LICENSING BILL.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2214, 29 July 1914, Page 4

LICENSING BILL.

OPPONENTS STATE THEIR. /■ :.:; •■•VIEWS;-. ::■: ', !• .-■'.. /; ; THE REVENUE PROBLEM. The House went into Committee on 'tho Licensing Amendment Bill at 7.30 pjn. • ■ 'Mr. J. Payne was tlio' first speaker. jHe stated that ho proposed ,to move jlffier. that the'decision on all licensing issues should lie by a baro majority, and that it should be compulsory- for electors to, record their ■ votes. This would prove whether tho "Tory Govern'mcritf'. .were really sincere in their desire to help the Prohibitionists. Mr. T.-'M. Will'orddid not approve of t'bo suggestion of tho member for Grey Lynn. He intimated that ho proposed to - movo' an amendment for the 'abolition of local option. Ho was satisfied, from his'own experience, that local No-. Licenso did not prohibit, and was of no advantago even to the party who most desired it. There was growing up in tho country a hand of determined men and women,' calling themselves ."moderates," who.,had no connection-with :tho "tiade" or with the Prohibition .Party,'"and they were determined to'ir.ako thomselves heard' on tho liquor question, lie was strongly opposed to the bare majority on tho ground that it wight not provide for a stable condition of affairs. If his amendment to :abolish the local option issue were cariried; he would be prepared to vote for the third reading of • the Bill—for tho .reduction of the majority 'required to carry National Prohibition from 60 per cent, to 55 per cent. He had also, another amendment which "ho would more if.his first amendment were'.carried, to. prcviile that in the event of national continuance being carried, licenses -might be restored in No-License areas by a i.hreo-fifths majority. Ho believed strongly in "No-Liconso, no liquor." A Revolutionary. Change. Mr.. G. W. Russell said the crux of ,'tb.e BSII was the proposal to reduce tho majority, for National Prohibition from

60 to 55 per cent. Ho could not help thinking that the .Prime Minister had shouldered, a very heavy responsibility iii introdlemg tho Bill'as a Government measure.- ' .. . :. '!' Sir. Massoy: No. . • Mr! Russell:;- —-and ensuring for it precedence on tho Order Paper. ', If a private member had introduced tho Bill it Vo'uld'never havo'beeri carri'od.- Ho , was. in favour of tho.CO per. cent, majority. ''■ Total, prohibition; would- make .a change that was''absolutely, revolutionary; in tho homes, of the .country, and -it ought' not; to bo doiio by isuch a small majority as was proposed 'iii' the Bill, Altogether tho consumption of wines, beer, and, spirits in tho. country, annually wa5.11,512,000 gallons', and surely the users', of ; tbis'liquor had some right to ■ bo considered. • He objected most of,all to the revolutionary 'cnange to be made in the conduct' of. people in their homes. If tliero were, ovils in the liquor trade, let them bo 'removed by any and overy step the Government might take, but it was a libel on this country to say that it was a drunken country. The carrying of National Prohibition would entail a loss of £1,000,000 annually in revenue, and until tho House knew how that million was to bo made up -t. was not fair to ask tho House to vote on tho Bill. "Was' the extra taxation to go on to the land? Wero the rice and sugar duties to bo reinstated? Was it to be made ,up in increased railway fares? Responsibility too Heavy. Dr. Rangihiroa gave an interesting dissertation on the effect of alcohol on primitive races. Ho said that tin tho Maori race it had wrought evil,. but since. tho introduction of alcoholic beverages _ among the . Natives, legislation had given to the Natives opportunities for minimising tho evils of the abuse of liquor. In viow of this he did' not feel justified in recording his vote as to whether there should be National Prohibition or not to apply to all Europeans, especially as tho ; first division had been so close. Ho was not willing to take that responsibility. He .recognised that .the Maori race 1 had been protected as well as possible. A drastic change such'as-was proposed ought to be made only on the vote of a decisive majority'of the electors, and a 55 per cent, majority, of voters would not represent a : majority, but a minority of the people in New Zealand.' Only 80 per cent, of-the people regularly went to the polls, so that 55 per cent, of tho voters going to the polls would represent only 44.per cent, of the people entitled , to' vote. / i Whero to Get the Million? Mr. A. H. Atmore said ho was strongly of opinion that a'change: such as was contemplated ought to bo backed by a strong majority, and he did not think 55 per cent, -was a, majority big enough to ensure that stabuuy tiiai was necessary, to bring about.all such great changes.. He was in favour of some reform to do away with tho drunkenness that undoubtedly existed, and he believed' that after tho people had decided at some time in the future that No-Licenso was not'tho proper method' to use, they wquld.be more inclined to try tho elfect of some system. ol;> public control,to eliminate the eloincnt'of private profit. He did not attach much weight to the argument about, loss of revenuo,-because it could.be'easily made up. But it would havo to bo made up by extra taxation on tho big landowners. It must not go on tho Customs. Mr. J. G. Coates said he regarded , the difficulty-of 'finding the rovenuq to bo lost by tho carrying of Prohibition as no light matter. And he said, further, that it was quite impossible to raiso a million by taxing tho land. Ho rcpresented a,.country district. .The country, heeded money for development, and ho Government could tax the farmers much- more ; heavily .; than they wero taxed now. "Nor did ho think four years was a sufficient time after tho carrying of No-Licenso at tho polls for the Governing to readjust the finances of tho country. Ho helieved that public control would get over tho difficultieG|exist> ing in tho'liquor traffic. By What Majority? / Mr. P. C. Webb . regretted that tho question.;/of State ownership had not been .submitted to tho public.' If it were,', he,thought it would be carried by more .than a three-fifths majority; The moderate, people should have a say on the question of State' control. Ho declared;.himself in favour of a baro majority oil this and all questions. : The Hon.' R. M'Kcuzio regretted that tho Government had not had tho cqurago to.'make the question a! party Ho did not think the liquor Qiiostion should be different Jroin any other question. Ho opposed xhe' reduction to tho 55 per cent, majority, and pointed, out that there "were ■' many phases of-tho question which had not beoivconside'red. If they were going to liavo the majority reduced, they, would bavo see-sawing at tho .elections. Mr. T.E. Y. Seddon thought it was incumbent on tho Prime Minister to let the Houso know if any; proposal was going to be put,forward for the moderates. The Bill was one for extremists to decide. More issues should be submitted to the people, particularly State and tho moderates should-havo a 'chanco to express their views/ . '■' ■-.;,- ■■■'-.. : Mr, J. M'Combs supported the right of the majority to. rule. Thehandicap imposed on the Prohibition Party by tho three-fifths .'clause' was a handicap of 100,000 votes. Ho had in his hands, a,.Liberal. journal,;;the "New Zealand Liberal." . On the' front page were the words, "The Principle of Liberalism is Tijust the People,"/ / They had :'in tho House.that night two' parties, both professedly'/"Liberal." Would thoy show their■ liberalism and' trust tho people? .The Prohibition. Party wero -making a ' yery .moderate, demand/. If it was re-' i fused .they would.be justified in'making it the one issue/at the elections. ■Mr. A. H. Atmore, took the member for Lyttelton to task for his "arrogance" in charging other members of insincerity, and -unwillingness to trust tho people.. Mr. M'Combs was afraid of the rivalry of tho Sta'to-contrbl issue if it were submitted to the electors; Bid ;noi' Mr. M'Combs, who i professed 'to , be so concerned about disfranchising people,- know that by refusing' . to submit this issue to the olectors ho was disfranchising a very largo number of electors who wished to be given, tho opportunity of voting for it,' "Sly Grog-Shop Every Timo." Mr. L. M.'. Isitt having been silent for nearly two hours spoko at 9.25 p.m. . His speech was mainly an answer to tho arguments of the member for Nelson. Although the member for Nelson and others had quoted iigjires to show that in spite of tho carrying of local NoLicense in several areas the total consumption of liquor had increased, ho had failed to mention the fact that m areas . .whero No-License, had been carried ■ drinking had decreased. Voices: No. Mr. Isitt: Very well, then. You get into this position, that more liquor is introduced into No-License areas and sold and consumed illegally than undor a system of licensed houses. ... .1 don't want to deny to, any man the pleasure of swallowing a glass of whisky of a glass of beer. "1 simply want 1« stop..,the evil results 'of ;drinking. H it were true, lie cuhtimied, that when . the licensed houses were closed the fily-grog-shop got to work, and riioro liquiiv and worse, liquor was sold, but still there was a cessation'of drunkenness, and a diminution of crime, then ho would vote for tho sly grog-shon every timo. Mr. G. W. Russell, taxed tho I'riino Minister witli having changed his opinions radically about the majority that-ought to ho required to , carry, National Prohibition, and cfcd-

longed Mr. Massoy to state tho reasons for changing his opinion. Dofonco of tho Bill. Tlio Right Hon. W. P. Massoy said ho had taken advantage of his opportunity at . tlio second reading to speak his views'.at some length. Besides this he would remind honourablo members thai?'all the talk in tho world would not mabo the slightest difference to any voto on the Bill. Every member in the Houso had made up his mind how to voto, and knew how every other member was going to vote, Reference had been made to tho position of the Government, and'it had been correctly,stated. Four members of the Government wero voting.for tins/Bill, and livo members wero opposing it. Tho liquor question was not a party question or a policy question. No Liquor Bill in his 25 years of experience in politics had ever been either a party question or a policy question. Tho Government had merely done its duty in allowing Parliament to expross its- opinion on this matter, as on any other matter of public interest or importance'. Ho repeated his reasons for favouring a reduction of tho majority for National .Prohibition, and not for. Local Option. Ho thought there should bo requu'ed a greater majority for tho carrying of local No-License, because thero were factors such as trade jealousies and perI sonal likes and dislikes to influence the. decision. .And -a feeling was growing in this country against local-■ No-License. So far as National' Prohibition wa;S concerned,'if 55 per cent, of the electors decided lb have National Prohibition, the country should have it, and tho opponents of it should bo prepared to put up with it. Ho thought, this was a perfectly logical ground to take up. So long as there was only Local Option lie had voted for tW 60 por cent, majority, but on the national issue he thought that-tlie case was rather different,' • and that 55 per cent, was sufficient to so-, onro a. stable majority. Mr. Russell: You voted 60 per cent, in 1910.. .'.- Mr. Massey said that this was not tho first, Bill to reduce the majority that.had been before the House. Sir Joseph Ward had brought down a Bill in.1910 to provide for the reduction of tho majority of 55 per cent.. on both issues, and ho would ask the member for Avon how he had voted on-"that Bill. 'Tho honourable member had not voted against the 55 per cent, majority on tho second reading of the Bill, which had been agreed to on the voices. Although the honourable gentleman had denounced the 55 per cent, majority on National Prohibition 'ho had voted for it in 1910. He (Mr. Massey) did not agree that an issue of the importance of the licensing question should, bo decided hy a bare majority. .He urged honourable mombera to como to a deci-r sion on-the main clauses in the Bill. Ho had amendments to move, one very important, one dealing with Austrian wine. •'.'■■ ■ ■•'."'.'■ .A, ''Bare Majority." Mr. J. Payno moved an amendment to the operutivo clauso of the Bill reducing tho majority from 55 per oenfc. of those who voted to a baro majority of the people'entitled to vote,, and providing for compulsory votiug. The Hon. J. A. Millar pointed out that.the amendment, as it was phrased, provided for a majority of the members on tho roll, as heing. necessary to carry No-License. On the other hand, as only about 77 per cent, voted ordinarily; 55 per cent. of. ; those would.mean that about 43 per cent, of tho people of the. country would bo able to brand this country as a.iiation of drunkards. ' Mr. L. M. Isitt said that tho object of Mr. Payno in moving the' amendment was not to help the Prohibition Party, but to kill tho Bill. Mr. Payne had given a'/ written pledge oh! 'July 1(5 to the Now Zealand Alliance, that as'. a strong, supporter,...of ' tho bare majority, ho. would .vote for'this Bill. .Ho'(Mr. Isitt) would' vote, against the amendment. He : 'kriewthat, if/ho.voted 'against the baro; majority ho might stand "a chance ojf,getting a reduction'to 55' per ' cent. ' If'. Mr. Payne's baro majority clauso went through it would.kill the Bill. Eka also accused tho member for Duhcdin West, and the member for Hutt of being imbued with the samo idea. .Mr.. -J. M'Combs said that life would' oppose the member for Grey Lynn. His amendment was cunningly devised to kill tho Bill. It was'not an amendment for the baro majority. His proposition .was to. substitute ...tho words "55 per centum" by the words "a majority of tho electors.". It would.impose on the. Prohibitioiiistsv an extra 40,000 handicap. It was sheer humbug, and tho Houso would be .justified in treating it as such. ■ Not .only. were their jolls not puro, but 600,000 people wont to the poll last election, and refused to vote on tho Prohibition issue. . Mr., T. M. Wilford, in 'reply to Mr. Isitt, contended that the member was illogical when ho said that his (Mr. Wilford 1 s) proposed amendment was an attempt to kill the Bill. \ Tho Hon.. J. A., Millar said that they had now had, from two leaders, of the Prohibition cause, tho. declaration that they did not w T ant a majority of the electors. If it was-to be apropo'r thing it should bo a majority of the electors. .The" Prohibitionist 1 people wore asking that 43 per cent, of tho people on tho rolls should brand the, country as" a nation of drunkards. He denied the. right of any majority to tell him what he should eat or drink. The Hon. W. Fraser said that- he had made his position clear on tho' second reading. He said then that he would not assist to pass a measure to reduce the majority from 60 to 55 per cent. Neither would he support the amendment.. He supported the law as it stood, and would oppose Mr. Payne'samendment because it , actually increased the majority required to carry Prohibition. Ho would also oppose the amendment proposed by Mr. Wilford. Mr. Payne Explains. ; Mr. J. Payno said that the -Prohiblitioii members now plainly showed that they were not prepared to stand hy •"the voices,of the people." They want, ed to get by a trick something tliat tho majority of' tho- people did not sanction going through.. He denied that his amendment, would kill tho Bill. He ■claimed that ho was pledged to tho :"true bare majority," for which his amendment provided. "With regard to !my writing to tho Temperance Alliance," he' continued, "1 may say I :wrote in reply to 'a letter. I don't recognise tho right of tho Temperance Alliance to 'commit mo to a pledge. When-I wrote to.tho Tempcranco Alliance, I wrote on tho information I'had at that moment, and on the information I have got now—five Ministers out ;of tho Government opposed to the Bill brought in . by tho Prime ■ Minister—l lam not going to bo a party.to this votecatching Bill." ' ''.-• Mr. A. Harris said that on July 16 Mr. Payne pledged himself to vote, for the Bill. On July 23 he .voted against it On July 2b. he stood up and tried to oxcuse his vote on that occasion. Ho (Mr. Harris) hoped no other membors of the House would bo guilty of a similar action., -. Mr. W. A. Veitch blamed Mr. Harris for proposing to vote against the amendment whilo he was pledged to his electors to vote lor the- bare majority, in this respect he was guilty of the charge which he had laid upon the member" for Orey Lynn; .;...-.. ;' ■ Mr. P. C.i Webb said he would vote against the amendment, which was not a bare majority amendment. The House went lo a division on Mr. Payne's amendment at. 11.10 p.m. At first.Mr. Malcolm had difficulty in nominating tellers lor the amendment. He called Mr. Payne's name, but could not name another until the Hon. J..A. Miliar volunteered .to tell with the member for.Grey- Lynn./ The amendment was -defeated by 63 ,- votes to 4. The four, wore; Dr. llongi- J

.hiroa, Mr. A. E. Glover, the Hon. J. A. Millar, and Mr. J. Payne. THE CRUCIAL DIVISION. The division on the clause as a whole was taken' immediately afterwards. The clause was'defeated by 33 votes to 31. Tho following was tho division list:— Ayes (31). Noes (33). Anderson 'Allen Buxton Atmore Colvin Bollard, R. P. Craigio Bradney Davey • , Brown ' ' Ell Buchanan Escott . Buick Fisher Campbell Guthrie Carroll , Harris - Coates Hindmarsli Dickie Hino Dickson Isitt Praser Lee Glover M'Combs Herdman Mander Hunter 'Massoy Mac Donald Newman, Dr. M'Kenzie • Ngata • Millar ' Nosworthy. ' Myers ■ Okey "■' Parata Pearce Payno Poland Pomare Sykes Rangihiroa Thomson, G. M. ■ Reed Veitch Russell Ward Scott: Webb '! Sidey ■ ".' Wilkinson Smith, E.H. , Wilson •' Statham Young Thomson, J. C. '"Wilford Witty. Pairs: Ayes: R. , H. Rhodes, Hanan, Bell, Buddo, Clark. Noes: M'Callum, J. Bollard, Hemes, Forbes, R. W. Smith. The following members are not accounted for in the list, in addition to Mr. Speaker-.and the' Chairman., of Committees: Messrs. E. Newman, J, Robertson, T.-W. Rhodes, and T. E. Y. Seddon. ; Clause 3, relating to the employment of unregistered barmaids in private' bars, was deleted, on tlio motion of tho Prime Minister. (In view of the recent decision of the Appeal Court tho amendment as proposed is not necossary.), Austrian Wins. The Right Hon. W. F. Massey moved to add two now clauses to regulate tho manufacture of the beverage known as Austrian wine on the gumfields of. tho far North. The chief provision of the clause was to require the payment of a license fee of £10 annually by all wino 6ellers. (The present license fee is £1.) Tho clauses' were added to the Bill. : Progress was reported, and the House rose at 11.48 p;m. ■''"'