being so, that compact should bo held sacred by the pakeha, and it should not be broken unless at the unanimous request of the Natives. ,-* Sir Joseph Ward's Position. Sir Joseph Ward said he was not a Prohibitionist, and he favoured the three issue ballot-paper. He did not believe the Bill would go through this session, and he deprecated the procedure of bringing in such a measure as a non-Government Bill. It should have been a Government Bill, and the Prime Minister should not have been put in the position of saying, "This is no man's child, and no member of Cabinet has seen it." That was putting the Prime Minister in a false position. He was going to vote for the restoration of the State Control issue, and he would not vote for the tare majority upon any issue submitted to the country. Mr J. Mason (Napier) said he was returned free from any pledges, and would vote for each, portions (d Jhe Bill

as he approved of. He was against the bare majority, which did not ensure stability, and he quoted a number of authorities in support of that view. The 55-45 majority was, ho thought, quit* a reasonable proposal, rnd he favoured holding polls every v six, instead of every thro© years. He favoured taking a poll in tho King Country, in which the Natives could take part, because conditions had so vastly changed thero since the agreement was made with the Natives, 11 such agreement ever was made. The poll, however, should not bo decided on a baro majority. Mr Parry (Auckland Central) contended that the questions raised by the Bill should not bo settled by the House, but should bo referred to the people. Any far-reaching chanco should come from' the people themselves. Mr J. C. Rolleston (Wnitonio) explained his amendment for permitting licenses in the King Country. Before thoso licenses were granted he wished Parliament to determine what form those licenses should take, because peoplo in the King Country did nut vish to perpetuate the evils of iho liquor trado as known in other districts. He maintained that if a compact with Maoris was ever made, it was never enforced, and therefore was of mo effect. In addition to this, the Maoris were being" served with spirits of the worst class. Maori and Pakeha. Sir Apirana Ngata agreed with the extended period between polls, but he favoured the bare majority. Me was disappointed that the Prime Minister had not taken greater advantage of his opportunity to effect a real internal reform within the Trade itself. He also favoured the two-issue ballot-paper, because he never regarded the State Control issue seriously, nor did he think the Government took it seriously. Dealing with the compact bctweon the Maori and the pakeha as to the introduction of liquor into the King Country, he quoted from official documents to show that the compact was made in 1884 by the Stout-Vogel Government, and he paid a tribute to the honour of the pakehas for the manner in which they had honoured that compact for all ihcse years. At the same time, by permitting sales of land, the Government had utroduced white settlement into the district, and so made the observance of such a compact impossible, and the question should, be looked at from the present day point of view, and the whole position should be reviewed. He waß glad that Mr Eolleston had in his amendment proposed that the Maoris in the King Country should be included in the proposed vote. The New Zealand Alliance had agreed that Maori electors should be given a vote at tho Dominion poll, and they agreed to that, believing that the Maori vote would be a Trade vote. He asked tho Alliance to regard the King Country in tho same spirit. All Maori members wore in agreement on this question, and would support Mr Rolleston's amendment. He thought Maori electors should be given the right to vote in Dominion polls, and he did not think that tho right of some twenty thousand electors could much longer be denied. Mr Potter (Eoskill) advocated higlier license fees as one of tho necessary reforms. That would be putting taxation on the shoulders best able to bear it. Forty pounds per year was a paltry sum to pay for a monopoly. ' Ho would charge 2$ per cent, on the alcoholic liquor sold. Ho ridiculed £5 as an adequate fee to bo paid for licenses for clubs, many of which were close corporations. Increased fees from licenses would give extra revenue, which would relieve the taxation in other directions. He favoured triennial polls, for longer periods meant huge gains to the Trade. He stood for the two-issue ballot-paper, and the bare majority, but he did not believe the Prime Minister intended to pass the Bill this session. The Prime Minister: You wait and see! Mr Armstrong said he agreed with nothing in the Bill and would vote against it so far as it differed from his pledges. He favoured a bare majority and three year polls. Mr Glenn said he found little in the Bill of which he could approve, but he would vote for the second reading. The measure was convenient, however, as a means of introducing other reforms into the licensing law. Mr Bartram said tho Prime Minister's speech in introducing the Bill lacked conviction. The Bill was flung on the floor like a bono for a lot of dogs to fight about. It was an attempt to kowtow to both parties, and he would vote against it because its effect would be to stultify democracy. Mr Meld said he thought the existing law was quite good if it were well administered. He favoured the three issue ballot paper on the absolute majority, and six year polls. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr Bellringer, and the House rose at 1.27 a.m.