DEBATE ON THE LICENSING ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 29, 3 August 1893, Page 2

DEBATE ON THE LICENSING ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

AN ALL-NIGHT SITTING. THE SECOND BEADING CARBIED BY 26 TO 9. The House resumed at 7.30. On the first order of the day being called on (Licensing Act Amendment Bill) Mr Buckland rose to a point of order. He contended that the present Bill introduced by Sir Robert Stout was substantially the same as the Direct Veto Bill, introduced early in the session, and he submitted that two bills to the same effect could not be introduced in the same session. The Speaker said he had looked at this matter carefully and he found that where two bills proposed to effect the same object, but in different ways, they were virtually separate bills and were in no way identical. He therefore ruled that Sir Robert Stout was quite in order in moving the second reading of the present bill. Sir R. Stout then moved the second reading of the Licensing Act Amendment Bill. In doing so, he said it needed no apology from him to bring in such a measure as the question was creating such a large amount of interest all over the world at present. The Bill was really a very slight alteration of the existing law. It did not propose any new principle. The present law gave the peqple the power periodically to settle the question of the number of licenses in particular districts. The Bill proposed to insert two additional questions, namely — shall licenses be granted and shall licenses be reduced 1 That was the only addition to the present law made in this Bill. He held it was to the interests of good government if they removed this burning question from politics and relegated it to the people. This great question had to be met, and if it were not met in simple form it would probably be met in a much more unpalatable form. He warned the opponents of the Bill that if they did not accept reform he proposed that they would have to face one of a more drastic character. This was surely a question that should be raised above party, and each one should ask himself what he could do to help on this great reform. Colonel Fraser thought that the present Bill was not one that the Temperance Party wanted, but they wished to go to the country on the question of veto or no veto. There was not a word in this Bill respecting compensation, and he held that justice should be done to the publicans as well as to any other members of the community. By this Bill it was proposed to sweep away nearly half a million of revenue from the Government, besides taking away about £60,172 of revenue from local bodies. Hon. Mr Seddon said they would all admit this question was agitating the public mind at present, and it was a subject that would have to be dealt with. It was even more important than women suffrage. Government i asked that the debate on this question should be fair and full, and if it was the desire of the House that Government should deal with it, they would do so. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill. Mr Bruce aaid the Premier's speech convinced him that the Government, of which he was the head, was not prepared to take the lead on this question. He was not an extremist in either way. Although he intended to vote for the second reading of this Bill, he could not agree that the question should be reforred solely to the electors. He also could not agree with the proposal that the question should be decided by a bare majority, and thought a two-thirds majority would be preferable. Mr W. Hutchison supported the Bill. ** Hon Mr Reeves said he felt himself in an awkward position inasmuch as he would have to vote in an opposite lobby to his chief. With the greater part of this Bill, however, he agreed, but at the last election he was pledged to support the existing law during the present Parliament. He was bound therefore, as a matter of honor, to vote against the Bill, and he should do so. The Premier had stated the views of the Government on this matter, and if the House decided the question must be dealt with this session, they would be prepared to take it up. He would be prepared to give the Bill a substantial, but not an impossible majority. Mr Taylor supported the second reading. Mr Willis would vote for the second reading if an alteration were made in the direction of compensation. Mr Seddon rose to make a personal explanation. He pointed out he had not said if the second reading were carried the Government would take up the measure. That was not the intention of the Government, and he had not Btated that. What he eaid was, the

Government would, iv that case, deal with the Bill as they thought best. Mr Fish, who began speaking at 9.4.") p.m., opposed the Bill on eleven grounds, and proceeded at great length to explain the reasons of his hostility to the measure, quoting largely from the speeches and opinions of various people in all parts of tht world. At 2.10 a.m. Mr Fish wiu still speaking. Mr Guinness, Chairman of Committees, releived the Speaker for a few hours. Mr Fergus then moved that strangers be requested to withdraw. This was carried by 21 to 17, and the galleries were cleared. Messrs Swan, Pish, Buckland, and Dawson kept the debate going until 7 a.m. when strangers were readmitted. Sir Robert Stout having replied, the second reading was carried by 26 to 9 at 7.55 a.m. The is tho division list : — Ayes : Bruce, Buick, Carncross, Duncan, Earnshaw, Guinness, Hall-Jones, H^rkness, Houston, W. Hutchison, Joyce, J. Kelly, McGuire, McLean, Meredith, Moore, O'Connor, Pinkerton, Sandford, Snunders. Seddon, W. C. Smith, Stout, Tanner, Taylor, and R. Thompson. Noes: Buckland, Dawson, Fish, Fraser, W. Kelly, Lawry, Rolleaton, Swan, T. Thompson. Pairs.— -For: G. Hutchison, J. McKenzie, Willis, Wilson, Newman, M. J. S. McKonzie, Palmer, J. Mills, Hogg, Hall, Fisher, Duthio, T. McKonzie, Buchanan. Against : Taipua, Russell, Parnta, Mitchelson, Shera, C. H. Mills, Richardson, Macintosh, W. P. Reeves, Kopa, Lake, Rhodes, Valentine, and Blake. The House then adjourned till 7.30 p.m.