LICENSING QUESTION.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1514, 9 August 1912, Page 6

LICENSING QUESTION.

AN AMENDING BILL. TO REDUCE THE MAJORITY. Mr. A. S. MALCOLM (Clutha) moved the second Toading of the Licensing Act Amendment Bill. Ho said thnt the arguments for and against the Bill were, so well known that he did not propose to speak at length on it. He knew also that most of the members of the House were pledged oh the question, and he asked friends of the Bill to expedito its passage by refraining from speaking. The object of the Bill is to abolish the three-fifths majority rule in order that a proposal in a licensing poll should ]>o carried, and to substitute for it a 55 percent, luajoritv. Mr. J". S. DICKSON (Parnell) said that he would oppose tho Bill because ho was pledged to support the 3-sths majority, not because he owed anything to tho trade. He was not speaking in tho interests of the trade, and some honourable members knew that he had not been supported by tho trade at his election. Ho urged that the voting papers on tho licensing question were very confusing, and some changes were .needed. He though such an important Bill should bo introduced by the Government. (Opposition "Hear, hears.") AVhatcver Government was in power should be "man enough" to introduce a Licensing Bill as a policy measure. (Chorus of Opposition "Hear, hears.") About Pledges. Mr. T. 11. WILFORD (Hutt) said tho Bill w;ould place himself and other members in a peculiar position. He was pledged to voto for 55 per cent, on'local option questions, and GO per cent, on the National Prohibition-vote..'He did not know "how to vote-on the'Bill. There wfcro other members-in the: House'who had-, given pledges exactly tho . converse to- his.'. How- were they' going to vote? Iho- Primo' Minister.had been a threefilths majority nian. Was ho.so still? The'.Prime Minister: I think you had better address the Chair. - Mr. Wilford went on to suggest that perhaps it was because Mr. Massey was not sure of his position that he had asked a private member to bring in a Bill. The Prime 'Minister: I didn't ask him to bring in the Bill. \ Mr. Wilford: Well—suggested? The Prime Minister: I didn't suggest it. Mr. Wilford: You suggested that a private member could bring in a Bill on this question. The Prime Minister: That is a different thing. Mr. Wilford went on to say that lie objected to such an important measure of policy being brought up by a private member. If Prohibition were carried in this count/y by a bare majority of voters, of'whom about half were women, ho was perfectly certain that Prohibition would never be carried out. He was of opinion that total Prohibition would cou)o in this country, but the time was not yet. For himself, he was neither for Prohibition nor for the Trade; ho represented tho third party, tho greatest party, which was usually not represented in "these agitations by any executives or committees—., the great moderate party. He maintained that the foundation of tho Temperance agitation was tho wicket tied-house system. No men could take hotels, pay the huge sums demanded for goodwill, and keep strictly within the four corners of the law. The system was really an inducement to hotelkeepors to take risks in law-breaking for self-preservation. Whatever was done, the Government ought at once to establish a thorough system'of inspection of liquor sold. Ho could not support tho Bill.

A Commission Suggested,

Mr. J. H. BRADNEY (Auckland West) said ho thoroughly endorsed tho remarks of the member for Hutt, and ho was proud to be a member of the great moderate party. '

Mr. G. W. RUSSELL (Avon) said that he also belonged to the moderate party, and that he did not belong to cither of the two great camps which ranged themselves in the licensing battle every three years. The voting on tho question showed plainly enough that there was a growing sentiment in favour of the prohibition of drink in this country. With the consumption of alcoholic liquor fro large as it was in this country, was it right that such a proposal should bo given effect to by law? Would Parliament ever deprive moderate men from purchasing such liquor as would satisfy their reasonable wants? In any case ,it was provided that national prohibition should not take effect until four years, and in tho nicantime there would be a general election, in which the whole question would be fought again. There would presently grow up a strong party between the extremists on cither side, and in tho interests of this party he suggested that there should bo a commission set up, representing not only tho warring parties, but also students of history and social affairs, to put our licensing laws in order. He believed that the present license system could not stand, and possibly some" form of State control would be the only solution. But it behoved the Parliament to devise'some plan by which the reasonable wants of some people might I>e supplied, even if No-License were carried by tho electors of the country. The Two Issues. Mr. E. NEWMAN (Rangitikei) said that ever since he had been in Parliament he had been friendly lo tho temperance movement, but he could never see that it would be to the advantage of that movement to decide proposals on a bare majority. He had therefore always opposed it. He was iu favour of the 55 per cent, majority on the national issue, but he had nover been in favour of a reduction of the three-fifths majority on the local option issue. He thought this operated unfairly in any case. The Member for Invercargill, Mr. J. A. HANAN (Invercargill) said ho hiid been assured that there was a majority of the House in favour of the Bill, and also that the Bill had not a chance of becoming law. He claimed that the intelligence of tho electors was being flouted, and Parliament, controlled as it was by the Executive', could not give effect to the people's will. The Government were concealing their views on the licensing question, and on the Bill. They were, he believed, opposed to it, ami they were endeavouring lo lead people to suppose that they were in favour of it by allowing one of their party to introduce it. Mr. Harris: What w»3 the Mackenzie Government's policy? Mr. Hanan: I would give you the Mackenzie Government's policy, but you would tear it up without thinking of it. (Laughter.) You voted blindly to support the party on the Government benches before you knew its views on this question. It was merely a blind vote. fie went on to argue that the Government of the day weTe not prepared to tackle the case, but were attempting to throw dust in the eyes of the people |jv allowing a private member to Iniiig in a Bill, knowing full well that (hey could prevent its final passage, and so thwart the electors' wishes. What Did the Late Government Do? Mr. J). H, GUTHRIE (Oroya) slid th.it , Mr. Sanaa bad altofetlier failed in His.