PARLIAMENT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 16 November 1927, Page 6

PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LICENSING AMENDMENT BILL SECOND READING DEBATE. Wellington, Nov. 15. The Prime Minister rose in the House of Representatives this afternoon to move the second reading oi the Licensing Amendment Bill. He said that in bringing the bill before the House he was pertectly free to look on the matter from the broadest point of view, because he had given no pledges to any party. Mr. T. M. Wifford (Hutt): Have any? Mr, Coates replied that he bad not. He said that only once at the last election was he asked what his position was, when he said he was not in favour of the two-issue ballot paper and was not in favour of an extension of the time between polls His position was thus a little different. from that of others. He had endeavoured to draft legislation which, if placed on the statute book, would be an improvement on the existing legislation. He justified the elimination of the State control issue by saying that it never became a live issue. He might be told it had increased, but looking at it brpadfv he did not think the public really wanted it. The question was an extremely troublesome one, and whether they liked it or not they had to give it considerable attention. Discussing the question as it affected New Zealand, he said the licensing issue cut across all other issues and so disqualified many capable men from entering Parliament, because they had at one time or another expressed strong opinions on this subject. For that reason he favoured the extension of the period 'between polls and to remove from political contest that which was al ways a disturbing element. Then there was a constant cry from end to end of the country for improved hotel accommodation. We were constantlv asked to advertise the scenery. our tourist resorts, but it wa" useless to do that unless we harp tourists’ hotels with the accommodation they required.

Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton): How do they get on in America, where they have the best hotels in the world J TWO REAL ISSUES. Mr. Coates said the American hotels were not the best in the world, but good, but they were quite different from others. However, we must have accommodation of a high class. The trade was always stating that they could not give it unless they had a better tenure. There fore, he was disposed to give them an opportunity. Moreover, the bi!’ gave increased power to licensing committees to insist on accommoda tion of the desired quality. With regard to the issues on the oallot. paper, his opinion was that there were only two real questions before the country—viz.: prohibition or continuance. Whatever might be said of the third issue, he was satis fled it was not a live one, since it received so small a proportion of the votes cast. Having, then, decided that there could be only two issues, the next question was on that majority should either be Carried. He was satisfied" that if prohibition was carried it should be carried on such a majority as would make it stable and respected. Canada had gone in for prohibition, but has goue back to State control, but that was, ho thought, because the conditions weto so difficult in enforcing the law. The difficulty in America seemed to be enforcing the law, and it was a rn.estion whether we in New Zealand cculd enforce the law if we adoptee prohibition on a bare majority. That was the question that worried linn, because it would never do to have a law on the statute book which was flouted. THE “TRADE.” Their business now was to consider the position of what w-s known as the “trade.” It was. he understood, valued at £lB,ooo,o<’o with sonn, 12,000 employees. Thzy also r.a] to consider the interests of the State, in this he was thinking ol the Minister of Finance. To him it meant nearly £2,000,000 in customs duty, and there was also income to be considered. These things would all have to be adjusted if prohibition was carried, so that it could be seen how serious a matter it was to carry prohibition by a bare majority. Under all the circumstances he thought that n 55 per cent, majority was fair and reasonable. For the rest the bill contained a number of amendments to the law, which he considered experience rendered necessary. The provision for the supply of liquor at banquets, he thought, was reasonable. The sale of liquor to young people was now being, safeguarded. Hie. bill was clear cut and. fair to both sides as it stood. It was before I’arhaiueut

and it was for Parliament to say whether it became law. He would accept amendments, but if he feared the bill was getting into such state as to be unsupportable, he would have to tell the House he could not go on with it. NOT CONVINCED.

Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the Opposition) said he did not believe it was the serious intention of the Prime Minister to put the bill on the statute book. There did not seem to be sincerity behind it. He had heard qualified statements such as that made by the Prime Minister before, and he was not convinced. He then proceeded to review the circumstances surrounding the last election, contending that the money spent on big advertisements by the Reform party came from the brewers. Mr. Holland thought the vote should be on a preferential basis, and that should enable them to retain the tftree-issue ballot paper. On that point the Labour party was solid, and he would move in that direction in committee. He would vote against the 55 per cent, majority. The Labour party stood for a bare majority on all questions, and nothing_that had been said in favour of 55 per cent, could not he said in favour of 75 per cent. He thought this bill should be a Government measure. The Prime Minister was trying to trim his sails; he was trying to get all sides into his net. The Prime' Minister: I have evidently caught the hon. gentleman. Mr. Holland said, not at all. His nosition was quite clear. He always had been in favour of the three-issue ballot paper, but he was satisfied clauses 2, 3 and 4 would not all go through in their present form unless the prohibitionists in the Reform party voted against the pledges they had given to the Alliance. What he wanted to know was how far the business of New Zealand was going to be held up for this bill. He did not believe the bill was going through unless the Prime Minister made it a Government measure and the Prime Minister cracked bis whip. The Labour party was solid on the question of preferential voting while the three issues remain on the ballot paper. If that was altered they were free to do as they liked. BARE MAJORITY OPPOSED. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) said six o’clock closing had done a great deal of good, but if the House pressed it as far as prohibition a great

deal of harm would be done. Nolicense was not the remedy and therefore he opposed the bare majority. Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) said the bill contained something for the prohibitionists and something for the “trade.” It was a bill on the 50-50 principle, and it was surprising that the Prime Minister, who was such an able exponent of the 50-50 principle, should have adopted a 55-45 majority. He declared that the six-yea r poll would simply mean an increase in “trade” goodwills and would send Amalgamated Brewery shares up in price. The people now had the right to elect Parliament on a bare majority, and all they asked was the right to express their opinion on this great social problem on a similar basis.

The Hon. A. D. McLeod deprecated the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the relations of the Reform party to the liquor party. It had no foundation in fact and had been made for purely a party purpose. A Labour member; Produce our balance sheet. Mr. McLeod: The hon gentleman would not produce the balance sheet of his party. (Labour dissent). Mr. McLeod. continuing, said the Labour balance-sheet would not disclose the position if they did produce it. Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) : That’s a lie, anyhow. The Speaker called on Mr Frose'to withdraw that imputation, which hp did. substituting “deliberate inaccuracy,” which was also ruled to be offensive and was withdrawn, Mr. Holland: Are yon preparing to send this I,ll] to a committee to take evidence on all its aspects! 1 HON. McLEOD’S VIEWS Mr. McLeod said Mr. Holland knew how impossible it was to get evidence before a committee, and then, at the request of the Speaker to “get back to the bill,” he proceeded to argue against a bare majority, because of its instability. He favoured the extension of the period between the polls as being less disturbing. If, however, it was logical to settle the question whether the country is to be wet or dry on a bare majority, then on a bare majority the people should sav whether the polls should be every three, six or nine years Sir Joseph .Ward (Invercargill) said he was not a prohibitionist and he favoured the three-issue oallot paper. Ho did not believe the bill would go through this session, and he deprecated the procedure of bringing in such a measure as a rtonGovernment bill. He was going to vote for the restoration of the Stalo control issue, and he would not vote for a bare mai<irit v upon any issue submitted to the House. Mr. J. Mason (Napier) said he was returned free from any pledges and

would vote for such portions of the bill as he approved of. He was against the bare majority, which did not ensure stability, and he quoted a number of authorities in support of that view. The 55-45 majority was, he thought, quite a reasonable proposal. He favoured holding polls every six, instead of three, years. He favoured taking a poll in the King Country, in which the natives could take part. Mr W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) contended that the questions raised by the bill should not be settled by the House, but should be referred to the people. Any fatreaching change should come from the people themselves. MR. ROLLESTON’S AMENDMENT. Mr. J. C. Rolleston (Waitomoj explained his amendment for permitting licenses in the King country. Before those licenses were granted he wished Parliament to determine what form those licenses should take, because the people in the King Country Old not wish to perpetuate the evils of the liquor trade as known in other districts. He maintained tnat if a compact with the Maoris was ever made it was never enforced, and therefore was of non-effect. in' addition to which the Maoris were being served with spirits of the worst class. THE KING COUNTRY COMPACT. Sir A. T, Ngata agreed with the extended period between the polls, but he favoured a bare majority. He was disappointed that the Prime Minister had not taken greater advantage of his opportunity to effect real internal reform within tho “trade” itself. He also favoured the two-issue ballot paper, because he never regarded the State control issue seriously, nor did h e think the Government took it seriously. Dealing with the compact between the Maori and the pakeha as to the introduction of liquor into the King Country, he quoted from official documents to show that a compact was made in 1884 by the Stout-Vogel Government, and he paid a tribute to the honour of the pakehas for the manner in which they had honoured that compact for all these years. At the same time, by permitting sales of land, the Government had introduced white settlement into the district, and so made the observance of such compact impossible, and the question should be looked at from the present day point of. view and the whole position should lie reviewed. Mr. V. H. Potter (Roskill) advocated higlie? license tees as one of the necessary reforms. He favoured triennial polls, tor longer periods meant huge gains to the “trade.” He stood for the two-issue ballot paper and a bare majority, but he did not believe the Prime Minister intended to pass the bill this session. The Prime Minister: You wait and see.

Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) agreed with nothing in the bill and would vote against, it so far as it differed from his nledg.es He favoured the bare majority and three-year polls. Mr. W. S. Glenn (Rangitikei) said he found little in the bill oi which be could approve, but would vote for the second reading, because he had no option. WOULD VOTE AGAINST IT Mr. F, N. Bartram (Grev Lynn) said the Prime Minister’s speech in introducing the bill larked conviction. The bil] wa,s flung on the floor like a hone to a Ibt of dogs to fight about It was an attempt to kow tow to both parties, and he would vote against it, because its effect would be to stultify democracy Mr. W. ft. Field (Otaki) thought the existing law was quite good >f well administered. He favoured tho three-issue ballot paper on an absolute majority and'six-year polls. The debate was adjourned on 'he motion of Mr C E. Bellringer (Taranaki) and the House rose at 1.27 a.in till 2.30 p.m. to-morrow.