LICENSING BILL.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19174, 3 December 1927, Page 15

LICENSING BILL.

BY COUNCIL. BABE MAJORITY DEFEATED gIX yEABS INTERVAL BETWEEN POLLS. [tBE PEESS Special Service] (•] WELLINGTON, December 2. The Licensing Bill reached its JS critical and interesting stage * Zv when the Legislative Coundealt with the measure in Committee, and effected several im™,fint amendments. <|Council deleted the bare -inritv provision, which was SSdVthe House of He P rc iives against the ™hot the Prime Minister, and hud it down thit Prohibition must obtain the endorsement of sl'i per cent, of before it can be brought into force. Tho original proposal in the Bill providing for the taking of licensing polls at alternate Genral Elections, which was defeated in the Lower House, was reinserted in the Council, with the proviso that the first national Restoration Poll ■hall not be taken until the first General Election after the expiration of five years from the date on ffhich Prohibition was carried. Tho effect of the proviso is that Prohibition, if it is adopted, will have t trial of at least six years before the people will have an opportunity „f restoring the liquor trade. Another important amendment i ffas tho insertion of a clause doligned to prevent the payment of goodwill or premiums above the re nt when the leases of hotels are transferred. It was also agreed that local Restoration Polls must be carried by three-fifths majorities as at, present, instead of by bare majorities as proposed in tho Bill. The fate of the Bill will now soon \t decided. The Prohibition supjorterß in both Houses have all ilong declared that they will not itcept any compromise on the bare najority and three year tenure tones, on which they won when the Bill was before the House of Beprescntatives. "This discussion now ouly throws light on the licensing question, for the BiDis practically dead," said the Hon. Kr Isitt in the Council to-day, after fte 52} per cent, and the six year polls amendments had been made. Mr liiH's remark received the endorseunt of a fellow champion of Prolibition in the Council, in the Hon. Mr Xiltolm, who also remarked, "The Bill i killed." While weight must be given to the marks of these members of tho Upper Hum because of their long association 'lili tho Prohibition cause and their talgth in that Party's councils, Mr IP. Lee, tho moinber for Oamaru, Wo fook over the Bill when the Prime f,(sr divested himself of rcsponsiior it when it came out of Comttttuqin tho Lower House, is not so urf.' ?na.ihe Council the Bill will be resis\»ck to the House of Kepresentatois'life amendments, and it will be for Jfr Lee to move that tho amendMflto'not agreed to, and that mana{fflfo appointed to draw up reasons Momission to the Council, setting Ml why they cannot be accepted. It «y be taken that the supporters of Iff amendments in the Council will inlilt on their insertion in the Bill,, and till advise the House accordingly. The wxt stage will be conferences between managers appointed by each House to lee if some compromise cannot be reached. It is Mr Lee's opinion that, failing a compromise in the first instance, at least three separate conferences will be held, and that tho Legislative Council will consider the measure y«y seriously before it will allow its insistence on amendments to kill the Bill

Hrst Trial of Strength. Tie momentous Committee stage on Urn Bill in the Council was commented at 10.30 this morning, and was tontinued until shortly before four ♦'«'«* this afternoon. The short title tod the second clause, providing for to two issue ballot paper, were •aopted without discussion, and then j"M the first test of strength, the "niggle on the majority question. As •niended in tho Lower House, the Bill Provided for a bare majority decision, *>« as a compromise between this and «• original proposal of the Prime *w»ter, that the question should be dej«!M on a fifty-five-fortv-five per centW basis the Hon. Mr Reed moved an "wndment that the issue should be de"rnuned on the basis of 521 per cent. L\ per cent - He said th ' at if the wendment were carried there was a ■"y good chance of the House of Recitatives agreeing to it, and of the ™'fl»ng on to the Statute Book. .'"•.Hon. Mr Smith said Mr Keed i! i? Ven no reason why the Council "Wld depart from tho principle laid if t\ m tho Bill, Either tho prin^ip lo 'we bare majority was right or it it was the principle that ™*m in all legislation at the prcZ\ » Su PPosing that the votes tnt Were olie short of the 52 - P er jS they would still be one short of ""TUg National Prohibition.

Prohibition Viewpoint. J?- 6 Hon - Mr Isitt asked how those «o uig for No-License, having a maUta » 1D Lower House, could be j W to forego the bare majority. The , a 7 enso Party were asked to give TjU °. rmons concession. He did not UeJl climinati on of the third issue. I «ai«rt v? tho «ght it would work right »>te c Part - V - Most supporters of W ontrol w ould vote Continuance. 18» ttU« re . thcy gcttin " in rcturn for \*u n am of the bare majority! 4 la, cth « too thin an argument ttiit/ h . at . b y ac t-'epting the 52 J per «nor' m Z a 3° nt y, they would secure au too*.!. aecessi on of votes to the Noj7!« cause. life {*";" w unreasonable for either to thc 52 i P er cent ifr l«i*f. A da '' Arc you against restoration ilrS Dla 3o»ty? «»ttied * am not If Prouibition i 3 Jni oritw On , tn 's majority, thc same Oration b ° re( l ui " rc4 to cffcct ••tijy* lll HalWoncs said that any *iitaL chan S e the bare majority hSr a i way ' from the i )eo r le !l ri S ht •I tig nL i W , ays l )OS 3essed. Thc vote to>»er B 8 re P r esontatives in the % Ht"tS, e Bhoul d convince ..them of >Jste d *PP eo Ple wanted. Tho people Ptiieiple on this question. The *»Ji-bn. bare m a.i°«ty nad al ' •»Jty to reco P lised - He would be •*»m e t . We the amendment carried, ••"the *,!?» * on,d have this question .Predominant isauc at the next

General Election, and they did not want that.

The Hon. Mr Gow, who was in charge of the Bill, said the Council should not lose sight of the present position, and put a greater handicap on the Prohibition Party than existed now. Thev were told that nine-tenths of the State Control vote would go to Continuance. On the last figures, therefore, 5600 votes would go to Prohibition. The amend- « C nno PrOP r ed t0 raiEe the handicap to 33,000 votes. It was not reasonable, in view of the attitude of the people, to make this change.

Effect of Amendment Mr Reed contended that the Prohibition Party would be 1200 votes better off if his amendment were carried. At the last poll 355,627 represented the total anti-Prohibition vote. The total number of valid votes cast was 675,077, 02-} per cent, of which was 354,415, winch gave Prohibition vote a majority of 1212. The lion. Mr Malcolm challenged the contention that the whole of the votes on the State Control issue were votes for Continuance. They did not want Continuance; they wanted a change. Mr I'eed: But they did not want Prohibition, did they? Mr Malcolm: Jt is altogether unfair to argue that the middle issue votes were for Continuance. They were neither for Continuance nor Prohibition. "Every time the Prohibitionists make a compromise with the Liquor Party, we get it whero the chicken got the axe—in the neck!" said Mr Isitt. "To forego the bare majority is to ask us to give up a very big thing. This concession is asked by the representatives of the Trade, who have been haunting the lobbies for weeks past. We have been there too, looking after men. (Laughter.) To suggest that it is sought for any other reason is too thin altogether. The views of any little twopenny halfpenny actor who -onies to Xew Zealand and says Prohibition is a failure in America are broadcast by the Press of the Dominion, but the newspapers give little prominence to the views of men like Zane Grey and Sir Georgo Fenwick, who became a convert to Prohibition after he has revisited America. The dice aro loaded against Prohibition in this country." Amendment Carried. The amendment was carried by -'l votes to 11, the division list being as follows: — For tho amendment (21): — Bell Mander Rhodes . Michel Alison ' Mitchelson Carnngton tfewman Clark Reed Cohen Scott Collins Snodgrass Garland Triggs Lang "Weston Mackenzie Witty Mclntyre Against the amendment (11) : Craigie Macgregor G OW Malcolnj Hall-Jones Moore Hanan Smith . Hawke Thompson Isitt Pairs- For—Allen, Rikihana, StewI art; against-Sinclair, Stout, Fleming

A consequential amendment which was made latter in the day Provided that in the event of National Prohibi. tion being carried, restoration should depend on obtaining the support or 52* per cent, of the voters. This amendment was made on tho voices. Beglstration of Barmen.

When the clause providing for the registration of barmen was reached, the Loader-of the Council expressed the view that it should be struck-out. (Hear, hear.) .... Mr Isitt said the clause, in his opinion was framed to take the responsibility off tho shoulders of the.licensee and put it on to the unfortunate ba.'"The Hon. Mr Witty said there were two sides to the question. It might happen that a barman had a grudge against-a licensee, and it might be possible for him to ruin his employer. Hie licensee was entitled to some consideration. , ■ . .. Mr Malcolm said the clause mignt serve a useful purpose by preventing a licensee from employing any lorn,, Dick, or Harry as a barman. Sir Francis Bell said there were several aspects of the question to be considered, and he thought the Council would be wise to delete the clause. The clausj was deleted on the voices. Interval Between Polls.

The insertion of the clause in the original Bill providing for the taking of licensing polls at alternate General Elections was moved by Mr Reed. He said the object of the clause was to give some stability to the situation. If Continuance was carried, it would give a chance to the Trade to improve the hotols. The Licensing Committees and the public would be able to demand better accommodation. If Prohibition was carried, it would ensure its being given a fair trial. Mr Malcolm objected to the argument regarding the improvement of hotel accommodation. The clause was merely a move for a lengthening or tenure. There were many licensees who did not want boarders in their premises, and it was a fact that the general public were better provided for in the private hotels than in the licensed hotels. The plea for a longer tenure on the ground of providing better accommodation was absolutely hollow, and had been advanced when the three year tenure was granted. If prohibition was carried, only the hotel bars would be closed. , Mr Isitt said he was atraid Mr Reed lacked perspicuity. How the bunch of carrots was dangled before the nose of the asinine Prohibitionist, who was asked to believe that the six-year polls would provide better accommodation! If hundreds or thousands of pounds were spent on building better hotels, what a howl there would be against any attempt to close them down when the time lor a poll came! Could anybody pretend that any effort was being made by the Trade to conduct its business bettei under the present three year tenure? Hp nssorted that after hours and bun£2 and "lambing down" were S rife It was absurd to pretend hat an extension to a six years' ten,,ro would make matters any better, t wJuld ™ko the chances of securing Prohibition more remote than ever. Sir Sow said lie failed to see why the Liquor Trade should not be. called wr™ called to account, lnere snouiu Kb no differential treatment for the Trade Until the life of Parliament IZ extended there was no just reason f" Sending the period between liC T he in Hon oll Mr. Michel said it would *'""- t n th if to rights ofthe reoplc there and a swing over against the UJgibia tU -This extension will make no differ♦n +lip hotel accommodation, hut Hill * the means of enriching the brewers by creating six years goodwill," interjected Mr Go*. For the Moderates. Af r Reed said his object was not to assist the Trade, but to give something if the moderate man, who was being better

"Are we to submit to that for ever merely because of the quarrels between the Prohibitionists and the Liquor Trade?" Mr Reed asked. The Licensing Committees have no power to insist upon new buildings as long as standing buildings can be patched up and kept sanitary.'' Mr Isitt: You are quite wrong. Mr Michel: The committee can withhofd a license. Mr Garland : He is quite right. Mr Reed said he had no interest in the Trade, but it was not reasonable to expect the Trade to build new hotels unless a longer tenure was granted.

Tho idea of giving a license to a house was not to establish a grog shop, said Mr Gow. Accommodation was provided for the travelling public, ,-ind the license was granted to enable the holder to provide them with spirituous liquor. Sir Robert Stout said the proposal was to grant a further monopoly to the Trade for six years, instead of three. In the Dominion that would mean a gift of £.300.000 to the Trade. Had the Legislative Council any right to grant that monopoly? He did not think they had that power. The House of Representatives would throw it out as an infringement of its privileges. Sir Francis Bell. "I yield to no one in my desire to see Prohibition carried in this country, and 1 hope to sec it an accomplished fact in my lifetime, but I want the six-year period to enable Prohibition to receive a fair trial,'' said Sir Francis Bell. "The monopoly that exists has been created by the Prohibitionists. We have to admit that it was the success gained by the Prohibition party in preventing any increase in the number of licenses that has created tho monopoly. If 1 could arrange that a poll for the prohibition of liquor should be taken every three years, but that the Restoration poll should not be taken for sis years, 1 would gladly do so," Sir Francis continued. "I think that if Prohibition is carried by a small majority and there is a Restoration poll in three years' time, there will be perpetual liquor disturbance. (Hear, hear.) The liquor party has more money than we have, and we cannot get any security for Prohibition with only a three years' tenure. All tho liquor party would have to do would bo to call on its resources and get to work to have it reversed. I have two beliefs: that Prohibition is a Rood thing, and that with a fair trial it will stay." Mr Malcolm said he remembered with gratitude the services of Sir Francis Bell in favour of no-license, but he failed to see that his argument m favour ot the six-year period was conclusive. The effect of such a concession would make the carrying of Prohibition much more unlikely, tie feared that any further concession would indefinitely postpone that reform. If it were not for the money ot tho Trade, Prohibition would have been carried long ago. They daro not allow tho Trade increased facilities tor building up its financial resources. to carrv on its campaigns. At present it was "tho fear of the people's will expressed every three years that kept such order in the Trade as existed. Mr Michel said that if the period was extended to six years they would completely crush the no-license and temperance movements. The Hon. Mr Cohen said public attention should be centred more upon purely political questions than upon this social question. He admitted that the six-year tenure was in the nature of a concession to the Trade. He denied that "lambing down" by publicans was rife to-day, as had been asserted. It was not true to say that the Press of the Dominion was wholly antagonistic to the no-licenso movement. ... Sir Eobert Stout said it was not fair if Prohibition was not carried at the next election that there should not be another poll for six years. ' ..

"The Bill is Dead." Mr Isitt said the only value, of the discussion was to. try to elicit a little .truth, for the Bill was practically dead. He said licensing committees had the power to withhold licenses until improvements were carried out. In -Wellington there were hotels that were purely drinking shops. They had beds, but it was next to impossibte to get a bed at those places, if one applied for one. It was high timo that the moderates r.ool* :•, hand and tried to improve exist, est conditions. Instead of that they used every means to prevent the Prohibitionists from improving them." It was not the moderates who had got six o'clock closing; it was not the moderates who had organised bands of young men who were sneered at as spies, but who had gone round and obtained samples of liquor, and by their exposures had secured a vast improvement in the quality of liquor sold, and safeguarded the lives of the moderates; it was not the so-called moderates who had done any of those things, but the Prohibitionists. On a division the amendment providing for six year polls was carried by 18 votes to 13. The division list was as follows:

For the Extension (18). B o ]l Mackenzie Ehodes Mclntyre Alison Mitohelson Carrington Reed Clark Rikihana Cohen Scott Collins Tri gg s Garland Weston Lang wittv Against (13). Craigie Michel Gow Moore Hall-Jones Smith Hawke Snodgrass Isitt stout Macgregor Thomson Malcolm Pairs: For—Allen, Earnshaw, Stewart, Sinclair; Against—Hanan, Newman, Mandcr, Fleming,. At this stage the Leader of the Council (Sir Francis Bell) said ho wished to explain his position. The Primo Minister had refused to accept responsibility for the Bill as it was passed by the House of Representatives, and the measure had come to the Council in charge of a private member. Nevertheless, as the Bill had now reverted very largely to its original form, he proposed to accept responsibility for a number of amendments which it was desired to incorporate in the Bill. More Amendments. The provision in the event of National Prohibition being carried for taking a poll on the question of restoration simultaneously with'every General Election was defeated, in favour of a ciause providing for holding restoration polls at alternate General Elections, with the proviso that the first restoration poll should not be taken until at least five years after Prohibition had come into force. Sir Francis Bell said the effect of this would be that Prohibition would have a trial of at least six, years, and it would also get over the difficulty that would arise in the event of a dissolution of Parliament a few months after a General Election. A further amendment, carried on the voices, struck out the bare majority in favour of the provision of a 52* per cent, majority necessary to carry restoration. A consequential amendment was made to provide for the taking of local restoration polls at the same time as the national restoration polls, and for a three-fifths majority to have effect to carry local restoration, as provided in the Licensing Amendment Act, 1910. The Bill originally proposed that local restoration • should be decided on the bare majority principle.

A new clause was added making it unlawful "for any consideration other than rent to be demanded or accepted by the owner of licensed premises iu respect of the lease or other dispo-ition of the premises. Any moneys received by an owner or landlord in breach of this provision are to be recoverable as a debt due to the person who paid them. The question whether or not any money has been paid to an owner or landlord other than rent shall be a question of fact to be determined by the Court in whieh proceedings for recovery may be taken. In determining any such question the Court may take into account the terms and conditions of all contracts and agreements incidental to the le-ise or other disposition of the licensed premises and may in its discretion determine that the'eousideration or any part of it is in fact in the nature of a premium, bonus, or fine, paid in_ consideration of the lease or disposition of the premises." The clause was added on the voices, without discussion.

Another new clause was added to provide that when considering any application for the transfer of a license, the licensing committee may take into account the consideration paid, or agreed to be paid, in respect of the proposed transfer, and may refuse to grant it if in any case it is of opinion that such consideration, including that for anv transaction incidental to the proposed transfer, is excessive. The clause also makes it unlawful for any licensee to demand or receive any consideration on the assignation or other disposition of his interest, in addition to the reasonable value of such interest. The motion to add the clause was carried on the voices, Sir Francis Bell remarking, ''ltis to prevent what we all know takes place." . . A new clause was carried providing that the register of barmaids now re•quired to be kept by the Secretary for Labour shall be transferred to the Commissioner of Police, together with the duties devolving upon the keeping of the register. It also provides for a fine of £lO for every day on which any woman, not registered, or exempted from registration by the Act of 19110, serves in a bar open for the sale of liquor. The clause is identical with that, in the, original Bill, whieh was struck out by the Ilouse of Representatives. Another clause was added to the Bill giving discretionary power to the Minister to cancel the charter of a club on the ground that an offence as to the supply or consumption of liquor has been committed within the premises of the chartered club. The present law makes it mandatory for the Minister to cancel the license, and the amendment was promised by the Prime Minister when the Bill was in the Lower House.

New Zealand Wine. On the motion of Sir Francis Bell two new clauses were added relating to the manufacture and sale of New Zealand wine. The first amended the definition of the term wine, for the purposes of wine-makers' licenses. Sir Francis explained that New Zealand wine must be the produce of New Zealand grown fruit, and its strength must not exceed 40 per cent, of proof spirit. The new clause allowed the admixture of imported brandy, but no alteration in the. alcoholic strength. Although New Zea-land-made wines were allowed to contain up to 40 per cent, of proof spirit, a wine vendor was not allowed to sell wine exceeding a strength of 20 per cent, of spirit. The whole effect of the second clause was to remove this anomaly, and enable wine produced in New Zealand under the authority of the law to be sold lawfully in the Dominion. On the motion of Mr Reed a new clause was added (identical with thpt struck out of the original Bill by the House of Representatives) providing that on the grant or renewal of a publican's license a licensing, committee may impose a condition requiring the licensee within a specified time to effect certain additions, alterations, or repairs, in respect of the premises or its furnishings. A further clause added provided that objection may be taken to the grant or renewal of a publican's license under the principal Act, on the specific ground that there is not a proper hot water service in connexion with the public bar, or with any private bar therein, or that provision is not made to ensure sufficient sanitary or other accommodation for the comfort or convenience of guests, or of the persons employed in the licensed premises. This clause was also in the accommodation section deleted in the Lower House.

Sir Francis Bell Takes Charge. Mr Hanan, at a later stage of the afternoon, raised as a point of order the question of who should now be in charge of the Bill. He said there had been so many alterations made in the Bill that it was now quite a different measure from the one originally introduced, and he thought someone else should take charge of it. Mr Gow said he had just been conferring with the Leader of the Council on the point in connexion with the altered condition of the Bill. He could not feel that those with whom he was associated could now treat the Bill as their Bill. It would be necessary, therefore, for him to put it in the hands of someone more in sympathy with the measure. He had therefore arranged with the Leader of the Council that the latter should take charge of it from now on. Sir Francis Bell said that he would take charge of the Bill, but not as Leader of the Council. Sir Heaton Rhodes would lead the Council while he (Sir Francis Bell) was in the chair. Mr Gow then left the Committee table, and Sir Francis Bell took his place. The Committee stage was then quickly concluded. Third Beading Carried. There were only three speakers in the third reading stage, and at ten minutes past four the division bells were rung for the final division. The Bill was read a third time by 21 votes to 13, the division being:— For the Bill (21): Be]] Mclntyrc; Rhodes Mander Alison Mitchclson Barr Newman Carringtou Reed Clark Rikihana Cohen Snodgrass Collins Triggs Garland Weston Lang Witty Mackenzie Against the Bill (13): Craigic Malcolm Gow Michel Hall-Jones. Moore Ilanan Smith Hawke Stout j s jtt Thomson Macgrcgor THE OPINION OF THE PUBLIC. SAFEGUARDED BY THE COUNCIL

In recent leading articles The Pkess has pointed out that the voting at the 192-5 election showed conclusively that public opinion was against the decision of the House, respecting the bare majority and the two-issue ballot pap* r - The Wellington "Evening Post on Thursday had a leading article support-

ing this opinion. In the course of its article,, the "Post" said:—"If there were an element of doubt as to the popular will, the Council would be warranted in advising postponement of action; but there is more than an element of doubt. There is distinct evidence that popular opinion as voiced indirectly in support of pledged members is in conflict with the opinion expressed more directly upon the - licensing poll. On that occasion 319,450 persons voted for Prohibition. 299,590 for Continuance, and 56,037 for State Purchase an'' Control. It is reasonable to assume that votes for Continuance would not be cast for an alteration which would make Prohibirion possible on a narrower margin, and that voters for State Control would not favour a change which eliminated that issue. On the other hand, all voters for Prohibition cannot be count, ed as favouring abolition by bare majority. Even conceding that they could be, the public opinion, as thus expressed, would be against the bare majority two-issue proposal. There is at least sufficient doubt to warrant the Legislative Council considering whether the Party pledces of elected members truly reflect public opinion; especially when the change proposed is one which, in the view of the responsible head of the Government, would bp fraught with grave danger to stability and public order and good government."