LICENSING BILL.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19176, 6 December 1927, Page 10

LICENSING BILL.

DISAGREEMENT IS FATAL.

"ABOLISH THE COUNCIL,"

SAYS MR M'COMBS

[THE PRESS Special Service.]

WELLINGTON, December 5.

The Licensing Bill lias been killed. The refusal of the partisans in Parliament to compromise on the amendments made by the Legislative Council created a deadlock, and as a result, the Bill has had to be sacrificed.

Vv'hen the House met this morning, Mr j3. P. Lee reported that the second conference had been held, but that members had failed to reach an agreement.

A voice: Shocking! Mr Macmillan (Tauranga) asked Mr Lee if agreement had been reached on any of the points at issue. "I may say that the amendments we objected to were not adjusted between us —any of them," replied Mr Lee. A loud laugh was raised by Mr McCombs, one of the managers of the first conference, and an active supporter of Prohibition in the House. Before Mr Lee presented his report, Mr McC'ombs rose, and with the utmost solemnity announced his intention of introducing the Legislative Council Abolition Bill. During the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill, Mr Fraser (Wellington Central) suggested in connexion with the Legislative voto that it might be considerably reduced, as it was a question whether the money spent- on "another place'-' was not entirely wasted.

Mr McCombs asked the chairman if it were competent for him to move the postponement of the vote, as an indication to the Government to consider before the session closed the introduction of legislation to prevent the reappointment of any members of the Legislative Council. The chairman (Mr Hockly): That is a matter of policy.

Mr McCombs said he realised that he could not move such a- motion. While Legislative Councillors were dependent on the Prime Minister for reappointment it was not surprising that recently six members, who were likely to be reappointed in the near future, should have voted as the Prime Minister wished in connexion with a certain legislative proposal. The existing law was such that it placed the predominating power in the hands of the Prime Minister, enabling him to defeat the will of the majority of his Cabinet. At this stage, Mr J. Mason (Napier) asked, as a point of order, whether the remarks of the member for Lyttelton were not a reflection on the integrity of the members of another place. The chairman said he did not regard it in that light, but the member could not move that tho vote be postponed. The subject then dropped.

BARE MAJORITY ISSUE.

DEBATE IN COUNCIL. [THE PBESS Special Service.]

WELLINGTON, December 5

The Leader of the Legislative Council to-<lay replied to some of the arguments adduced in favour of the Dare majority. Sir Francis referred particularly to the contention of the Bouse that the proposal to substitute an artificial majority for the present law of decision by a bare majority was not warranted Sir Francis Bell said) he trusted he might refer without raising any controversy to the question wlii.ch bad arisen by reason of the failure of the two Houses of the General Assembly to agree upon the Licensing Amendment Bill. "The licensing law," he said, "constitutes the one single exception to the general rule that the Council adopts in relation to measures which have the support of a large majority in the House of Representatives. That single exception is created by the fact that, there is a separate poll of all electors, held simultaneously with the election of members of the House, those members being chosen by the electors for various reasons. That separate poll is a referendum on one question, however many may be the nominal issues into which that question may be separated. The Council is not only entitled, but bound to have regard to the decision of the whole body of electors directed to that question alone, as well as the views of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives. "I Deg leave," said Sir Francis, "to refer to two arguments which have been presented in favour of the bare majority, in regard to which difference has been found to exist between the House and the Council. As to the first of these two matters, it is contended that the opinion of electors at the licensing poll was expressed upon the question of Continuance against NoLicense, and not on the question of whether the decision should be by a bare majority. There would be force in that suggestion if it could be at the same time suggested that any one elector who voted Continuance voted for the bare majority. We all know that voters for Continuance in effect voted against the bare majority. The second contention is that the majority proposed by the Council is an artificial majority, and that although artificial majorities existed throughout the licensing legislation until the legislation of 1918, yet under that legislation artificial majorities were abolished, so that for nine years the principle of the bare majority has been recognised and established by the Legislature as a proper means of determining the licensing poll. The answer to that is that the 1918 law continued the principle of the artificial majority, first by providing for three issues, and arbitrarily imposing the necessity for any one of them to secure a majority over the other two, and second, that a majority of three-fifths was required for Restoration in a nolicense district."

Sir Robert Stout said that there was no need for any apology in regard to the attitude taken by the Council in amending the Bill. No one could deny the Council's right to deal with the lioensing question, but that did not give them a right to set aside the views of the people of New Zealand as expressed through members of the House. In regard to the need for new licensing legislation, it could not be denied that throughout the Dominion the feeling was that the matter must be dealt with, and the effect of the Council's proposals would have been to kill the agitation for licensing reform, and to give a monopoly to certain people who did not deserve a monopoly, or to control a monopoly. The Hon. Mr Cohen remarked that the giving of secret pledges was destructive of good government, and he would like to make it an offence under the Corrupt Practices Act to make such pledges. The Hon. Mr Malcolm differed from Sir Francis Bell, and said he could not agree that the licensing question was one separate from all others, in

that on the licensing question there was a referendum. He was unable to follow Sir Francis Bell when he suggested that there was a connexion between the referendum and the Bill they had just passed.

A LITTLE LESSON IN LAW.

[THE PRESS Special Service.]

WELLINGTON, December 5.

A reply to suggestions made by Labour members in the House that the Legislative Council should be abolished was made by Sir Francis Bel! this afternoon, in the course of a speech in defence of the rights . and privileges of the Upper Chamber. "It has been suggested," said Sir Francis, "that it is in the power of this Legislature, with or without the concurrence of the Council, to constitute a unicameral Legislature. If that is to be done, it can be effected only by an Act of the Imperial Parliament, and I think it desirable that I should in a few words make reference to the Constitution Act on that point." He pointed out that Section 32 of the Act provided that there should be in the Colony of New Zealand a General Assembly," consisting of a Governor, a Legislative Council, and a House of Representatives. By the Constitution Act of 1857 it was provided that it should be lawful for the General Assembly, by any Act from time to time, to alter, suspend, or repeal all or any of the provisions of the Act except such as were thereafter specified, and one of the sections specified was Section 32. ''lt is beyond question, therefore," he said, "that as a matter of law, as well as of constitutional principle, it is not within the power of the two Houses of this Parliament to abolish either of the two Houses, which bv Section 32, are declared to lie part of the General Assembly. I trust the Council will pardon me for placing on record a legislative fact, which is known to us, but perhaps is not so well known outside our walls."

A BILL NEXT SESSION ?

(P&KSS ASSOCIATION TZLEORAM.) WELLINGTON, December 5

The Standing Committee of the New Zealand Alliance to-day emphatically protested against the Legislative Council's action on the Licensing Bill in overruling the decisions of the people's elected representatives in Parliament, especially as the questions were clear issues in the last election. They intend approaching the Prime Minister with an urgent request that facilities be given for the passing of a Licensing Bill early next session. If the matter is not settled next session, they will mako it a test question at the General Election. They affirm that it would not be settled until it was left to the electors to decide, without hindrance or handicap, on the basis of one elector one rote, and one vote one value.