WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 30 August 1926, Page 4

WELLINGTON TOPICS

CRIME MINISTER’S DEPARTURE FURTHER. DELAYED. (Special to “ Guardian.”) WELLINGTON, An-. ”7. Yesterday t.hu Prime .Minister confessed frankly, though, perhaps, a little reluctantly, Unit ho would not lie able to take his departure for the Imperial Conference before the end of the p-esent month. ”1 don’t see how | (•«.a possibly net. away before the end of tbo month ; in fact 1 haven’t even thought about it,” lie .said early in the afternoon sitting; of the House in. re-

ply to a (piestion put to him without notice. ‘ I think the programme of work before the House is too heavy t.n permit of siteli .an early departure. The Licensing Ik 1 of itself is such an important, measure that 1 simply must: bo here. Then, there are other bio rpiestioiis to be decided, including Rural Credits. When one considers [lie programme earelullv it is roadil> -eeii that it warrants Hie head ol tin.' (loveriunent. remaining to lead Hie partv.” It is predicted nor, that the session will be wound up at Ibe end of next week, with the actual prorogation delayed 111 the following Monday or Tuesday:, hut if Mr Coat.es is really serious in what he says concerniujr tlie Licensing Amendment Bill Hie House will lie silting well on into September. The general opinion, however, in spite oi all bis protestations, is that the Minister bus uni the slightest expectation of putting the measure through during the present session. THE BILL. There is a story out-rent here to the effect that- a. Licensing Bill for submission io Parliament early in the session was prepared by the Hon. \\ . Downie Stewart and the Hon. I'\ -J. Tiollesion ill collaboration, and that, not meeting with approval trnm a majority of the Cabinet was laid aside in favour of a Bill prepared under the Prime. Minister’s personal direction. There is no suggestion that Cabinet bus quarrelled over the matter, lint, it is being assumed that the head of (be Government having trained a

measure himself will be left to pilot it through the House. Meanwhile Hie New Zealand Alliance, which still exercises considerah’o influence in Parliament. as well as in the country, has issued manifesto expressing “its regret and indignation that for the first lime in more than twenty xeais a Prime Minister of New Zealand should have introduced a licensing Bill eonreived almost entirely in the interests of tbo liquor traffic, and appeal's to the friends of Reform throughout the country to spare no legitimate effort to prevent the passage of this unjust, undemocratic, and reactionary "'ensure in anvthiug like its-present form. With this prospect ahead it is more than ludicrous for the Prime Minister to lie talking of pushing the Bill through and bringing the session to a conclusion by the end ol next week. FROM ills; OWN FRIENDS.

In the circumstances it is not surprising In find the opponents of the Bill, prohibitionists and others, quoting the opinion of the Christchurch “Press” concerning the Bid. the method and time of its introduction and its contents. “The Prime Minister’s remark in introducing the Licensing Bill,” says this ardent friend of Reform and vigorous advocate of personal freedom, ’’that he did not think there was anything controversial in it, may bo iikclv to cause as mucl; laughter as bis concluding statement that lie Imped to pass it this session. In both eases Mr Coates, one may without disrespect suppose, was not expressing his own real opinion, hut was merely using the traditional language of Prime Ministers.’' Then after expressing tlie view that the Bill contains many useful suggestions for consideration at an appropriate time, it sums up with a very discouraging paragraph. “But,” it declares, *'it. would lio absurd to regard the Bill as a serious and well-considered attempt to dea'.i with the liquor problem. It contains nothing that suggests that anyone connected with it lias attempted to study the foundations, The host that can tie said for it—and this is certainly something—is that it makes no concessions to the Prohibitionist doctrine.” This surely offers hut pour- comfort to a young Minister on the introduction of one of his great police measures. SUMMER TIME BILL.

The “Post,” which lias been a consistent supporter of Mr ' Sidey’s “■Summer Time Bill” may bo left to express popular opinion in AVellington in regard to the Legislative Council’s rejection of the measure. “Quite unjustifiably,” say tbo evening journal, “the Legislative Council lias rejected the Summer Time Bill. Reluctantly we are compelled to take the view that some of the opponents have been swayed by prejudice rather than guided by reason. Though the Bill received ■a substantial majority in the House, where farmers are well represented, the injury-to-fa liners argument was trotted out to do service again. But some of the opponents convicted themselves of prejudice liv the way in which they disregarded the strong arguments' in favour of the measure. They persisted in stating that it was a movement by young people for more sport, -and either did not know (as they should have known) or ignored the advocacy of public bodies, -businessmen. and employers who favour the Bill for economic reasons, and medico-, men, who see in it a means of promoting better health. AA’e hope that before the Bill appears again, an attempt will he made to prove to those op- j pone tits that they have misjudged the force of public opinion behind the Bill and have been over-hasty in the use of their- powers as a revising Chamber.” The oondluding sentence is taken, in some quarters, to mean that the Council as an institution should he called before tbo bar of public opinion.