PARLIAMENT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 17 November 1927, Page 6

PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LICENSING AMENDMENT BILL. AN ALL-NIGHT DEBATE. Wellington, Nov. 16. The debate on the Licensing Amendment Bill was resumed in the House of Representatives to-da v by Mr. C. E. Bellringer (Taranaki) who considered the extension of the period between licensing polls to six years would intensify political unrest, because at every election the reinstatement of the three-yenr period would be made a burning question. So tar as accommodation was concerned, he maintained that all that was required would speedily be forthcoming as soon as there was sufficient demand for it, but it was not necessary to add an open bar to every such establishment. He stood for the two-issue ballot paper and fqr a bare majority, which was a principle of pure democracy. He believed prohibition could be enforced and he refused to surrender to the law-breaker. The Hon. D. Buddo (Kaiaooi) thought the present law was working satisfactorily, and he regretted that the Prime Minister had brought in a bill before the House which showed a distinct tendency to balance things between the contending parties. He was against six-year jxills and he favoured the two-issue ballot paper, with a bare majority. > Mr. H. L. Tapley (Dunedin North) said the majority of his constituents were prohibitionists, but he was not, because it could not be enforced. believed it would make for a race of law-breakers. Ho was m favour of control of the liquor trade, but was of opinion that before an alteration was made in the ballot paper ’.t should be referred to the people. He was pledged to three-year polls, but would have preferred to be able to vote in the other direction i A STATE CONTROLLER. ’ Mr. T. M. Wilford (Huttj said he was satisfied that as a result of prohibition in America the saloon hud gone for ever. He did not believe the sale of spirits would ever again be permitted, but he did believe the people of the States would revert to the use of light wines and light, beer. He had never voted for prohibition and never would. He was a Statecontroller and protested against the bill, which deprived him of the right to vote for that issue.

Mr. J. Horn (Wakatipu) disagreed with the Premier in cutting out the State control issue. Parliament should be elected for five years and the licensing polls should not be held more frequently, and so give security of tenure, without which there could never be good service to the public. He favoured the 55 to 45 majority and would support the bill except a« regards the State control issue. Mr. C. E Macmillan (Tauranga) considered there should be a greater freedom for the transfer of licenses and indicated that he intended when in committee to move an amendment in that direction

Mr. J. A. Lee (Auckland East) said he was convinced that the people of New Zealand were tired of the prohibition issue and that it would not be carried in New Zealand for many years. In the meantime greater control of the liquor traffic was heces. sary. He favoured the three-issue ballot paper. He would vote for the middle issue. Mr. T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South) said he had favoured the three-fifths majority up to the time when the three-issue ballot paper ivas introduced. Then it was decided and understood that whatever issue was carried it would be bv a bare majority, and no question of changi’i" that majority had been before the country at the last election. He regarded the vote for State control as insufficient and insignificant and therefore he favoured the two-issue ballot paper on a hare majority. Mr. G IV Forbes (Hurunui) would not agree to an extension of the period between polls unless sufficient guarantees were forthcoming tint some improvement. the “t-ed ■” wniild take nlace. He favoured tiw> 55.45 majority. He was not satisfied with the nosition of th., licensing trade in New Zealand nt the nresmit time, but be did not think prohibition was the solution of our problems.

PREMIER’S STAND SUPPORTED

Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) said he had been a member of licensing committees several times since he had been a member of the House, but he did n °t see much that be ha.l learned at those committees in th* bill. One thing he now had learnea; That was the complete character of tile problem, and he congratulated the Prime Minister upon the definite stand he had taken. There were none of the definite principles of the hill with which he agreed. He wauled three issues with preferential voting. That was not in the bill and if it could not be put in the bill he would have to vote for something he did not want. He stood for triennial polls and for a bare majority, no matter how mauy issues there were. That wa s not in the bill, and if the bill ever reached the third reading stage, which he very much doubted, he would probably be found voting against it. Mr. A. Harris (AVaitemata) said the change from a bare majority to 55-45 was a gain of 22 per cent to the “trade.” It was most unfair that 45 voters of any section of the community should out-vote 55 voters of any other section. If the bare majority was departed from the New Zealand Alliance had a right to risk for, the restoration of local option, which they gave up when the hare majority was adopted. To extend (he period between polls would not give security of tenure, because there

could be no security in an insecure business. He would vote for the second reading in the hope that the bill would be amended in committee in the direction he desired.

Mr. H. Atmore (Nelson) protested against the State control issue being eliminated from the ballot paper. To disfranchise 56,000 people could not under any circumstances be justified.

Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) argued that the bill did not comply with the first principle of democracy, MR. COATES IN REPLY.

The Prime Minister, in reply, said he had never been able to discover any documentary evidence establishing a pact between the Government and the Maoris of the King Country, but if a pact was made he would not depart from it. The House would he able to deal with tne amendment of which notice had been given by the member for Waitomo, but if he could be satisfied that a pact was made he would not accept that amendment. With regard to the extension of '.he term of license, he said he knew that jieople in Great Britain were prepared to invest £lOO,OOO in the hotel business in this country if a better tenure was granted, but at present they did not do so because they did not feel sufficient security. He felt justified in weighing the voting by the 55-45 majority by the vote of the people at the last election, when they did not sav that prohibition should be "ar ried. To make such a great change as prohibition without a big public backing behind it would be a senonmistake, and he was afraid many people did not realise how great rh" responsible was. He referred to the difficulty which must be faced bv the Minister of Finance if prohibition was carried. Members might find themselves in difficulty as the bill progressed because of their pledges, in that case he advised them to stick tn their pledges as far as possible. mir. fotgetting that they had now a broad national duty to perform, and if they took the broadest view possible bo did not think much fault could be found with them. He had taken lhe responsibility of eliminating the third issue because he did not fee] that it had justified itself. He thanked members for their kindly references to himself. He asked them to get down to business and deal-with its clauses as rapidly ns possible, fie would deal with each amendment on its merits but he could not be responsible for everything the House may do.

(in the question, that the bill be rend the second time being put n division was called for. the motion being carried by 68 to 7 that, voting against the bill being Messrs H T. Armstrong. H. Atmore. F N. Bartram. H. E Holland. J. A. Loe. W. F. Parry and Al. J. Savage. Mr. W. J. Jordan was paired for the second reading with Mr. J. A Nash against it. IN COMMITTEE. The House then went into comma, tee on the bill. On the short title Mr. Atmore (Nelson) argued that tne life of Parliament should he extended to five years and tnen it would ue reasonable to hold licensing polls at the same periods. The six-year pro posal was one reason why he wav opposed to the bill. ' The discussion then proceeded on the short title along the lines of the second reading speeches. At 1 o’clock the discussion on tne short title was still proceeding, being carried on mainly by the advocates of State control, who argued in favour of their pet theory as the solution of al] licensing problems After one o’clock the Prime Minister, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, who asked for a defin.le statement as to whether it wag mtended to pass the bill, said he hoped the bill would pass undmended. The short title was passed at 1.20 without a division. On clause two Mr. Holland moved as an amendment that the clause be referred back to the Government with a view to the question of the period between the polls being submitted to the electors at the next general election. The Prime Minister raised a. point of order that as the. amendment did not amend the clause, but was a direct negative, it could not ], e accepted. This contention was upheld by the chairman and the amendment was ruled out. A division on clause two. which provided tor a poll at every alternate genera] election was then taken, when it was rejected by 51 to 23. SERIES OF AMENDMENTS. After the telegraph office closed u series of amendments moved by Mr. J. G. Elliott (Oroua) to give effect to a system of corporate control were rejected On the voices. The » Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment to clause 3, the effect of which was to add State purchase and control to the ballot I paper. He said that if this were carried he proposed later to move that the vote be taken on the basis of preferential voting, The Prime Minister said that though he was considerably shattered by the vote on clause 2 he was still prepared to stick to the bill i n view of other points which it contained. He, however, could not accept this amendment because it was contrary to the purpose of the bill, which aimed at a two-issue ballot paper. This was discussed until 3.15, when a division was taken and the amendment was defeated by 55 votes to 70. Amendments moved bv Mr H. L. Taplev (Dunedin North) providing for a referendum were lost on the voices. On the main question of a twoissue ballot paper the Leader of the Opposition said he would vote against it because it deprived certain people of voting rights they had possessed for years. On a division the clause was carried by 53 votes to 2i„ On clause 4. which provided for n 55-45 majority, Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) moved to alter it so as to determine a poll on a bare majority. The Prime Minister said he could not accept it. He had already lost one important clause mid this would leave him with th e bare majority without' any safeguard, which, he claimed, was vital and essential to the bill. The division resulted in the amendment lining carried by 43 votes to 32. AN ALTERED SITUATION. The Prime Minister moved to report progress. His reason on so doing was that he desired time to. consider the situation which had arisen. Amendments had been carried whicli materially altered the whole situation. He thought he might have received more consideration hut with the majority altered he felt he could no longer lie responsible for the bill. If progress was reported be was prepared to give the matter further con-

sideration ; if not. he felt he must be relieved of all responsibility for what happened. On the question of reporting progress a division was called for and when the doors were locked a discussion took place as to what the effect of carrying it would be. It was finally agreed that a motion in that form would kill tlm hill and the Prime Minister added to it the words “and ask leave to sit again.” Ho said his desire was to enter into negotiations with th e leaders of the various parties and if a satisfactory arrangement could be come to he would restore the bill to the order paper. If not, the House must take the responsibility. On a division progress was reported by 41 votes tv 34 and the House rose at 4.30 till 2.30 p.m. DIVISION LIST ON CLAUSE 2. The following is the division list on clause 2, fixing the period of polls, which was typical of the others:— For Six Years (22). Coates, Elliott, Field. Glenn, Henare, Horn, Hudson, Hunter, Luke, Lysnar. McLeod, McMillan. J. Mason, Ngata, Pomare, F. C. Rolloston, Seddon. Smith, Urn. Veitch, Ward, Wilford. Williams. For Three Years (51). Anderson, Armstrong, Atmore, Bartram, Bellringer, Kitchener, Buddo, Burnett. Campbell Dickie. J. McDickaon, J. S. Dickson Forbes, Fraser, Girling, A. Hamilton. F. Hamilton, Harris, Hawken. H. Holland, H. E Holland. Howard, D. Jones, W. Jones, Kyle. E. P Lee, •L A, Irfe. Linklater. McCombs. AleKeen, McLennan, Martin. H. G, R. Mason, Nash, Nosworthy, Parry, Potter. Ransom, Reid. Rhodes., F. J, Rolleston. Savage, Sidey, Stewart, Sullivan, Sykes, Tapley. Waite, Walter, Wright, Young.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

The Legislative Council met at 2.30 p.m. to-day.

The Seeds Importation Bill was received from the House, read the first time and the second time pro forma, and referred to the Stock Committee.

The Hon, J. MacGregor gave notice to introduce the Contributory Negligence Bill. The Council approved of the amendments proposed by the GovernorGeneral m the Rural Intermediate Credit Bill.

The Main Highways Amendment Bill was put through the final stages and passed. The Motor Vehicles Amendment Bill was read the second time. The Howard Estate Amendment Bill was passed with amendments. The provision against members of the General Assembly sitting as members of the advisory board is deleted and the secretary is to be appointed by the board, subject to the approval of the Minister ,instead of by the Public Service Commissioner.

The Council adjourned at 4.27 p.m. until to-morrow.